Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Germany’s law requiring the mother’s approval for a single father to be granted parental rights violated the European Union’s charter prohibiting discrimination. Now Germany’s highest court has followed suit declaring the scheme unconstitutional.
1 posted on 08/11/2010 1:23:49 PM PDT by fathers1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: fathers1

The feminazis don’t like it one bit when they get what they ask for - equality.
Sorry, nags, but equality means equality - not special privileges for wackos who vote democrat.


2 posted on 08/11/2010 1:30:53 PM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (Annoying liberals is my goal. I will not be silenced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: fathers1
I would have preferred if they had kept this particular scheme intact to give people another incentive to get married, but instead ended the everyday discrimination against married fathers and husbands.
3 posted on 08/11/2010 1:43:22 PM PDT by cartan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: fathers1

If you wonder where the politics are for this basic human right, the mentioned Die Tageszeitung is a far left rag that usually supports the Greens (the German greens, far more left than our Greens). You know the type, they strongly support every “right” imaginable, including adult men having sex with boys, and they support “gender equality” except of course when it comes to giving the male gender equality of rights with the female.


8 posted on 08/11/2010 2:42:08 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: fathers1
Forgot to write the rest. It is a wonder this took so long, given the German constitution says:
Article 3 [Equality before the law]

(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.

(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.

(3) No person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex...

Looks pretty clear to me, especially the "shall" portion of (2). But you know the type even here, where the Constitution means what they want it to mean regardless of the clear text and intent.
9 posted on 08/11/2010 2:47:25 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson