A Skirmish Won

Sensing the Wind's Direction

The normal modus of European Community politics is for extremist pressure groups to route their causes through the European Parliament or the European courts, seek affirmative resolutions or judgements, then turn around and demand that all member states comply post haste, or face court action.  These extremist groups tend to avoid the ballot box, where almost without exception they are soundly rejected. 

One of the latest moves has been to seek a judgement in the European Court of Human Rights to the effect that all member states must recognise homosexual marriage as a human right.  Thankfully, in this instance, the Court has soundly rejected the plaintiffs.

The ECHR does not impose an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage

Posted on  July 17, 2014
By Grégor Puppinck, Ph.D
Turtle Bay and Beyond

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber, in the case of Hämäläinen v. Finland, Application no. 37359/09, 16 July 2014 reaffirmed:
Regarding article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

 “71.  The Court reiterates its case-law according to which Article 8 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage (see Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, § 101, ECHR 2010).”

Regarding article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

 *96.  The Court reiterates that Article 12 of the Convention is a lex specialis for the right to marry. It secures the fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family. Article 12 expressly provides for regulation of marriage by national law. It enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman (see Rees v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 49). While it is true that some Contracting States have extended marriage to same-sex partners, Article 12 cannot be construed as imposing an obligation on the Contracting States to grant access to marriage to same-sex couples (see Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, cited above, § 63).”

Regarding the alleged “European standards and consensus” that would prevent states from defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman:

 “73.  From the information available to the Court (see paragraph 31 above [(Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlandsand the United Kingdom(Englandand Walesonly)])., it appears that currently ten member States allow same-sex marriage.” (…)  “74.  Thus, it cannot be said that there exists any European consensus on allowing same-sex marriages.”

We doubt not that the Court, in this instance, realised that it would face a fiery blowback from member states--predominantly in the East--and concluded that discretion was the better part of valour.