Human rights court: Civil unions are good enough

Wedding ringsThe European Court of Human Rights has ruled in a case involving a Finnish transsexual that there is no legal right to “gay marriage” and that a civil union is sufficient for same-sex couples. From the LifeSite website:

The European court was unequivocal. It not only said that European human rights law does not contemplate same-sex marriage, it said that civil unions are good enough for same-sex couples.

The court confirmed that the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid state interest—implicitly endorsing the view that relations between persons of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman, and may be treated differently in law.

The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”

Let’s hope the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Utah’s case and come to a similar conclusion.

The full ruling from the European Court of Human Rights may be read here.

This entry was posted in Marriage and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Melospiza

    And yet Amendment 3 expressly forbids civil unions in Utah. The choice is now the all-or-nothing one of full and equal marriage or no marriage at all for same-sex couples. There is no alternative “marriage lite” relationship the state can offer.
    Are we to interpret from this blog post that Sutherland agrees with the ECHR statement that “civil unions are good enough for same-sex couples”? Does Sutherland now support civil unions and would it oppose Amendment 3 (or at least the second half) if it were on the ballot today?