El matrimonio gay No es un Derecho Fundamental dice el Tribunal

peyistez mecayo dijo:

Que raro , donde estarán los defensores del "derecho humano" al matrimonio gay... pensé que tambien iban a tomarla contra el Tribunal para acusarlo de "homofobico", "retrógada", y todos los otros disparates que suelen repetir.

Click to expand...

MZM dijo:

Hay veces que de verdad pareces un chiquito," provocando" y luchando para ser escuchado

Click to expand...

peyistez mecayo dijo:

De nuevo si porque ya aqui la Sala IV se habia pronunciado en forma parecida, ahora es el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

En resumen no es un Derecho Humano ni Universal, ojala que los medios publiquen esta noticia a ver si algunos bombetas como la Defensora aprenden algo.

Click to expand...

Alejandro221 dijo:

2 personas tienen derecho a establecer un contrato de convivencia siempre y cuando no afecten a terceros. Es su desicion y la de nadie mas.

Click to expand...

peyistez mecayo dijo:

Es correcto, y actualmente pueden hacerlo.

Click to expand...

peyistez mecayo dijo:

Gracias por darme la razon en esa parte.

Con lo otro que ud pone, no es discriminatorio , lea la sentencia y la comenta.

Click to expand...

63. In conclusion, the Court finds that Article 12 ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Convention does not impose an obligation on the respondent Government to grant a same-sex couple like the applicants access to marriage.
64. Consequently, there has been no violation ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Article 12 ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Convention.

Click to expand...

peyistez mecayo dijo:

El articulo 12 es el que habla del derecho al matrimonio, el recurso les fue rechazado.

Click to expand...

Men and women ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ this right.

Click to expand...

In a constitutional complaint the applicants alleged that the legal impossibility for them to get married constituted a violation ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ their right to respect for private and family life and ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the principle ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ non-discrimination. They argued that the notion ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ marriage had evolved since the entry into force ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Civil Code in 1812. In particular, the procreation and education ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ children no longer formed an integral part ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ marriage. In present-day perception, marriage was rather a permanent union encompassing all aspects ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ life. There was no objective justification for excluding same-sex couples from concluding marriage, all the more so since the European Court ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Human Rights had acknowledged that differences based on sexual orientation required particularly weighty reasons. Other European countries either allowed homosexual marriages or had otherwise amended their legislation in order to give equal status to same-sex partnerships.

Click to expand...

2. The Registered Partnership Act
...
17. The Registered Partnership Act, Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) vol. I, no. 135/2009, entered into force on 1 January 2010. Its section 2 provides as follows: “A registered partnership may be formed ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ by two persons ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the same sex (registered partners). They thereby commit themselves to a lasting relationship with mutual rights and obligations.“
18. The rules on the establishment ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ registered partnership, its effects and its dissolution resemble the rules governing marriage.
...
21. The reasons for dissolution ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ registered partnership are the same as for dissolution ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ marriage or divorce. Dissolution ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ a registered partnership occurs in the event ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the death ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ one partner (section 13). It may also be pronounced by a judicial decision on various other grounds: lack ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ intent to establish a registered partnership (section 14), fault ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ one or both partners, or breakdown ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the partnership due to irreconcilable differences (section 15).
...
25. The relevant part ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Commentary ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Charter states as follows:
“Modern trends and developments in the domestic laws in a number ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ countries toward greater openness and acceptance ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ same-sex couples notwithstanding, a few states still have public policies and/or regulations that explicitly forbid the notion that same-sex couples have the right to marry. At present there is very limited legal recognition ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ same-sex relationships in the sense that marriage is not available to same-sex couples. The domestic laws ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the majority ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ states presuppose, in other words, that the intending spouses are ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ different sexes. Nevertheless, in a few countries, e.g., in the Netherlands and in Belgium, marriage between people ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the same sex is legally recognized. Others, like the Nordic countries, have endorsed a registered partnership legislation, which implies, among other things, that most provisions concerning marriage, i.e. its legal consequences such as property distribution, rights ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ inheritance, etc., are also applicable to these unions. At the same time it is important to point out that the name ‘registered partnership’ has intentionally been chosen not to confuse it with marriage and it has been established as an alternative method ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ recognizing personal relationships. This new institution is, consequently, as a rule ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ accessible to couples who cannot marry, and the same-sex partnership does not have the same status and the same benefits as marriage. (...)
In order to take into account the diversity ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ domestic regulations on marriage, Article 9 ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Charter refers to domestic legislation. As it appears from its formulation, the provision is broader in its scope than the corresponding articles in other international instruments. Since there is no explicit reference to ‘men and women’ as the case is in other human rights instruments, it may be argued that there is no obstacle to recognize same-sex relationships in the context ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ marriage. There is, however, no explicit requirement that domestic laws should facilitate such marriages. International courts and committees have so far hesitated to extend the application ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the right to marry to same-sex couples. (...)”
...

