Throughout the world, the moniker of “human rights” has long been a cloak for a number of so-called rights that cannot be justified in any other way. From free education, to free healthcare, to various aspects of the homosexual agenda and beyond, human rights have frequently been a rallying cry for people intent on imposing their worldview on others.
But the European Court of Human Rights recently bucked the trend by ruling that same-sex “marriages” will not be recognized under that subterfuge.
The court ruled that “same-sex ‘marriages’ are not a human right,” thus upholding a French court’s decision not to allow two females “to adopt a child as a couple.”
And while the court 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.”
British Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone demurred, “Put simply, it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalize a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.” She is pushing for the redefinition of marriage in Britain, where she blames what has proven an uphill climb on the presumption that church leaders in Britain are “fanning the flames of homophobia.”
Nevertheless, the justices at the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that the two French women “did not have the rights of married people, who in France have the sole right to adopt a child as a couple.”
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?
Common sense should lead us to concur with the European Court of Human Rights in at least this much: legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” diminishes, if not completely takes away, the religious liberty of those who have moral objections to such unions. And if same-sex “marriage” is indeed legalized in Britain or France, pastors who remain true to God’s Word and refuse to perform ceremonies for such unions may soon find themselves compelled, or arrested, or both.
Sen. Hagan: Actually, We Should Have A Travel Ban On Citizens From Ebola-Stricken Countries | Matt Vespa
Greg Orman: Talking About Abortion "Prevents Us From Talking About Other Important Issues" | Kevin Glass