crossWhenever Europe does something that disregards traditional mores, our news media is quick to report. Otherwise, America’s corporate news media shows as much interest as they would if your local paper reported a story about your neighbor’s dog nipping the mailman. Hence this editorial in The Washington Times observes the following

A court decision issued last month about same-sex marriage received almost no news coverage in the United States, yet the decision could have significant implications when the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the Constitution requires it.

The case, Hamalainen v. Finland, was decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in an overwhelming majority opinion that no right to same-sex marriage exists under the European Convention on Human Rights. (continued here)

Supposedly, our Supreme Court has followed the example of this European court in the past. Where does our Constitution suggests our judges should do that? Well, it doesn’t, but that in itself is a measure of how renegade our judges have become.

Who else carried the news about this European court’s decision?

  • EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURT: NO RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ( – The Breitbart story provides more background. Apparently, a married man had a sex-change operation. After that he still wanted legal recognition of his marriage. He just wanted it as wife and wife.
  • European court: Gay marriage is not a human right ( – Here is a tight, unemotional summary of the issues involved.
  • European High Court Ruling on Marriage ( – This article provides a straightforward analysis of the European court’s legal reasoning, suggesting that “European Court of Human Rights has no intention of recognizing a right to marriage under the Convention in the near future” (That’s a quote of a quote.).

Anyway, all we can do at this point is pray our own court shows as much sense.

This entry was posted in Constitutional Government, culture, Marriage and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.