The European Court of Human Rights Gets it Right!

The European Court of Human Rights Gets it Right!

“Same-sex marriage is not a human right.”  No, that line didn’t come from some conservative pro-family group; but it came, last month, from an unexpected place – the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.    The ruling was the result of a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained that the French courts would not allow them, as a couple, to adopt a child.  French law allows only married couples to jointly adopt children.

The lesbian couple claimed that they were being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation and that this was a violation of their right to respect of their family and private life (Articles 14 & 18 of The European Convention for Human Rights).   But the court held that there is no human right to “gay marriage” under the European Convention for Human Rights, as the court rightly decided back in 2010 (Schalk & Kopf v. Austria)

Did you read about this in any mainstream newspaper or media outlet?  Let me say it again:  “Same-sex marriage is NOT a human right.”  What kind of coverage would there have been if the case had been decided differently?   Yup, it would have been front page/top-of-the hour news.

Benjamin Bull of Alliance Defense Fund points out:

This decision needs to be shouted from rooftops in Europe, and in the U.S. it needs to be put before American judges who have been so very fond of selectively citing foreign law to support U.S. decisions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas). Is foreign court precedent only important when it furthers leftist priorities?

The ruling did get the attention of the policy makers in Britain who are preparing to legalize “same-sex marriage.”   Legal experts are warning that this will have serious repercussion for religious freedom in Britain.

Benjamin Bull clarifies:

And while the [European Court of Human Rights]recognized that officials could legislate same-sex “marriage,” the justices warned that doing so under the premise of protecting religious liberty would be a farce:   “If MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the…promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.” The Church of England has already warned its pastors that if a same-sex “marriage” goes ahead, “equality law is likely to force churches to fall into line and perform the wedding ceremonies.”

Let’s hope that the British realize, before it’s too late, that there are serious consequences involved in caving to the same-sex lobby.

Lastly, whether you agree with the French on other things, they “get” man/woman marriage and its importance to children and to society.  It is worth reminding you about the French report that outlines the importance of traditional marriage and the fact that children have a right to both a mother and a father.

It looks like this lesbian couple didn’t choose their battle very well.

2 Comments
  • Nathan000000
    Posted at 12:32h, 05 April Reply

    Well, that’s good news! I have a bit of a legal philosophy question: Is marriage itself a “right”? I’m inclined to say it’s not. For example, if the rights of parents over their children are inherent and exist even without marriage, then I can’t see how marriage would be a right. If their rights over their children, though, come only as a result of marriage, then what if the parents never marry? The state has custody? I’m still trying to figure out this rights thing, so if anyone knows any online resources, please point me to them.

  • Andreas Moser
    Posted at 00:11h, 31 May Reply

    Could somebody please explain to Mr Cameron that the European Court of Human Rights is NOT a “foreign court”: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/not-such-a-foreign-court/ It is more British than he thinks or admits.

Post A Comment