Nils Muižnieks, the current “Human Rights Commissioner” of the Council of Europe, misuses the prestige, the resources, and easy access to the media that are associated with his function to promote the legal recognition of same-sex “marriages” between sodomites, an issue for which very obviously he holds no mandate. He is doing so on the basis of spurious claim that sodomite-“marriage” is a “human right” awaiting to be discovered.
Here is his grotesque “Human Rights Comment”, published on the Council of Europe’s website. We have added a few rectifications and comments.
There is a growing trend in Europe and beyond towards granting same-sex couples legal recognition for their relationships, which confers certain specific protections. The first country to provide “registered partnerships” was Denmark in 1989, while The Netherlands was first to adopt same-sex marriage in 2001. Today, 47 countries in the world, 27 of which are in the Council of Europe, provide some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples. [Rather bizarrely for a human rights lawyer, Mr. Muižnieks wants to build his argument on social “trends” rather than on law. But he conveniently “forgets” to mention that there also is a trend pointing into the opposite direction: a growing number of citizens in Europe is concerned over, and opposed against, the re-definition of marriage. And many European countries have in fact reacted to this, inserting clarifying language into their constitutions saying that a marriage is a union between one man and one woman. There are now 16 Member States of the CoE that explicitly clarify this in their respective constitutions – Mr. Muižnieks should be aware, given that his native country, Latvia, is one of them…]
Emotions often run high around this issue. In 2015, joyful crowds waved rainbow flags at Dublin Castle in Ireland to celebrate the dramatic victory of the yes-vote for same-sex marriage. [See how he seeks to emotionalize the issue? But the citizens who successfully pushed for constitutional amendments that protect marriage in Slovakia and Croatia were no doubt equally joyful… or more, because they were fighting like David v. Goliath, with no Soros financing their campaigns… meanwhile a citizens’ initiative in Romania collected no less than 3 million signatures to protect marriage – perhaps less of a “joy” for pro-sodomy Muižnieks, which is why he fails to mention it…] Before that, in 2013, demonstrations and counter-demonstrations polarised French society during parliamentary debates on same-sex marriage. [Yes, it is a polarizing issue. So a public servant like Muižnieks should be careful not to take sides, but stick to what the law says.]
The strongest disagreements seem [???] to crystallise around the notion of “marriage,” [seem??? This is what it is really all about: should/can “marriage” be arbitrarily re-defined? If so, what are the implications and consequences?] but the arguments around the recognition of same-sex couples often reveal deeply rooted homophobia and discrimination against lesbians and gay people. [See what he is doing?? According to him, the discussion “seems” to be about marriage – but in reality the issue is the “homophobia” of those who don’t want marriage to be re-defined. THIS IS A VICIOUS AD-HOMINEM SLUR by someone who apparently has no better arguments to offer… typical for the way in which not only Muižnieks, but the homo-lobby as a whole, operate. But it is not the critics that can with right be described as suffering from pathology; instead, all serious-minded psychologists know perfectly well (and those who have not yet been silenced by an increasingly aggressive “political correctness” also affirm) it is homosexuality that is a disorder.] Many Council of Europe member states still do not provide any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples at all [They have lived without it since the grey of times until now. It is apparently not needed. Society needs man-woman marriage because it generates offspring and provides for the future of society. By contrast, sodomy does not help in building the future….] – with significant negative consequences for the persons concerned and their loved ones. [Maybe someone should remind Mr. Muižnieks of the negative consequences of sodomy for many sodomites and their “loved ones”: disease and early death..]
Providing access to legal recognition to same-sex couples boils down to a simple concept: equality before the law [… of unequal situations. That’s why it is unjust and undermines the legal and social order]. Civil marriage, civil unions, or registered partnerships represent benefits, rights and obligations that the state grants to a couple in a stable relationship. There is a growing consensus that a government may not discriminate against same-sex couples [nonsense! waffle and gobbledygook! The consensus is that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of his/her “sexual orientation” in situation where that orientation is of no relevance. Thus, we would certainly oppose a law according which a sexual pervert gets no driving licence. But non-discrimination is for individuals, not for any “couple”. and a sodomy-couple is in fact different from two parents and their family, so different treatment is not only legitimate, but indeed APPROPRIATE!!!] and exclude them from the protections attendant to a formally-recognised different-sex union [again nonsense. Nobody is “excluded”, provided he fulfils the conditions. If a sodomite gives up his perversion and instead gets married and founds a family, he will be entitled to all benefits].
