Contents:
- STRASBOURG URT L THAT STAT ARE NOT OBLIGED TO ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE
- THE STRASBOURG JUDGMENTS AND GAY MARRIAGE
STRASBOURG URT L THAT STAT ARE NOT OBLIGED TO ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE
In a key judgment issued today, the European urt of human rights led on a plat of a homosexual uple Atria who were nied the right to marry. The judgment seems to take a slightly too pnt approach for reasons of judcial polics (this oute is the most acceptable to all stat probably), but leav wh a reasong that is not entirely nvcg nor an oute which is very promisg for same-sex may be noticed that the ernment of the Uned Kgdom tervened on the si of Atria and that four NGOs (ICJ, FIDH, AIRE Centre and the European Regn of the Internatnal Gay and Lbian Associatn) tervened on the si of applints.
STRASBOURG, France, June 29, 2016 (LifeSeNews)— The European Court for Human Rights has led that same-sex “marriag” are not nsired a human right, makg clear that homosexual partnerships do not fact equal marriag between a man and a woman. ” The cisn is direct opposn to lobbyg by groups like ILGA (Internatnal Lbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Associatn), who fight for “equal marriage” rights and adoptn rights for homosexual upl on an ternatnal sle and receive two-thirds of their fancg om the EU Commissn. It is important and absolutely necsary to spread this kd of news bee ernments and supporters of homosexual lobbi do not want people to know about .
** It is important and absolutely necsary to spread this kd of news bee ernments and supporters of homosexual lobbi do not want people to know about .
THE STRASBOURG JUDGMENTS AND GAY MARRIAGE
duti that nflicted wh their relig views on homosexualy.
Strasbourg’s nsistent view is noteworthy bee has a clear rem to uphold anti-discrimatn and human rights laws, and vigoroly pursu the rights of gay among other mory groups. Last week’s lg is the fal stage of a se first brought Fland, where, uniquely Sndavia, there is no same-sex marriage (SSM) law, but where gay upl n accs legal privileg through a civil unn law siar to the UK’s 2004 civil partnership scheme. The refeniks were told at the time, and are creasgly told, that their opposn reflects “homophobia” or that they don’t rpect gay peopl’ “human rights”.
The homosexual uple argued that their right to ntract marriage, acrdg to the European Conventn of Human Rights, had been vlated.