Current Events > European Court of Human Rights: Same-sex 'marriage' is not a human right

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/european-human-rights-court-rejects-gay-marriage

STRASBOURG, France, June 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) The European Court for Human Rights has ruled that same-sex marriages are not considered a human right, making it clear that homosexual partnerships do not in fact equal marriages between a man and a woman.

The ruling was announced June 9 in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, and closed out a discussion dating to 2004.

The courts decision was in response to an unlawful same-sex wedding conducted June 5, 2004, by Nol Mamre, mayor of the French city Bgles and a member of the Green Party. At the time, Mamre explained the decision by saying, Marriage is a social construct and procreation is no condition of its validity, otherwise we would need to render unions without children null.

Mamre had advocated same-sex marriage since 2002 and chose to approve the 2004 wedding despite 4,000 letters sent to him. I take the risk, I accept to be a provocateur, Mamre said. The marriage was cancelled shortly after and the mayor was suspended from office for one month. Yet his effort sparked discussions in France and helped lead to the countrys approval of same-sex marriages in May 2013.

This month, 12 years after the incident, the European Court put an end to the matter. The ruling bars people with same-sex attraction from launching lawsuits to obtain a same-sex marriage. The decision is in direct opposition to lobbying by groups like ILGA (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association), who fight for equal marriage rights and adoption rights for homosexual couples on an international scale and receive two-thirds of their financing from the EU Commission.

The decision of the European Court for Human Rights should bring to a halt pressure exerted by the ILGA and similar groups, especially in Eastern European countries, who fight for legislation that recognizes the uniqueness of a marriage between one man and one woman.

In the aftermath of Brexit, even many non-Europeans wonder just how much power the EU has over the legislation of member states. In many instances, past EU rulings can be criticized. But this time the European Court for Human Rights made a historic step in the support of traditional marriage. No EU member state is therefore obliged to grant the possibility of a marriage to people with same-sex attraction based on their human rights.

While this ruling seems to be a step in the right direction, at the same time the EU Commission recently laid out a six-point plan showing how rights for people with same-sex attraction will be implemented in all member states, the German newspaper Freie Welt reported. In order to stop the EU influence in legislation of this kind, the last few years were marked by referenda against EU policies in Lithuania (2009), Slovenia (2012), Croatia (2013), and Romania and Slovakia (2015).

The EU answered the referenda, which was intended to safeguard the national sovereignty especially in family rights issues, with the establishment of political mechanisms of coercion and monitoring.

Does the ruling thus remain a drop in the ocean? Maybe Brexit set an example that others will follow.

Humanity is waking up. Be a part of it.

Don't get your briefs in a twist
---

They're right. Marriage is not a human right. You don't NEED to be married to live with and love your SO.
---

Brief posted...

Humanity is waking up. Be a part of it.

uhh
---

What a shit website.
---

Rookie User
User Since: May 2018
Karma: 16
Active Posts: 12
---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

They're right. Marriage is not a human right. You don't NEED to be married to live with and love your SO.

It is a question of equal treatment under the law, which is considered a human right by the UN. People tried to block interracial marriage during the civil rights era too. If straight, same-race couples receive the legal benefits of marriage, those benefits should be extended to mixed-race and same-sex relationships as well.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

DrizztLink posted...

What a shit website.

You mean GameFAQs?
---

https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-non-existence-of-a-right-to-gay-marriage

The question of same-sex marriage is subject to the national laws of the Contracting States ( 36, making reference to the Schalk and Kopf v. Austria judgement (n30141/04);
Article 12 confirmed the traditional concept of marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman and "does not impose an obligation on the governments of the Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage" ( 36, making reference to Gas and Dubois v. France, n25951/07, 66);
Article 12 cannot be interpreted as imposing such an obligation on the governments of the Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage. This recall of the recent judgements of Hmlinen v. Finlande [GC] (n37359/09), and Oliari and others v. Italy (n18766/11 et 36030/11) has a very strong impact since it recognises the theoretical limits of the interpretation of the right to marry ( 39);
In regard to the right to respect for private life (guaranteed by Article 8) and the principle of non-discrimination (Article 14), States are still free (...) to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples", (making reference to Schalk and Kopf , 108 and Gas and Dubois, 66)
States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation as regards the exact status conferred by alternative means of recognition of same-sex relationships, and its differences concerning the rights and obligations conferred by marriage ( 58).

---

lifesitenews posted...

In the aftermath of Brexit, even many non-Europeans wonder just how much power the EU has over the legislation of member states. In many instances, past EU rulings can be criticized. But this time the European Court for Human Rights made a historic step in the support of traditional marriage. No EU member state is therefore obliged to grant the possibility of a marriage to people with same-sex attraction based on their human rights.

Crap website confirmed. The European Court of Human Rights isn't part of the EU, and doesn't make any decisions on EU law. It's part of the Council of Europe, which is seperate to the EU.

JE19426 posted...

lifesitenews posted...

In the aftermath of Brexit, even many non-Europeans wonder just how much power the EU has over the legislation of member states. In many instances, past EU rulings can be criticized. But this time the European Court for Human Rights made a historic step in the support of traditional marriage. No EU member state is therefore obliged to grant the possibility of a marriage to people with same-sex attraction based on their human rights.

Crap website confirmed. The European Court of Human Rights isn't part of the EU, and doesn't make any decisions on EU law. It's part of the Council of Europe which is seperate to the EU.

