Human Rights Court: Europe cannot be forced to redefine Marriage

European Human Rights Court 01

The European Court of Human Rights, based in the French eastern city of Strasbourg, has ruled that same-sex so-called “marriage” is not a human right.

Strasbourg, France, Jul 18, 2014 / 02:56 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the refusal to recognize same-sex so-called “marriage” does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

In a July 16 ruling, the human rights court explained that while “some Contracting States have extended marriage to same-sex individuals,” European laws establishing the right of men and women to freely marry “cannot be construed as imposing an obligation on the Contracting States to grant access to marriage to same-sex individuals.”

The applicant to the high European human rights court brought his petition after Finland refused to recognize his 2009 sex change from male to female.

Finland, which does not recognize same-sex so-called “marriages,” said it could not recognize the sex change of a person validly married to a person of the opposite sex. The country said it could only recognize the applicant’s new identity if his marriage to his wife was dissolved either by divorce or transformation into a civil partnership.

The applicant claimed that this refusal to accept same-sex so-called “marriages” and its impact on the recognition of his new identity was a violation of his human rights.

However, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that Finland’s refusal to recognize same-sex unions does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

While the convention establishes the ability “to marry and have a family” as a right, the court stated that the document cannot be interpreted as requiring Marriage to be defined in a way that includes same-sex individuals.

The European Convention on Human Rights, the court explained, “enshrines the traditional concept of Marriage as being between a man and a woman.”

The court also noted that applicants cannot claim “that there exists any European consensus on allowing same-sex so-called ‘marriage’,” given that only 10 member states of the European Union recognize such unions, and the majority of countries recognize Marriage as a union between one man and one woman.


European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg Rules: Aberrosexual So-Called “marriage” is NOT a Human Right




The ruling follows the launch of a nation-wide consultation over same-sex so-called “marriage” in the UK, in which the British Equalities Minister promised a change in the law.

The European Court of Human Rights reached the decision in the case of two lesbians in a civil partnership in France, who complained they would not be allowed to adopt a child as a normal couple.

The pair, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, had tried to establish so-called “marriage rights” under anti-discrimination laws but the judges said there was no discrimination.


European Court of Human Rights rules prohibiting aberrosexual marriage & adoption are not discrimination

By Deacon Nick Donnelly, on March 18th, 2012

The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed the ruling made by France’s highest court prohibiting aberrosexual so-called “marriage” and adoption. On the prohibition of aberrosexual so-called “marriage” the Court ruled that such ‘marriage are not a right under the European Convention of Human Rights:

‘There is no “indirect discrimination founded (…) on the impossibility of marriage,” because article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights “does not impose on the governments of the state parties the obligation to open Marriage to aberrosexual individuals’.

‘The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the prohibition of adoption to non-married individuals is not discriminatory, because it applies to both orthosexuals and aberrosexuals equally.’

‘The decision effectively confirms the legality under the same Convention of French law, which does not award the status of Marriage to aberrosexuals, and does not permit non-married individuals to adopt children.


Aberrosexual so-called “marriage” is not a ‘human right’: European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance

By Steve Doughty
Published: 17:59 EST, 20 March 2012 | Updated: 07:07 EST, 8 June 2012

Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that same-sex so-called “marriage” is a universal human right and that individuals have a right to so-called “marry” someone of their own sex because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

The European Court of Human Rights, based in the French eastern city of Strasbourg, has ruled that same-sex so-called “marriage” is not a human right.

It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition’s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.

The ruling comes just days after the Government published a consultation paper which promised marriage to same-sex couples and made clear that Britain is only catching up with other countries.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said: ‘Put simply, it’s not right that individuals who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.’

However, the Strasbourg judges ruled that because the French lesbians were civil partners, they did not have the rights of married people, who in France have the sole right to adopt a child as a couple.

They declared: ‘The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex individuals access to marriage.’

The judges added that individuals who are not married do not enjoy the same status as those who are.

‘With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of Marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.’

The French civil partners, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, tried to secure marriage rights under clauses that prevent discrimination and protect privacy and family life. But the Strasbourg judges said there had been no discrimination against them because they were lesbians.

Lawyers said the decisions transformed the impact of David Cameron’s planned same-sex “marriage” law.

Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, said: ‘Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage.

This means that if same-sex so-called “marriage” is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises.’

The Government’s consultation paper also said that no church would have to conduct gay weddings. It said there would be different legal categories of civil and religious marriage and same-sex individuals would not be allowed religious marriages.

But Church of England lawyers have already warned that if same-sex so-called “marriage” goes ahead, then equality law is likely to force churches to fall into line and perform the wedding ceremonies.

The Strasbourg ruling won praise from campaigners against same-sex so-called “marriage.”

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires.

‘In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in imposing their views on the rest of the population by force of law.

‘We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government’s sham of a consultation on same-sex so-called ‘marriage’.’

He added: ‘The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society.

‘Instead of rushing to legislate without seriously considering the views of the electorate, the Government should be encouraging a measured public debate on the nature and meaning of marriage.’

For interviews, comments, or to belong, please contact us at:
POB 350751 / Jose Marti Station / Miami, FL 33135

Meet Us on the Internet

Like the FDL on Facebook


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s