Legal recognition of same-sex couples in Europe
The movement towards legal recognition of same-sex couples has developed rapidly in Europe over the past two decades. This has been a bottom-up development and not something imposed by regional organisations and courts. [In the US it very clearly was imposed by the Courts, in particular the Supreme Court, against the will of citizens and States, and with no basis in the law. See further down, and you will discover that Mr. Muižnieks actually hopes that the same will happen in Europe.] States have led the way through the adoption of national legislation by parliamentary or popular votes [some of them yes, others not. Others have moved in the opposite direction]. At this writing, a majority — 27* out of 47 — of the member states of the Council of Europe provide some form of legal arrangement recognising same-sex partnerships. Thirteen** of these have introduced same-sex marriage laws. Draft legislation on registered same-sex partnerships is currently under discussion in San Marino and Monaco. Polls [,many of them manipulated, such as the FRA’s grotesque LGBT Survey, pretend to] show that public opinion in many European countries is increasingly in favour of recognising the rights of same-sex couples — much more so than politicians sometimes seem to believe.
There has been backlash to the trend too. In December 2015, a same-sex marriage referendum in Slovenia failed. [Factually wrong! A citizens’ initiative to protect marriage was successful. The respectable Human Rights Commissioner” misrepresents and manipulates facts wherever he finds an occasion for doing so.] Several European states have reacted by amending their constitutions to specify that marriage is exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Some of the states which have done so, however, such as Croatia and Hungary, provide registered partnerships for same-sex couples. [Indeed this is an inconsistency and should be stopped. Recognizing sodomy-couples means to promote sexual perversion.]
It’s not just symbolic: the real problems faced by “rainbow” families
In my recent visits to San Marino, Slovakia and Latvia, I met with lesbian and gay activists who gave me vivid examples of the specific problems engendered by the absence of legal recognition of same-sex stable relationships. [Vice creates problems. That’s absolutely normal.]
Same-sex couples may lack inheritance rights, even after a lifetime of sharing and acquiring property. Having no legal recognition as next-of-kin means that a person may not be entitled to a survivor’s pension [which would be appropriate for caring mothers who have spent their lifetime with raising their children and were thus prevented from acquiring their own pension rights – but which are entirely inappropriate for double-income partners in sexual perversity. And who is to pay for those “survivor’s pensions”? Apparently the non-LGBT rest of society, including the married fathers and mothers who, through raising children, already make an extra contribution that sodomites do not make. The LGBT-lobby’s whining over “privileges” of other people is not just ridiculous, but outright disgusting! This is rent-seeking at the expense of others. LGBT have no survivor’s pensions? Very good so – there is a reason for that. In fact, they should be asked to pay an extra tax!], to a living partner’s health insurance [same reasoning applies: why on Earth can’t they be expected to pay for their own insurance?? What reason does society have to give such privileges to sexually perverted couples with two incomes??? Is there any argument, except a misguided attempt to claim “equality” for what in fact is not equal?] or to continue living in the home of a deceased partner [which would, in actual fact, deprive the landlord of his freedom to rent out the appartment to someone else for a higher price…]. If someone is hospitalised after a serious accident and not in a position to explain one’s personal relationship, the person’s partner may be denied visitation rights or access to the medical file [really? And THAT is the reason we need to recognize sodo-“marriages”??? As if it were not possible for a sodomite to make a simple declaration that he wants his boyfriend to be admitted as a visitor to his hospital bed?? Clearly, the situations that Mr. Muižnieks deplores must be to a large extent fictitious, and obviously serve the purpose of infusing emotions where in fact there is no real problem]. The children of same-sex couples may be left without the care of the person whom [thanks to a creeping manipulation of the concept of “parenthood”] they have always known as [but who in fact isn’t] a parent. Generally, where there is no legal recognition for same-sex partnerships, there is also no possibility for joint adoption. [Good for the children concerned! Children are not gold hamsters. They need real family – therefore in cases of adoption it should be ensured they can grow up in as healthy an environment as possible, with both a mum and a dad.] Problems are sure to arise if the couple separates, if the birth or adoptive parent dies, or if there is a need for the legally unrecognised parent to take leave from work, for example in cases of serious illness or disability of the child. If a same-sex couple chooses to separate [why should anyone regret that a partnership oriented towards, or based on, sexual perversion should break up? Isn’t that actually a good thing?], there is no framework to regulate maintenance rights and duties toward each other [that’s the point: through such “rights” one would in fact stabilize something that is in itself perverse. Sodomy-partnerships should not be stabilized, but discouraged.] or for the children. Stable same-sex couples also have no access to tax advantages provided by the state to other couples. [Of course not. Such tax-advantages, which everyone else would have to pay for, would be totally inappropriate. See above.]
Like marriage, a registered partnership brings rights and obligations to the relationship of committed couples. Same-sex couples in this situation have the same needs and problems as any other couple. [Mere assertion, without argument. The truth is: no, they don’t. Only man-woman partnerships procreate, which is the reason that they should be supported. That’s a bit of a difference, isn’t it?]
Council of Europe standards [??? A majority of Member States provide for att least some difference in treatment – so “no differences” can hardly be a standard. Muižnieks is fantasizing…] : end discrimination against same-sex couples
In 2000, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) issued its [legally non-binding, un-mandated and un-known by the wider public] Recommendation 1474 on the situation of lesbians and gays in the Council of Europe, recommending that the Committee of Ministers call upon member states to “adopt legislation making provision for registered partnerships [silly enough – but nota bene that this is not the same as “marriage”].” In a 2010 Recommendation on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, the Committee of Ministers recommended that member states take steps to provide legal recognition to stable couples, without discrimination between different-sex and same-sex couples.
The recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court or ECtHR) gives solid ground for recognising the existing needs of stable same-sex couples, who must be able to enjoy the same rights as stable different-sex couples. [Muižnieks is trying to read more into that case-law than actually is contained therein…] Initially, the Court showed caution [very true: “caution” is precisely what the ECtHR has been lacking more recently – not only on this issue, but more generally…] in addressing the issue, expressing deference to states in assessing the readiness of their respective societies [again he uses manipulative language: he suggests that it is a question of whether a given society is “ready” for (as it is inferred, inevitable) social progress. But this is nonsense: the deconstruction of marriage represents no progress, nor is it inevitable. At best it could be said that if a society is “ready” for the agenda that the misguided Muižnieks is pushing, this i the result of a systematic and relentless re-education based on a perverse ideology.] on this matter. However, it is undisputed that the relationship of a same-sex couple falls within the notion of “private life” as protected in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In the Schalk and Kopf (2010) and Vallianatos (2013) cases, the ECtHR further held that the relationship of a same-sex couple living in a stable de facto partnership also falls within the notion of “family life” pursuant to article 8.
In 2015, the Court issued a judgment in the Oliari case, where three same-sex couples had complained that they had no option to obtain legal recognition of their relationship in Italy, either through marriage or a registered partnership. The ECtHR found that Italy had violated article 8 of the ECHR by failing to make registered partnerships available to same-sex couples. In making this finding, the court also cited the rapid development in Europe towards legal recognition of same-sex couples, as described above.
It is difficult to read the Oliari judgment, and concurring opinion, as anything else than placing a positive obligation on states parties to the ECHR to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples as a way to protect their right to family life. [This is perhaps the one point in which is not plain wrong. However, this observation rather should be taken as indicating not that such an obligation really exists under the Convention, but that the shameful Oliari decision is obviously ill-founded and there is no need to respect it. In actual fact, the Italian government was an all too willing victim for the Court’s activism, having legislated for sodomy-partnerships out of its own initiative at more or less the same time – which precisely explain why the Court dared crossing this line. No wonder it didn’t appeal against this miscarriage of justice, which is entirely based on allegedly “changing conditions” and “shifting social attitudes”, but certainly not on the ECHR.]
And what about same-sex civil marriage?
The considerations I offer in this section are strictly about civil marriage and not religious marriage. [Muižnieks kindly agrees it is not his role to define other people’s religion…]
International human rights law currently does not create an obligation on states to allow same-sex couples to marry. [At least he knows this much.] In the Schalk and Kopf case, the ECtHR declined to recognise a right to marry for same-sex couples under Article 12 of the ECHR (the right to marry). However, in that decision, the Court held that it would no longer consider marriage as exclusively reserved to a woman and a man. [This is a mere obiter dictum, with no effect on the outcome of the judgment. In fact, what the Court referred to was the wording of the EU Fundamental Rights Charter, which is the basis neither for the ECtHR’s nor for Mr. Muižnieks’s mandate.] It was for states parties to the ECHR to decide how to regulate access to marriage. The Court added that this approach may change if a consensus were to emerge amongst the states parties to the ECHR. [And who , except an ideologue like Mr. , would be stupid enough to believe this? Essentially, what this seems to say is that Slovakia or Latvia must re-define marriage, because the Netherlands or France have done so. This is plainly absurd, and undermines the Human Rights Convention as an international treaty instrument.]
There are arguments in favour of providing access to civil marriage to same-sex couples. One is to ensure that the rights available to same-sex and to different-sex couples are truly equal. Indeed, more often than not, registered partnerships offer a pared-down selection of rights [which already are completely inappropriate and undeserved], leaving aside [rightly so!!!] more controversial issues such as adoption of children or medically assisted procreation [this just shows how dangerously misplaced this disoriented man is in his current function. He is pushing not only for a “right to sodo-marriage”, but also for a “right to assisted procreation”, with all the implications that this may have (such as trafficking, or the commercial exploitation of “surrogate mothers”), which apparently is all of no concern to him. Even worse, he even seems to think there is a “right to adoption”, i.e. a right to have a child through whatever technical or legal artifice may be used to that end – which clearly undermines the Child’s rights. We are really heading down a very dangerous direction]. My opinion is that genuine commitment to full equality would at least require states to seriously consider opening up civil marriage to same-sex couples. [Again: his entire argument boils down to “equality”, even when we speak of situations that clearly are not equal at all. This is a systematic and deliberate perversion of the basic concept of justice.]
The way forward: step by step toward equality
States should continue to work towards eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation in the area of family rights [… only if they accept Mr. Muižnieks’s misguided concept of “equality”, which thankfully not all of them do]. This requires several measures:
- The 20 member states of the Council of Europe that still do not provide any legal recognition to same-sex couples [see? The ECtHR in Oliari has spuriously claimed that this is a human rights standard. The truth is that it isn’t. Nearly half of the CoE doesn’t follow this fake “standard”… and among those doing so, a majority still is aware that there is no equalfooting between two sexual perverts and, on the other hand, a father and a mother.] should enact legislation to create — at the very least– registered partnerships that ensure that privileges, obligations or benefits available to married or registered different-sex partners are equally available to same-sex partners.
- All states should ensure that legislation exists to provide registered same-sex couples with the same rights and benefits as married or registered different-sex couples, for example in the areas of social security, taxes, employment and pension benefits, freedom of movement, family reunification, parental rights and inheritance. [There is absolutely no good reason for doing so, as shown above.]
- States should promote respect for lesbian, gay and bisexual persons and combat discrimination based on sexual orientation through human rights education and awareness-raising campaigns. [The only one who definitely needs human rights education and awareness-raising is Muižnieks himself. Clearly, he has no clue about what human rights (the ones that States actually agree upon, not the ones he and some activist judges at the ECtHR are fantasizing…) actially provide for, nor is he aware – although they are apparent to everyone who is not either mad or ideologically blind-folded – of the differences that exist between by nature sterile sodomite couples and , on the other hand, a father and mother who have children for the benefit of society.]
Granting rights and benefits to same-sex couples does not take anything away from different-sex couples who already have access to them. These rights are not weaker or less valuable simply because more people receive them. [This is blatant NONSENSE, and one can but wonder about the sanity of a person making such claims. Just a few lines above, Muižnieks has elaborated on entitlements such as tax breaks and social benefits. If sodomites benefit from them, this by necessity means that there will be a wealth transfer towards them, which must be financed by non-sodomites. Just how stupid does Muižnieks think his readers are? Or is he himself too stupid to understand this simple fact? No, very clearly same-sex “marriage” means that society has to subsidize the sexually perverted “lifestyle of a well-to-do pressure group that makes no contribution to the common good.] The trend toward legal recognition of same-sex couples is responding to the daily reality and needs of relationships that have gone unrecognised for a very long time. [It is about time that we stop “recognizing” those “needs”. They are certainly not convergent with the needs of society.] Our societies are made up of a rich diversity of individuals, relationships and families. It’s time we see this as an asset. [Really? But if LGBT are so proud of their “diversity”, then at least they should not complain about receiving diverse treatment – as long as it is appropriate to their situation.]