Just as the British PM David Cameron astonished conservatives with his ‘yes’ to gay marriage, the typically progressive Court of Human Rights in Europe said ‘no, non and nein’.
“The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage,” judges in Strasbourg said. “With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.”
The full transcript of the judgement is not yet available, so the quote is from the British press coverage. On the information available about this ruling there appear to be two important implications for the Australian Parliament.
First, that the highest legal minds in the world’s most trendy jurisdiction do NOT find any ‘human right’ to same-sex marriage. What then of the huffing and puffing by the Australian Greens about the ”fundamental human right” for two men to “marry”?
Second, the Court found that if same-sex marriage is normalised in law, any church that then refuses to marry same-sex couples will be guilty of discrimination. What then of assurances in a number of the Bills before the Australian Parliament that churches will be exempt from having to perform gay marriages? That is a temporary tactic only, as we have observed overseas; exemptions for churches will not withstand anti-discrimination lawsuits.
Be assured: the “marriage” of two men is not a “fundamental human right” but a fundamental delusion of a dementing culture. And if such a surreal proposition were to become law, it would be used not to “celebrate diversity” as the Greens’ Bill puts it, but to “crush diversity” of conscience. It would coerce churches to abandon the faith and morals of hundreds of generations of our ancestors. Indeed, that cultural coercion may be a main objective in this whole confrontation: in the words last year of former Prime Minster of Australia John Howard (who begs to differ on this matter from his ‘conservative’ counterpart in the UK):
Changing the definition of marriage, which has lasted for time immemorial, is not an exercise in human rights and equality; it is an exercise in de-authorising the Judaeo-Christian influence in our society, and anybody who pretends otherwise is deluding themselves.