31. The legal consequences ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ registered partnership vary from almost equivalent to marriage to giving relatively limited rights. Among the legal consequences ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ registered partnerships, three main categories can be distinguished: material consequences, parental consequences and other consequences.
32. Material consequences cover the impact ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ registered partnership on different kinds ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ tax, health insurance, social security payments and pensions. In most ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the States concerned registered partners obtain a status similar to marriage. This also applies to other material consequences, such as regulations on joint property and debt, application ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ rules ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ alimony upon break-up, entitlement to compensation on wrongful death ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ partner and inheritance rights.

Click to expand...

57. In any case, the applicants did not rely mainly on the textual interpretation ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Article 12. In essence they relied on the Court’s case-law according to which the Convention is a living instrument which is to be interpreted in present-day conditions (see E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 92, ECHR 2008-..., and Christine Goodwin, cited above, §§ 74-75). In the applicants’ contention Article 12 should in present-day conditions be read as granting same-sex couples access to marriage or, in other words, as obliging member States to provide for such access in their national laws.
58. The Court is not persuaded by the applicants’ argument. Although, as it noted in Christine Goodwin, the institution ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ marriage has undergone major social changes since the adoption ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Convention, the Court notes that there is no European consensus regarding same-sex marriage. At present no more than six out ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ forty-seven Convention States allow same-sex marriage (see paragraph 27 above).
...

60. Turning to the comparison between Article 12 ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Convention and Article 9 ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Charter ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Fundamental Rights ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the European Union (the Charter), the Court has already noted that the latter has deliberately dropped the reference to men and women (see Christine Goodwin, cited above, § 100). The commentary to the Charter, which became legally binding in December 2009, confirms that Article 9 is meant to be broader in scope than the corresponding articles in other human rights instruments (see paragraph 25 above). At the same time the reference to domestic law reflects the diversity ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ national regulations, which range from allowing same-sex marriage to explicitly forbidding it. By referring to national law, Article 9 ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Charter leaves the decision whether or not to allow same-sex marriage to the States. In the words ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the commentary: “... it may be argued that there is no obstacle to recognize same-sex relationships in the context ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ marriage. There is however, no explicit requirement that domestic laws should facilitate such marriages.”
61. Regard being had to Article 9 ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Charter, therefore, the Court would no longer consider that the right to marry enshrined in Article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the opposite sex. Consequently, it cannot be said that Article 12 is inapplicable to the applicants’ complaint. However, as matters stand, the question whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to regulation by the national law ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Contracting State.
62. In that connection the Court observes that marriage has deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another. The Court reiterates that it must not rush to substitute its own judgment in place ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ that ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the national authorities, who are best placed to assess and respond to the needs ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ society (see B. and L. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 36).
63. In conclusion, the Court finds that Article 12 ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Convention does not impose an obligation on the respondent Government to grant a same-sex couple like the applicants access to marriage.
64. Consequently, there has been no violation ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ Article 12 ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the Convention.

Click to expand...

109. The Court observes that the Registered Partnership Act gives the applicants a possibility to obtain a legal status equal or similar to marriage in many respects (see paragraphs 18-23 above). While there are ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ slight differences in respect ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ material consequences, some substantial differences remain in respect ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ parental rights. However, this corresponds on the whole to the trend in other member States (see paragraphs 32-33 above). Moreover, the Court is not called upon in the present case to examine each and every one ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ these differences in detail. For instance, as the applicants have not claimed that they are directly affected by the remaining restrictions concerning artificial insemination or adoption, it would go beyond the scope ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ the present application to examine whether these differences are justified. On the whole, the Court does not see any indication that the respondent State exceeded its margin ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ appreciation in its choice ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ rights and obligations conferred by registered partnership.

Click to expand...

Men and women ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ this right.

Click to expand...

Machaca dijo:

Click to expand...

G ELIZONDO dijo:

¿Cada país decide como normar este axsunto? Es correcto. Toda la nación decide que posición tomar. Pro eso, es un asunto de mayoría y no de minoría porque afecta a toda la sociedad.

Click to expand...