Inter-American Court of Human Rights sodomizes international law

Monkey-JudgeIn the last years we have already seen a number of extreme and deliberate mis-interpretations of constitutional or international human rights law in order to promote abortion, euthanasia, child-trafficking, and sodomy. This is how cultural wars are fought: the aggressor (in this case the sodomy-cum-baby-slaughtering lobby) occupies the hills and then starts to fire missiles from above…

This strategy, which takes entire legal systems as its hostage was most notoriously successful at the US Supreme Court (with decisions such as Roe v. Wade on abortion and Obergefell on sodo-“marriage”), where one judge famously said that “you don’t imagine what five people can do when they happen to be Supreme Court Justices”, referring to the seemingly unlimited power the judiciary enjoys in the US. Mor recent examples include the Austrian Constitutional Court, which sought to impose the legalization of sodo-“marriage” precisely at the moment when it became clear that there was no parliamentary majority for it, or the CJEU, which seems to be preparing a similar attempt. But no case of counter-legal, illegal, or even criminal judicial activism has so far been as extreme as this week’s decision by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, through which the attempt is made to oblige all Latin American countries to legalize sodomy, sodo-“marriage”, and polygamy – all in one decision.

The decision, which comes in the form an advisory opinion, is based on the vague notion that all these abominations are some how an expression of a “diversity” that should be welcomed by society, and that they are all somehow to be considered of equal value and “dignity”.

The Inter-American Court seems too be completely ignorant, if not deliberately dismissive, of the Convention it has been set up to interpret. In fact, the Inter-American Convention of Human Rights is absolutely clear and leaves no room for interpretation:

Article 17. Rights of the Family

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to raise a family shall be recognized, if they meet the conditions required by domestic laws, insofar as such conditions do not affect the principle of nondiscrimination established in this Convention.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. The States Parties shall take appropriate steps to ensure the equality of rights and the adequate balancing of responsibilities of the spouses as to marriage, during marriage, and in the event of its dissolution. In case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children solely on the basis of their own best interests.

5. The law shall recognize equal rights for children born out of wedlock and those born in wedlock.

The contradiction between a judgment and the law it is supposed to uphold could not be more radical and self-evident than in this case. How will ever believe that these judges have been acting in good faith? And even if they did, is it not obvious that their judgment is false?

The reference to “men and women of marriageable age” means that a marriage consists of a man and a woman. Furthermore, the reference to domestic laws means that divergent concepts of marriage cannot be imposed from the outside, including the Human Rights Court itself. Also, there is no way how homosexual unions, which make no procreative contribution to the future of society, and which therefore are not necessary for society’s survival, can be qualified as “natural and fundamental group unit of society”.

As LifeSiteNews comments, this appears to be indeed the “most bold exercise in judicial tyranny imaginable,” and the only way out of this conundrum is for the countries concerned to ignore this decision, dissolve the Court, or simply leave the convention.

Judicial tyrrany is corrosive, as it destroys the legal order from within.