The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has ruled that Poland has a work to institutionalise single-sex unions. The Court considered the exceptional nature of the matrimony institution irrelevant and the opposition of most of the public to the alignment of single-sex couples with marriage, according to its identity as a union between a female and a man.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on December 12 took into account complaints against Polish law filed by 10 citizens who form monosexual concubines in Poland. The complaints afraid the deficiency of institutionalisation of their relations. The Court ruled that Poland's deficiency of "legal designation and protection" of monosexual unions violates the right of applicants to respect private and household life, according to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the Court's view, all associate States of the Council of Europe have a affirmative work to institutionalise "stable and committed" single-sex unions. National authorities stay free to choose whether to call them "marriage" or "partnerships". The Court of Strasbourg rejected all counterarguments of the Polish government justifying the deficiency of institutionalisation of monosexual concubines, namely the protection of a household model based on the union of women and men - confirmed in Article 18 of the Constitution and opposition of the majority of the population - around 60%, against the formalisation of monosexual relations. The European Court of Human Rights has stated that the introduction of "marriage" or "partnerships" for single-sex couples does not in any way endanger the family. It does not substance against the majority of society, according to the Court.
The conviction was passed by a majority of 6 to 1 votes, with 1 separate conviction of the Polish justice Prof. Krzysztof Wojtyk, who recalled that "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention are relationships based on a unchangeable relation between a female and a man, and the Court has no competence to redefine this concept in order to adapt them to contemporary views. In the proceedings before the ETPC, the Ordo Iuris Institute intervened as ‘amicus curiae’ (‘a friend of the court’). The Institute presented a legal opinion in which it pointed out that, given the deficiency of consensus of national legislators on the position of single-sex unions, the associate States of the Council of Europe should stay free to regulate this issue, given that Article 8 of the Convention does not supply a clear work to institutionalise specified relations.
Read also: Left wants to change the strategy of common courts
As the Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture rightly points out, the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights on Poland will most likely in practice service as a pretext for any Members sitting in the parliament of the current word of office to work on a law institutionalising single-sex unions. However, specified a law would clearly be incompatible with Article 18 of the Constitution. In 2013, the Parliament had already voted on specified a bill (print of Parliament VII of word 552), but it was rejected after being reminded in the debate by a typical of the then Ministry of Justice that "Article 18 fundamentally follows a contrario a ban on specified institutionalization of hetero- and homosexual relationships that will in fact be akin to matrimony (...)’.
nationalists.net/♪ Ordoiuris ♪
