Letter From Europe (About Defending Marriage Against the Barbarians)

Slovakia Might Amend Constitution to Protect Marriage Against Re-Definition. 

Gay Lobby Gets Angry.

Posted on | February 28, 2014 

By J.C. von Krempach, J.D. 

Turtle Bay and Beyond

Since the origins of human civilization until about ten years ago it was clear to everyone that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that same-sex “marriages” therefore cannot exist. No one should therefore be surprised that in the constitutional laws of most countries there is no definition of marriage – it simply was not needed.

With the adoption, by a small but growing number of countries, of legislation that allows for same-sex “marriages”, the once universal moral and legal consensus on marriage has been destroyed. As a consequence, there is now also a growing number of States that, in order to protect society against attempts of international institutions (such as the UN, the EU, or the European Human Rights Court) to impose on them a new concept of marriage and family from the outside, are amending their constitutional laws to explicitly define marriage as a permanent union between one man and one woman.


In the EU, while eight countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, England, Spain, France, Portugal) have adopted, usually by a simple parliamentary minority, laws that allow for same-sex “marriages”, there are now seven Member States (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Croatia) that have constitutional laws to defend the concept of marriage against arbitrary re-definitions. The trend towards recognition of homosexual “marriages” is thus offset by a contrary trend in other countries. Indeed, it is more than offset, given that a law that was passed with a simple parliamentary majority (and, as it happened in France or Spain, against the clearly expressed will of a large part of civil society) does not reflect public opinion in the same way as a constitutional amendment for which a two-thirds majority is needed. One could therefore with right say that the real trend in Europe is to protect marriage against attempts to re-define it.

This is particularly important in the context of recent attempts of the European Court of Human Rights to re-interpret the European Human Rights Convention in the sense that it provides for an obligation of States to legislate for same-sex “marriages” (or at least same-sex civil unions, which then would have to receive equal treatment). Contrary to what one would expect a law court to do, the ECtHR very often bases its findings not on genuine legal arguments, but on perceived legislative “trends”: it has a nasty tendency to argue that once a sufficiently great number of countries have recognized a controversial new “right” (such as abortion, or euthanasia, or assisted procreation), this may be interpreted as an “emerging consensus” with which the remaining countries must comply. Of course, such reasoning is hopelessly nonsensical – but it is nevertheless good to see that with regard to same-sex “marriage” there is not the slightest trace of any consensus upon which such temerarious arguments could be built.

Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia

The next EU Member State joining the club of countries defending marriage and the family might be Slovakia. As a condition for lending its support to a reform of the judiciary system, for which a constitutional majority would be required, the Christian Democrat Movement (KDH, which is led by a former EU Commissioner) has demanded that a definition of marriage as “a union between a man and a woman” should also be inserted in the country’s constitution. The Government, despite being led by a left-wing party, has indicated its willingness to accept this proposal. As a speaker of the government pointed out, this proposal “adds nothing new – it simply confirms what always has been the case”.

While there appears to be broad consensus on the meaning of marriage within Slovakia, it comes as no surprise that homosexualist pressure groups outside the country see this as a threat to their agenda. ILGA-Europe, the notorious fake “non-governmental organization” funded by the European Commission to advance the queering of the EU, has published the following press release:

MEDIA RELEASE
27 February 2014
For immediate release
Slovakia must reject the homophobic proposal to redefine marriage in the constitution
Next week the Slovak Parliament will start its new session and one of the legislative proposals registered for discussion is to amend the Constitutional definition of marriage to limit it exclusively to ‘a man and a woman’. This proposal has been submitted to the Parliament by the opposition Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) in January 2014.
Representatives of the ruling Social Democratic Party (SMER) including government ministers indicated there is enough support for such proposal. Therefore the possibility of Slovakia limiting the constitutional definition of marriage is real and serious.
ILGA-Europe calls on Slovak parliamentarians to abandon this discriminatory and pointless proposal. Slovakia does not provide any legal recognition to same-sex couples.

Gabi Calleja of ILGA Europe: is she "motivated by genuine care for families"? Does she even know what a family is??

Gabi Calleja, Co-Chair of ILGA-Europe’s Executive Board, said:
“We are very concerned to see Slovakia follow in this negative direction. Such amendments are discriminatory. Clearly they are not motivated by genuine care about families, but rather aimed to prevent recognition of rights and protection of same-sex partnerships in the near future.
While Europe at large is moving towards increasing legal recognition and social acceptance of LGBTI families, Slovakia seems to be leaning towards the opposite trend of limitations, restrictions and discrimination.”

ILGA's Paulo Corte-Real has no arguments - but a big repertoire of hate speech.

Paulo Côrte-Real, Co-Chair of ILGA-Europe’s Executive Board, added:
“Recent and similarly restrictive constitutional amendments in Latvia, Hungary and Croatia demonstrated they are sponsored by religious extremists and ultra-conservatives who do not hesitate to abuse such democratic tools as constitutional amendments or referenda to pursue their narrow homophobic agenda.
Slovak parliamentarians must prevent yet another country falling into such a populist homophobic trap and reject this proposal.”

We reproduce this text here because we think that the wider it is distributed, the better. Indeed, it exposes the homosexualist lobby’s complete lack of arguments, and its questionable strategy:

• It offers no consistent theory on the essence and purpose of marriage – therefore it has no argument why sexual relationships between persons of the same sex should qualify as “marriage”, given that they do not, through procreation and the raising of children, provide a contribution to the common good
• This apparent lack of argument is offset by the consistent use of hate speech: those supporting the proposal are vilified as “homophobic”, “religious extremists” and “ultra-conservatives” who “are not motivated by genuine care about families”. Their proposal is “discriminatory” and “populist”. Thus, rather than providing rational argument, the ILGA strategy is built on ad personam attacks. This is the typical Communist strategy: don’t wast your time with arguments, just attack the man that makes them.
• The release also contains serious factual misrepresentations. Most of all, it is absurd to say that the proposed amendment would “redefine marriage”. In actual fact, the proposal is to protect the current definition of marriage, which has remained the same throughout history, by giving it the status of constitutional law. On the contrary, it is the homosexualist lobby that wants to redefine marriage.

While it is known that ILGA Europe cannot with right be described as part of “civil society”, a media release such as this clearly reveals that it is also not part of civilized society.

The absurd claims of ILGA Europe have been adequately answered by Roger Kiska, the representative of Alliance Defending Freedom, who is also a frequent contributor to this blog. He calls ILGA Europe back to order and raises the question whether an organization that tries to influence public debates with hate speech rather than rational argument can continue to be part of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency’s civil society platform: