However, the vice-president of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans, wants same-sex marriage recognised throughout all member states.
“The Commission should go forward and try to get all member states in the EU to unreservedly accept same-sex marriage as other marriages”, he said at a gala organised last week in Brussels by ILGA-Europe, a fake “non-governmental organization” that is financed nearly to its entirety by the European Commission.
The EU executive cannot propose bills on marriage and family affairs, policy areas reserved for national governments. This notwithstanding, Timmermans apparently thinks that through his overt support for the cause could put political pressure on capitals. “This is an issue very close to him personally and I imagine he spoke addressing individually EU member states, not even thinking about the EU context”, said a spokesperson from ILGA-Europe. Definitely, whatever Timmermans has said at the gala must have been his personal opinion, because the matter appears clearly outside the scope of his tasks as a Commissioner.
Same-sex marriages in the EU are valid in Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the UK (except northern Ireland). Finland has passed new marriage equality legislation, but it will not enter into law until 2017. In Slovenia, the political class wants to push through same-sex “marriages” at all costs, but citizens keep resisting. In May, Ireland in a referendum voted in favour of same-sex “marriage”, following massive propaganda by the government and some American foundations.
ILGA-Europe is aware that the Commission has no possibility to force Member States into accepting same-sex “marriages”, but is instead hoping that this goal can be achieved through indirect means, for example by re-framing the issue as part of the larger “principle of the freedom of movement”, which is an EU competence. In other words, ILGA hopes that through a skewed interpretation of that principle all Member States could be forced to recognize the “marriage” of same-sex couples that have “married” in one of the countries where this is possible, even if their own (constitutional) law explicitly rules out such recognition.
This doesn’t look like an idea that will give a new boost to the EU’s (currently slacking) popularity. Same-sex “marriage” is a desideratum of a minority within a minority, and there is growing resistance against it in many countries. 8 Member States of the EU (and 16 countries within the Council of Europe) have adopted constitutional laws that exclude the hypothesis of same-sex “marriages” – several with the explicit intention of forestalling such pressuring from the EU institutions.
But Frans Timmermans does not seem to care much for the democratically adopted laws of the EU Member States when it comes to moving forward ILGA-Europe’s controversial agenda. At the gala he said Member States where same-sex “marriage” is not recognised should have “the decency to respect the decision of other countries to have same sex-marriage recognised”.
Apparently “decency” is a one-way road, so he does not ask Member States that provide same-sex “marriages” to accept that other countries have not made that choice. In 2001 his country, the Netherlands, was the first to provide for same-sex “marriages”, thereby unilaterally and recklessly breaking a world-wide consensus.
ILGA claims the lack of such recognition poses a major problem for couples transferred from a company, for instance, based in France, to a subsidiary based in Austria. “We see it as an issue of freedom of movement because basically the lack of mutual recognition undermines the whole principle”, said ILGA-Europe’s spokesperson.
This analysis is however utterly mistaken. In the example quoted by ILGA, the situation of the French couple in Austria is not different from what it would be if France hadn’t, in a very controversial step, introduced same-sex “marriages” two years ago. The problem, if it is one, has been created by France, not by Austria. It could be resolved by abolishing the controversial French law.
Furthermore, the principle of freedom of movement applies to the two Frenchmen irrespective of whether they are “married” or not.
If ILGA’s absurd extension of the principle were to be accepted, would it also applie if one particularly “progressive” Member State decided to accept “triple marriages”?
Another argument put forward by the homo-lobby is the situation of children living with couples who are in a same-sex relationship. This is particularly cynical, given that it takes those poor children as hostage for a cause that isn’t theirs.
“If a married lesbian couple in Denmark take their child to Italy on a holiday break then the non-biological mother no longer has any rights as a parent or as a partner”, ILGA argues. “Should the biological mother and child end up in the hospital in Italy, then the non-biological mother would have no legal rights on their behalf under Italian law.”
Children don’t have “non-biological mothers”. They have biological mothers and biological fathers.
Timmermans, for his part, said “the only thing children need is loving parents. Who gives a damn if these two loving parents are two men or two women?”