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

Skip to comments.

European Court Could Rule Traditional Marriage Benefits Are Discriminatory
C-Fam ^ | March 3, 2011 | Terrence McKeegan, J.D.

Posted on 03/04/2011 2:18:56 PM PST by NYer

LUXEMBOURG, March 3 (C-FAM) Legal experts warn that a European court is on the verge of deciding that Germany’s privileged legal status for traditional marriage violates European Union law.

An Advocate General for the European Court of Justice, which is the highest court in matters of European Union law, issued an opinion to the court which states that same-sex couples must have access to the same employment benefits as married couples in every EU state, regardless of a state’s constitutional laws. While the opinion of the Advocate General, one of eight that assist the court, is not binding on the court, the opinions are almost always followed.

A leading Austrian homosexual rights activist has called the Advocate General’s opinion “groundbreaking”.  “If the ECJ follows it, all 27 member-states will have to grant same-sex couples access to all the employment benefits married couples enjoy, no matter if they allow registered partnership or not,” said Dr. Helmut Graupner.

Such a legal theory taken to its logical end could go further than just changing employment benefits and would likely be used to try to overturn traditional marriage laws in each of the 27 countries of the European Union. This scenario has been met by strong opposition from center right human rights lawyers.

"The European Union was founded on respect for national sovereignty,” Roger Kiska, Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, told the Friday Fax. “If the Advocate General's opinion is followed, it destroys this sovereignty making all European nations vulnerable to legislation promoting anti-life and anti-family laws despite the national will of that country. It is not the role of the ECJ to legislate for all of Europe without Europe having a say in the matter," said Kiska.

The case, Jürgen Römer vs. City of Hamburg, involves a retired government employee from Germany who entered into a same-sex registered partnership under German law. Römer sued the German city for receiving a lower pension than that received by a pensioner that was married.  German law allows for marriage only to opposite-sex couples and registered partnerships only to same-sex couples.

Because the case involves question of state law potentially conflicting with European Union law, the case was referred by a German court to the European court for a preliminary ruling to determine whether the German law violates a recent EU Anti-Discrimination Directive that applies to employment.  The ECJ’s ruling is binding on Germany to the extent that the ECJ interprets EU law in the case.

Last year, Germany came under pressure from homosexual rights groups for initially blocking the anti-discrimination directive, arguing that there was no legal authority for the EU to intervene in some of the areas covered in the directive. 

According to the European Commission website, “Registered partnerships allow 2 people who live together as a couple to register their union with the relevant public authority in their country of residence.”  Currently, 12 of the 27 EU states do not recognize registered partnerships as being equivalent to marriage. 

Court observers believe a final ruling by the judges of the ECJ in the case is imminent.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: fdrq; heterosexualagenda; homosexual; homosexualagenda; marriage

1 posted on 03/04/2011 2:18:58 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Ping!


2 posted on 03/04/2011 2:19:26 PM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Fine with me. No “marriage benefits” unless you have dependents.


3 posted on 03/04/2011 2:21:54 PM PST by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Apparently, from the title, it could also not.

got enough to worry about today.

4 posted on 03/04/2011 2:26:15 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (Every knife in my back pushes me forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
leading Austrian homosexual rights activist has called the Advocate General’s opinion “groundbreaking”.

Groundbreaking? More like sinking into the muck.

5 posted on 03/04/2011 2:26:41 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Coming to the U.S., soon, I'm sure.

What was once a sexual perversion is becoming a protected 'right' while normal marriage is being called 'discriminatory' to humans engaging in same-sex 'marriage'. We are truly in the Last Days.

6 posted on 03/04/2011 2:27:17 PM PST by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Eliminate marriage benefits, there and here. Get the State/Government out of the marriage business.

Or, establish good reason why they should be in the marriage business and to what degree.


7 posted on 03/04/2011 2:30:39 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott

“What was once a sexual perversion is becoming a protected ‘right’”

Obama actually had the gall to call homosexuality a “strength” when he repealed DADT.


8 posted on 03/04/2011 2:56:57 PM PST by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
We are truly in the Last Days.

Don't tempt God. But I'd say it's a pretty sure thing that what was once called Western civilization is in its waning years (and maybe months). Hope everybody left will like Sharia.

9 posted on 03/04/2011 3:06:28 PM PST by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

That isn’t tempting God. God doesn’t care where we think we are on His timetable.

We are nearing the end of the times of the gentiles. God says people will see the signs and know it’s close. Nobody’s talking about the day or hour, just that it’s nearing the end. And they are right.


10 posted on 03/04/2011 5:40:06 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Eliminate marriage benefits, there and here. Get the State/Government out of the marriage business.

Or, establish good reason why they should be in the marriage business and to what degree.

This is what most don't get: as soon as gov't defined the word "marriage" it was lost. The "tradition" is at odds with the principle that gov't is a gov't of ALL the people therefore the gov't welfare program, a collection of benefits and responsibilities it calls "marriage," cannot be discriminatory.

11 posted on 03/04/2011 11:50:14 PM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
This is what most don't get: as soon as gov't defined the word "marriage" it was lost.

Government here in North America has been very successful for 400 years in legally defining marriage as being between man and a woman. This definition is merely a refection of the prevalent Judeo-Christian culture. It is the liberals, the libertarians and gays (lots of overlap here) that come along and try and undo common sense law. Why? Because they have law degrees and figure they will jerk around the silent majority. Because they think they know better and can do better when in reality they have one foot in the abyss

12 posted on 03/05/2011 12:05:59 AM PST by dennisw ( The early bird catches the worm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; newzjunkey
This definition is merely a refection of the prevalent Judeo-Christian culture.

You are absolutely correct; government created nothing, they just recognize marriage for what it is, and consequently must decide NOT to recognize other types of relationships as such in order to make distinctions.

I can't stand it when Libtardtarians try to convolute this issue, and say that the government is in the "marriage business." What a bunch of hooey.

13 posted on 03/05/2011 7:06:14 AM PST by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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