Although we oppose the idea, we can at least understand what is meant by same-sex “marriages”: two persons of the same sex enter into a legal union that involves exclusivity, mutual responsibility, and (supposedly) a sexual relationship. But what on earth is a “bisexual marriage”? If “bisexuals” are persons whose sexual appetites are directed both at men AND women, would this not mean that such a person, in order to have a marriage that fully corresponds to its sexual desires, would have to be married to two persons at the same time? So, if there is such a thing as “bisexual marriages”, would they not have to involve three or more persons? But is it not part of the concept of marriage that it consists only of two persons?
These questions come to mind when reading an interview that Johan Bonny, Bishop of Antwerp, has given to the Belgian daily “De Morgen”. Mgr. Bonny is considered a likely candidate to be appointed the next Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and Primate of Belgium. His view that the Catholic Church should provide for “a formal recognition of the relationship that exists between homosexual and bisexual couples” is of course in complete and radical contradiction to his Church’s teaching – but such details do not seem to matter, as long as it is compatible with today’s zeitgeist. Nevertheless, the good man should at least offer an explanation what exactly he means when speaking of “bisexual couples”…
Why is judicial activism so dangerous? Because it aggrandizes judges at the expense of the laws they should protect. In the end, however, citizens will simply stop taking laws and judges seriously.
The newest case of spectacular misuse of judicial powers comes from Argentina, where following an application filed by an “animal rights” group, a panel of three judges has decided that Sandra, a female orang-utan, must be released from captivity. The application was based on a “habeas corpus” act, which normally is used by human prisoners to ask the judiciary whether the grounds for their imprisonment are still existent, and – more generally – whether their incarceration is not in contradiction with human rights. That act is thus a human rights law.
The Court court unanimously agreed, “starting from a dynamic and non-static legal interpretation, to acknowledge that the animal is an individual with rights, and therefore non-human individuals (animals) are possessors of rights, such that they are protected according to the appropriate measures”. Continue reading
On the website of ILGA-Europe, the Commission-financed fake “civil society” organization pretending to represent the interests of homosexuals in Europe, there is a plaintive notice informing that the Russian Government has decided to impose on a Russia-based “gay rights” lobby rules that apply to “foreign agents”, i.e. to organisations steered and financed from the outside. Continue reading
News agencies are spreading the news that Elton John has married his long-time partner-in-sodomy, a certain David Furnish, following the legalization of same-sex “marriages” in the UK.
Sorry Elton, we cannot congratulate. Despite what they may have told you at Windsor Registry Office, this still is not a marriage. It’s only a “marriage”, which has nothing in common with the real thing, except the name. And your two sons, Zachary and Elijah, are not really your sons, but the sons of either you or David, and of an unknown female egg-cell “donor”. One day, not very far away, you will have to tell them this. How will they react?
Laws adopted in Parliament cannot change the laws of Nature.
According to an opinion poll carried out on behalf of the French daily Le Figaro, euro-scepticism cannot anymore be considered a marginal position in society. Although on average 56% of the population in the countries researched would still vote for their country to remain in the EU, a critical stance against the Union is on the surge nearly everywhere. The most dramatic finding of the poll is that in the UK, where Prime Minister David Cameron has announced plans to hold a referendum on the issue should he be re-elected, eurosceptics enjoy a comfortable 5% lead over those wishing Britain to stay part of the European family.
This decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), the supreme judiciary instance in Germany for all civil matters, has not been reported by many of the mainstream media. But it is surely ground-breaking in several ways: with a judgment that stands in clear contradiction to the law of the country, the BGH has ordered that German public authorities must legally validate foreign decisions on family status, even if those decisions are (1) obviously false and (2) in clear contradiction to domestic German law. With this, the BGH follows the equally misguided decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Menesson v. France and Labassée v. France, which were based on similar facts.
The decision was about the case of a gay couple who in order to fulfil its aspirations of “parenthood” had used the services of a Californian “surrogate mom”. Despite the self-evident fact that by nature two persons of the same sex can never jointly be parents of child, a law court in California ordered the two gay men to be registered as the “parents” of the baby that had been “made” on their behalf, using the sperm of one of the two “parents” and a “donated” ovum. The same-sex “parents” then brought “their” child to Germany, where they requested the transcription of the US birth certificate into the German birth register. The German authorities refused this on the grounds (1) that surrogacy is prohibited in Germany, (2) that German law recognizes as a child’s mother the woman who has given birth to it, and (3) that the fiction of same-sex “parenthood” was contrary to the German public order. Continue reading
In an interview to the newspaper “Neatkarīgā” (“Independent”), Latvian president Andris Bērziņš answered a question regarding to the upcoming EuroPride 2015 in Riga, stating that homosexuality should not be “imposed and advertised,” and calling it a “road to nowhere.” Continue reading