Yes, it is possible! The trend towards legalized sodo-“marriage” is not irreversible; social development is not a one-way road into decadence and moral corruption.
The tiny Caribbean nation of Bermuda is the first country in the world were legalized sodo-“marriage”, which had been imposed on the unwilling nation by the arrogant and preposterous judicial fiat of its Supreme Court in May 2017, is repealed. Continue reading “Bermuda is the world’s first country to abolish sodo-“marriage””
It takes little to draw the ire of the LGBT-lobby. The European-Commission-financed pro-sodomy pressure group ILGA Europe has announced on its website that it is “deeply concerned” by “reported homo- and transphobic publications and statements” of the newly elected Spanish ECtHR judge, María Elósegui Itxaso. And one of the lobby’s most active minions in the European Parliament, Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, a Spanish Member of the European Parliament’s S&D Group, is making himself busy with collecting signatures of his fellow MEPs to protest against Mrs. Elósegui’s appointment. Continue reading “The LGBT lobby’s nasty campaign against a newly appointed ECtHR judge”
According to a recent report on LifeSiteNews, there are increasing indicators that the strategy of the international LGBT lobby, which consists in promoting fake news, fake science, and consistent misuse of judicial or administrative powers, is backfiring. Citizens are beginning to realize that it is not homosexuals who are being bullied, but normal people like themselves.
Perhaps the most remarkable sign of reversal is the first round of the presidential elections in Costa Rica, where, in the wake of a grotesquely unfounded decision by the Inter-American Human Rights Court according which all Member States are obliged to legislate for sodo-“marriage”, one candidate who has clearly stated his opposition to this perverse agenda (and, hence, his intention to free Costa Rica from the dictates of this sham tribunal) has taken the lead, defeating the candidates of the country’s biggest political parties. It appears that ordinary citizens are no longer indifferent to the manipulations and power abuses of once prestigious “human rights bodies”…
It is strange to see how the powerful institutions of the EU just don’t seem to get the message. At a time where attitudes towards the EU are increasingly critical, if not hostile, in growing swathes of the population, the political and judicial elites act as if that were nothing to concern them. Subsidiarity is over, cultural imperialism holds sway.
A case in point is the issue of sodo-“marriage”, i.e. the mockery of marriage by sexual perverts, which has become legal in some Member States while it is clearly rejected by others. One might assume that in such a situation, if it does not want to simply defend the position that used to be the common ground among all civilised nations before some decadent countries like the Netherlands or Belgium started to call it into question as late as in the early Two-Thousands, the European Union should at least remain neutral, leaving Member States free to accept or reject this aberrant political fashion. But instead the EU takes side – of course for perversion and against decency. It does so without a proper political mandate, and in fact against its own foundational texts. Is anyone really believing that this will not provide further fuel to EU-scepticism?
In the Coman case currently pending before the Court of Justice of the EU, Advocate General Melchior Wathelet has issued a Legal Opinion which, if followed, would de facto oblige all EU Member States – including those who have constitutional provisions that rule out the arbitrary re-definition of marriage – to give a (perhaps limited) legal effect to “marriages” between same-sex sodomites. Continue reading “Will European Court impose the legal recognition of sodo-“marriage” all over Europe?”
While the outcome of the recent elections clearly shows that the electorate is opposed to, or at least not interested in, the legalisation of “marriages” between sodomites, the Austrian Constitutional Court wants to legalize them nevertheless. Through a temerarious act of deliberate abuse of judicial authority – comparable to the US Supreme Court’s decision Obergefell vs. Hodges, but completely unprecedented in Europe – Austria seems set to become the first European country in which sodo-“marriage” is imposed by judicial fiat. At the same time, the so-called “registered partnerships” for homosexuals, which have been introduced in 2009, will be opened also for different-sex couples, thus creating a “second-class marriage” with similar rights but a lover level of commitment – something that the legislator never intended.
A more careful reading of the judgment, however, raises the question whether sodo-“marriage” will really become possible, even if there can be no doubt that the Constitutional Court’s intention was to introduce it. The incompetence of Austria’s supreme judges appears to be such that they have not even managed to issue a judgment that is capable of providing the outcome they want to achieve. Continue reading “Austria: Judicial miscarriage seems to legalize sodo-“marriage”. But does it really?”
If there is something that clearly can be deduced from last month’s national elections in Austria, it is that the electorate didn’t consider the introduction of sodo-“marriage” a great priority. The parties with the greatest increase in votes were those who clearly stated that marriage is – and should remain – a union between one man and one woman: the conservative “Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the national conservative “Freedomite Party” (FPÖ). Having increased their share of votes by aggregated 13%, these two groups now dispose of a solid majority in the National Assembly and look set to form the next government. By stark contrast, the group that – already by picking lesbian activist Ulrike Lunacek as their lead candidate – most aggressively turned sodo-“marriage” into a core part of their electoral program lost more than two thirds of its votes and all of the parliamentary seats it had previously held.
As a result, a parliamentary majority for introducing sodo-“marriage” seems completely out of reach within the next five years. But despite this, it could nevertheless become a reality within the next few weeks.
The reason is that the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) has, in a surprising about-face, announced that it has doubts regarding the constitutionality of the legal definition of marriage set out in Article 44 of the Civil Code, and intends to subject that definition to an examination ex officio, with the likely outcome that the part of it stating that the two spouses must be “of different sex” will be removed. Continue reading “Austrians don’t want sodo-“marriage”. But their Constitutional Court does.”
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.
Continue reading “Germany: the Constitutional Court’s case law on sodo-“marriage””