Well this is a crummy way to start one’s day (from the UK’s Daily Mail) –
Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.
Huh?
Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.
The UK government is currently pushing to grant same-sex couples full marriage equality instead of “civil partnerships,” the marriages-by-another-name that they’ve had access to since 2004. This head-scratching ruling definitely complicates things on that front. . .
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 ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples.
What the — seriously? The whole discredited “churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples” canard? Who did they consult on this opinion, the Catholic bishops?
However, the Strasbourg judges ruled that because the French couple 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.
Ummmm, yeah, pretty sure that the current double standard for opposite-sex and same-sex couples is the reason the couple sued to assert their human rights in the first place.
They declared: ‘The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’
Funny, because there doesn’t appear to be the same kind of latitude for the recognition of opposite-sex marriages — Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines marriage as a right for opposite-sex couples…
The judges added that couples 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.’
See above — that’s the point. The French couple was seeking to correct this injustice.
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.
Doo doo doo, move along, no discrimination here! Absolutely pathetic. The only thing preventing this couple from securing the rights of marriage — protected by the European Convention on Human Rights — is the fact that they are lesbians. Ruling that they aren’t being discriminated against may help the judges on the panel sleep better at night, but it’s totally disconnected from reality.
I could spit. The ECHR has essentially ruled that there are two sets of “universal” human rights: one for straight people, one for LGBT people. You’d think a supposedly “enlightened” Europe would have learned their lesson when it comes to the whole “some are more equal than others” thing. Call me crazy, but singling out specific classes of people as less than human didn’t work out so well during the last century.
This ruling is an absolute disgrace that makes a mockery of European ideals. Shame.
Don’t beleive anything in the DAily Mail. This is not what the headline states. The ECHR has not ruled that there are two sets of “universal” human rights: one for straight people, one for LGBT people.
If you read the ruling they are just supporting what equal marriage campaigners are saying-that *civil* partnerships are unequal in law but that they are unable at present to compel countries to convert civil parterships so that they have the same legal status as marriage
The ECHR is much much more reluctant than Scotus to interpret the Convention in ways that would compel states to change their laws. Here is a very good summary of another recent case demonstrating that the Court recognises same sex partnerships as being of equal stability and worth and also recognisging that Article 12 – the Right to Marry – NEED NOT be interpreted as stating that only a man and a woman can marry. Unlike Scotus the court does not have one federal jurisdiction over which it can make a ruling that forms one distinct jurisprudence. There are 47 signatories. However they may want to make such a ruling, they don’t overreach. Sad but true.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/24/european-court-of-human-rights-civil-partnerships
Paul, if opposite-sex couples have a human right to marriage, which they do under Article 12 of the ECHR, but same-sex couples do not, as the court ruled in this case, then yes, they are essentially saying that one’s access to their recognized human right to marry depends on the gender of their spouse/their sexual orientation.
[...] yesterday’s shameful and disappointing legal news from Europe, this is a wonderfully positive development (courtesy of the New York [...]
I can see what Paul is saying. Although I think it is a true shame they voted this way, we are still a collection of separate sovereign countries, with our own cultures and laws.
Although there are laws which stretch across the whole of the EU, there are still countries which are very religious and right-wing, like Poland and other former eastern block countries. To force marriage equality upon these states might conceivably cause a backlash, which would help no-one. Sometimes, the long drawn out softly-softly approach is still the best way.
The French lesbian couple were in a French version of the British Civil Partnership, called a PAC which do not confer all the rights of marraige unlike the British model.
Under French law, only married couples are allowed to adopt. Straight and gay unmarried couples are similarly barred under French law. The ECHR was merely upholding the law as it pertains to France.
That said, this latest ruling does not in any way impact the British Government’s marriage equality debate which is officially underway. The ECHR some years ago stated that is it not interfering in member EU states’ marriage laws.