You Have to Be an Exceptionally Bad President to Lose Silicon Valley
CBS News Polls the Uninformed, Biden Reads a Kenyan Script, and the Press...
The High Art of Virtue Signaling
Opposition to U.S. Steel Deal is Misguided and Counterproductive
Red States Could End Up Paying for Blue States’ Climate Policies
As AZ Democrats Panic Over the ‘Secure the Border Act,’ Republicans Should Keep...
EVs Should Only Be for Consenting Adults
FIFA Is Latest Target of Palestinian Hijacking
Voters Reject Abortion Extremism from Barrow to Biden
This Mental Health Awareness Month, Let’s Focus on the Harm Social Media is...
Joe Biden's Latest 'Racist' Comment Is Low Even for Him
Pro-Hamas Activist Disgustingly Mocks Rep. Brian Mast for Having No Legs
AOC's Wild Claim of a Second Trump Term Doesn't Add Up
CNN Reporter Shocked By Massive Trump Rally In Deep-Blue State
Republican Lawmaker's Daughter Killed By Violent Haitian Gangs

Same Sex Marriage Isn't a Right

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

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.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos