Opponents of sodo-“marriage” in the German Federal Diet (Bundestag) are considering the possibility of filing a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVG) in order to challenge the constitutionality of the Diet’s decision to re-define marriage. How will the BVG decide? If its standing case law can be relied upon, it will have no choice but to invalidate the new law.
But the dilemma is: while everyone is fully aware that sodo-“marriage” is patently unconstitutional, it is nevertheless expected that the constitutional judges, if asked, will bend the constitution. Once again, it becomes palpable how the LGBT agenda corrodes state and society.
Back in 2001, the BVG issued a decision (1 BvF 1/01) in which it declared that the (then freshly adopted) law on “registered life partnerships” for sodomites was not in contradiction to the constitutional provision through which Article 6 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG) grants special protection to marriage. At the time this decision was considered an astoundingly servile kow-tow to the intersts of the LGBT lobby. Nevertheless, it contained also some important clarifications.
In particular, § 87 of that decisions points out very clearly that even the “taking into account of current prevailing opinions” has some limits when it comes to defining marriage. The following is drawn from an official translation into English found on the BVG’s website:
The Basic Law itself contains no definition of marriage, but presupposes it as a special form of human cohabitation. The realisation of the constitutional protection of marriage therefore needs a legal provision that structures and restricts what form of partnership enjoys the protection of the Constitution. Here, the legislature has considerable freedom of drafting in determining the form and content of marriage (cf. BVerfGE 31, 58 (70); 36, 146 (162); 81, 1 (6-7)). The Basic Law guarantees the institution of marriage not in the abstract, but in the form that corresponds to current prevailing opinions, which are expressed definitively in the statutory provisions (cf. BVerfGE 31, 58 (82-83). However, in shaping marriage, the legislature must take into account the essential structural principles that follow from the application of Article 6.1 of the Basic Law to marriage as it is actually encountered in connection with the nature of the fundamental right guaranteed as a freedom and in connection with other constitutional norms (cf. BVerfGE 31, 58 (69)). Part of the content of marriage, as it has stood the test of time despite social change and the concomitant changes of its legal structure and been shaped by the Basic Law, is that it is the union of one man with one woman to form a permanent partnership, based on a free decision and with the support of the state (cf. BVerfGE 10, 59 (66); 29, 166 (176); 62, 323 (330)), in which man and woman are in an equal partnership with one another (cf. BVerfGE 37, 217 (249 ff.); 103, 89 (101)) and may decide freely on the organisation of their cohabitation (cf. BVerfGE 39, 169 (183); 48, 327 (338); 66, 84 (94)).
And even though the BVG, one by one, eliminated nearly all the differences between marriage and sodo-partnerships in a series of controversial decisions, it maintained throughout all these decisions that marriage is “an institute that is reserved exclusively to the union between a man and a woman”. Recanting on this very clear-cut statement would simply mean that none of the BVG’s statements need to be taken seriously any more, and that Germany’s true constitution is the Zeitgeist, i.e. the opinion of the day.
However, given that the constitutional judges in the past have been seen to do the LGBT-lobby every favour they could, pundits hope that this time again they will rather abdicate their own credibility than hurt the sacrosanct interests of sodomites. As the left-leaning pro-sodomy Süddeutsche Zeitung cynically writes: the Court is gifted with a lot of fantasy…