This. Russia and Turkey are part of the echr

Blue_Inigo posted...

Rookie User
User Since: May 2018
Karma: 16
Active Posts: 12

---

I mean, if they had ruled otherwise, it would have basically meant that all EU countries would be forced to legislate to allow same sex marriage

It would have tore the EU apart
---

frozenshock posted...

I mean, if they had ruled otherwise, it would have basically meant that all EU countries would be forced to legislate to allow same sex marriage

It would have tore the EU apart

It'd have to go in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to force EU countries to allow gay marriages.

miss me with that gay shit
---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Marriage is not a human right.

Sure, but equal justice under the law is. When a state decides to enter the business of sanctioning marriage, it must do so equitably.
---

frozenshock posted...

I mean, if they had ruled otherwise, it would have basically meant that all EU countries would be forced to legislate to allow same sex marriage

It would have tore the EU apart

It would stand no chance of being ratified into the European convention of human rights since at the very least Russia would veto.

knutjob posted...

frozenshock posted...

I mean, if they had ruled otherwise, it would have basically meant that all EU countries would be forced to legislate to allow same sex marriage

It would have tore the EU apart

It would stand no chance of being ratified into the European convention of human rights since at the very least Russia would veto.

Yeah so I mean what did you expect the court to do, like the only thing this would have done is start a shitstorm.
---

frozenshock posted...

knutjob posted...

frozenshock posted...

I mean, if they had ruled otherwise, it would have basically meant that all EU countries would be forced to legislate to allow same sex marriage

It would have tore the EU apart

It would stand no chance of being ratified into the European convention of human rights since at the very least Russia would veto.

Yeah so I mean what did you expect the court to do, like the only thing this would have done is start a shitstorm.

Not really. In this case it's decision would only have been advisory anyway. Considering how divisive the issue of capital punishment once was for the echr I doubt this would have been as big as the tc's source seems to think.

I agree. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I support them getting the benefits of a civil union, and all that, but it should be called something else.
---

Mister_Spyker posted...

I agree. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I support them getting the benefits of a civil union, and all that, but it should be called something else.

Seems a bit of redundant comment when referring to an area with more than 40 languages spoken.

Mister_Spyker posted...

I agree. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I support them getting the benefits of a civil union, and all that, but it should be called something else.

Shut the fuck up.
---

The concept of marriage should be considered a civil right, not human right.
---

UInstinctMawile posted...

miss me with that gay shit

Suspended
User Since: May 2018
Karma: 7
Active Posts: 28
Total Badges: 4
---

you can't get rid of me that easily :^)

frozenshock posted...

I mean, if they had ruled otherwise, it would have basically meant that all EU countries would be forced to legislate to allow same sex marriage

Good

Brief posted...

June 29, 2016

---

knutjob posted...

frozenshock posted...

knutjob posted...

frozenshock posted...

I mean, if they had ruled otherwise, it would have basically meant that all EU countries would be forced to legislate to allow same sex marriage

It would have tore the EU apart

It would stand no chance of being ratified into the European convention of human rights since at the very least Russia would veto.

Yeah so I mean what did you expect the court to do, like the only thing this would have done is start a shitstorm.

Not really. In this case it's decision would only have been advisory anyway. Considering how divisive the issue of capital punishment once was for the echr I doubt this would have been as big as the tc's source seems to think.

Yeah, not even Russia has the death penalty strangely enough despite criminalizing support for homosexuality. Belarus does though

PBusted posted...

Yeah, not even Russia has the death penalty strangely enough despite criminalizing support for homosexuality. Belarus does though

I'm pretty sure Belarus isn't in the Council of Europe, or EU.

JE19426 posted...

PBusted posted...

Yeah, not even Russia has the death penalty strangely enough despite criminalizing support for homosexuality. Belarus does though

I'm pretty sure Belarus isn't in the Council of Europe, or EU.

I wasn't talking about either.

PBusted posted...

I wasn't talking about either.

Knutjob only talked about death penalty in relation to the ECHR, which is part of the Council of Europe, in the post you quoted. If you weren't talking about the Council of Europe, why would you quote Knutjob's post talking about it?

JE19426 posted...

PBusted posted...

I wasn't talking about either.

Knutjob only talked about death penalty in relation to the ECHR, which is part of the Council of Europe, in the post you quoted. If you weren't talking about the Council of Europe, why would you quote Knutjob's post talking about it?

They're separate things. The decisions of ECHR have an influence on all of Europe. I know it's technically not part of it, the section for Belarus and the death penalty says it but it's still part of Europe and should be influenced by the decision.

PBusted posted...

They're separate things.

In the same sense that the Federal government, and Supreme court are different things. I suppose that's technically true.

The decisions of ECHR have an influence on all of Europe. I know it's technically not part of it, the section for Belarus and the death penalty says it but it's still part of Europe and should be influenced by the decision.

Why would Belarus be affected by a court, they haven't made any agreements to join?

JE19426 posted...

PBusted posted...

They're separate things.

In the same sense that the Federal government, and Supreme court are different things. I suppose that's technically true.

The decisions of ECHR have an influence on all of Europe. I know it's technically not part of it, the section for Belarus and the death penalty says it but it's still part of Europe and should be influenced by the decision.

Why would Belarus be affected by a court, they haven't made any agreements to join?

Socially affected, not legally. We're all affected by things our neighbors do.