European Court Of Human Rights Finds That Same-Sex Marriage Is Not A Human Right

  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Mar 22, 2012 9:15 PM GMT
    European Court Of Human Rights Finds That Same-Sex Marriage Is Not A Human Right


    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/03/21/448790/european-court-of-human-rights-finds-that-same-sex-marriage-is-not-a-human-right/

    I wonder if this can be appealed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2012 9:21 PM GMT
    This is very bad news, and comes at a bad time for the 2012 US election. Watch the same right wingers who accuse liberals of wanting to subordinate the US to a nefarious World Order, now point to a foreign court for us to emulate here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 1:42 AM GMT
    Basically, in studying human rights.. I do not recall marriage of any type, not even straight marriage, being covered in the charter of human rights
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 1:50 AM GMT
    I dont understand the bit about churches having to perform gay marriages. It's the civil legality of the marriage that counts, not the religious bullshit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:01 AM GMT
    I thought that Europe was much more progressive (compared to other Western countries) when it comes to issues such as these. Glad I'm in North America.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:16 AM GMT
    Interesting verdict. Provides some very good food for thought.

    Marriage, in essence, is not a right; it is a privilege be you gay OR straight. This definitely has many people in this country scratching their heads, especially the GLBT community and our activists and allies.

    *In my view, the legal and religious wrangling about the GLBT marriage issue has done more harm than good and the Christian [FAR] right has, whether they mean to or not, turned marriage into some kind of right in a sense.

    *Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm just trying to formulate and process this.

    I found this comment particularly interesting:

    "The difference between here and Europe is that there is no such thing as a state-sponsored religion here. There is in England, Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc. Such organizations of both a religious and secular nature would naturally be forced to comply, as they're supported by taxpayer funds, not offering plates.

    The ECHR had really only a few choices:
    1. They could accept marriage equality as a human right and mandate that state-funded churches marry everyone, thus violating the freedom of religion for those that dissent.
    2. They could accept marriage equality as a human right and mandate that no church be required to marry everyone, thus forcing citizens who disagree to subsidize churches those citizens viewed as bigoted.
    3. They could reject marriage equality as a human right and avoid the mess created by the mix of church and state in Europe. A mix that does not pertain in the US."


    Lastly, can this verdict also be applied to heterosexuals? Will we see courts deny marriage to heterosexuals at some point since it's not a right?
  • monet

    Posts: 1093

    Mar 23, 2012 2:20 AM GMT
    Caslon18453 saidI dont understand the bit about churches having to perform gay marriages. It's the civil legality of the marriage that counts, not the religious bullshit.


    Absofuckinglutely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:24 AM GMT
    The "Right" is that all citizens deserve to be treated equally. If the State is going to have marriage at all, then they must offer it equally to all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:27 AM GMT
    And why do churches trump people? Why do some people get to say "I dont believe in that." and therefore other people are denied. That's bullshit. This deference to religious belief has to come to an end.

    That which requires no proof to believe, requires no proof to dismiss.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:29 AM GMT
    Another issue that we often forget about here in the US is that a number of countries that make up the EU have a state church to some degree. State churches exist in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland and, to a lesser extent, Germany. Churches in these countries are supported partly by taxpayer dollars whether or not you attend church. This also means that people who disagree with GLBT marriage would be supporting something they don't believe in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:32 AM GMT
    Let Europe have their Human Rights Issues. Just because another country does or doesn't recognize something, it doesn't necessarily mean we have or don't have to as well, that's bullshit. What sets America aside is the United States Constitution, not The Constitution as interpreted by Mary Queen of Scots, or whoever you're thinking. Keep your focus on what you got, and don't let every little crumb and stumble along the way weigh down your Pride. Own your Right by living them out! If the government doesn't recognize it, so be it. What are they going to do, martyrize you and the cause by making you go to jail for it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:38 AM GMT
    geographic_info_systems saidAnother issue that we often forget about here in the US is that a number of countries that make up the EU have a state church to some degree. State churches exist in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland and, to a lesser extent, Germany. Churches in these countries are supported partly by taxpayer dollars whether or not you attend church. This also means that people who disagree with GLBT marriage would be supporting something they don't believe in.

    Yeah, but doesnt a state church make people support something THEY dont believe in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:39 AM GMT
    The Court was interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights which, by the way, only applies to the signatories to the treaty (i.e., European countries). The same treaty provides a right for women and men of marriageable age to marry and establish a family. The Court has, to this day, refused to extend this right to same-sex marriage. The Court's rulings have no applicability beyond the signatory nations. In other words, they have no precendential value beyond the European continent (although nothing precludes other courts from using them as persuasive authority).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:41 AM GMT
    Caslon18453 said
    geographic_info_systems saidAnother issue that we often forget about here in the US is that a number of countries that make up the EU have a state church to some degree. State churches exist in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland and, to a lesser extent, Germany. Churches in these countries are supported partly by taxpayer dollars whether or not you attend church. This also means that people who disagree with GLBT marriage would be supporting something they don't believe in.

