STRASBOURG, France, June 29, 2016 (Godinterest) Unanimously, the World Court of Human Rights has established, verbatim, that “there is no right to homosexual marriage”, making it clear that homosexual partnerships do not, in fact, equal marriages between a man and a woman.
The 47 judges of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, which are members of the full Court of Strasbourg (the world’s most important human rights court), issued a statement of great relevance that has been surprisingly silenced by information progressivism and its area of influence.
In fact, unanimously, the 47 judges approved the ruling that “there is no right to homosexual marriage” as announced June 9 in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, and closed out a discussion dating to 2004.
The court’s decision was in response to an unlawful same-sex “wedding” conducted June 5, 2004, by NoÃ«l MamÃ¨re, mayor of the French city BÃ¨gles and a member of the Green Party and based on a myriad of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law. Within the letter, in particular, the judgment was based on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
MamÃ¨re had advocated same-sex “marriage” since 2002 and chose to approve the 2004 “wedding” despite 4,000 letters sent to him. “I take the risk, I accept to be a provocateur,” MamÃ¨re said. The “marriage” was canceled shortly after and the mayor was suspended from office for one month.
This month, 12 years after the incident, the European Court has put an end to the matter with a ruling that is equivalent to the articles of human rights treaties, as in the case of 17 of the Pact of San Jos and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this historic but not disclosed, Resolution, the Court decided that the concept of family not only contemplates “the traditional concept of marriage, that is, the union of a man and a woman”, but also that they should not be imposed on governments to “obligation to open marriage to persons of the same sex”.
As for the principle of non-discrimination, the Court also added that there is no discrimination, since “States are free to reserve marriage only to heterosexual couples.”
The decision of the European Court for Human Rights should bring to a halt pressure exerted by the ILGA and similar groups, especially in Eastern European countries, who fight for legislation that recognizes the uniqueness of a marriage between one man and one woman.