    Yeah, but doesnt a state church make people support something THEY dont believe in.


    Very much so. Hence the problem with state religion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:51 AM GMT
    FWIW the Church of Iceland was planning on how it would accommodate same-sex weddings about three years before civil marriage became legal in that country. The leadership saw it as inevitable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 4:33 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidThis is very bad news, and comes at a bad time for the 2012 US election. Watch the same right wingers who accuse liberals of wanting to subordinate the US to a nefarious World Order, now point to a foreign court for us to emulate here.


    Albeit as an American you have been able to marry many times. Think of all those Bona Fide Homosexuals who have not been able to do it once. You could always go back to regaining all your rights and start to live as a straight man again, and even keep your boyfriend; the choice is yours; unlike your half brothers the Bona Fide Homosexuals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 5:17 AM GMT
    I don't think it's a very relevant or significant ruling. Many of the signatory countries already have equal rights for gay couples and low church membership. Being married just doesn't have the cultural meaning it does in the US.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 5:18 AM GMT
    DOMINUS saidThe Court was interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights which, by the way, only applies to the signatories to the treaty (i.e., European countries). The same treaty provides a right for women and men of marriageable age to marry and establish a family. The Court has, to this day, refused to extend this right to same-sex marriage. The Court's rulings have no applicability beyond the signatory nations. In other words, they have no precendential value beyond the European continent (although nothing precludes other courts from using them as persuasive authority).


    Aw, now I did not know this.. the LGBT organisations in Europe will be having a fit about this.. in fact, i think I will write to the EU about this
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 5:18 AM GMT
    kandsk saidI don't think it's a very relevant or significant ruling. Many of the signatory countries already have equal rights for gay couples and low church membership. Being married just doesn't have the cultural meaning it does in the US.


    No it does not. but its the principal of the thing that if it as any person's right to marry.. it should be for everybody
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 5:28 AM GMT
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


    I guess I am just having difficulty in sorting out the legal questions here...so the lesbian couple in France sued to have equal rights to marriage, in order to adopt, no? Because French authorities had denied their adoption status because they held a civil union, not a marriage, right?

    So how is that not discrimination?

    It seems like the ruling addressed a separate question or issue than the one originally pursued by the couple in France, according to both articles. It feels like there's a separate discussion on the issue of religious discrimination/freedom and enforcing it with state sponsored churches, and then the issue of whether or not the lesbian couple faced discrimination on the basis of their civil union and the adoption.

    Help?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 5:52 AM GMT
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-marriage-not-a-right-prohibiting-gay-adoption-not-discrimination-europe/

    This website, although apparently a lil bit anti-gay marriage, helps explain it a little better.

    I guess what really makes me scratch my head is how it effectively prevents the option of adoption to same sex couples in France, but is ruled as non-discriminatory?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 6:01 AM GMT
    See, that's what I would think. But I just can't find the logic in the court's ruling that creating arbitrary delineations over who can adopt and who can't, based on sexual orientation, and marriage, is not discriminatory. The legal argument that I've found from these summaries seem very contradictory.

    EDIT: lol well someone did post saying they thought it was discriminatory. That's what my post was in response to...
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Mar 23, 2012 6:43 AM GMT
    north_runner saidSee, that's what I would think. But I just can't find the logic in the court's ruling that creating arbitrary delineations over who can adopt and who can't, based on sexual orientation, and marriage, is not discriminatory. The legal argument that I've found from these summaries seem very contradictory.

    EDIT: lol well someone did post saying they thought it was discriminatory. That's what my post was in response to...

    The US courts have not been taking it as being discriminatory but rather being equivalent to giving rights to trees as a Justice phrased something; as in, that the people have not shown a strong enough state interest in promoting sex-sex marriage as there has been for promoting heterosexual marriage, for example in the abortion and child custody cases. There will probably be a case going to the Supreme Court in this decade where it will probably be ruled discriminatory.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 7:06 AM GMT
    The ruling, as expressed in the article, seemed rather convoluted and inconsistent with other significant rulings from the court. The fact that there was so much that revolved around the practices of churches in the EU, rather than the provisions of secular law, seemed rather odd.
  • drypin

    Posts: 1798

    Mar 23, 2012 8:10 AM GMT
    I'll have to look into this more deeply.

    One point I would mention about Germany, though, is that the actual act of proclaiming two people married is the sole responsibility and authority of the state and done at the city or town hall by a civil servant.

    Many couples might choose to have a church ceremony afterwards, but it is merely for the pomp and circumstances and has no legal force at all.

    This is in direct contrast to the US, where alongside the justice of the peace, reverends, ministers and priests have the actual authority to marry couples.