Inter-American Human Rights Court Tries to Impose Homosexual Marriage on Entire Continent
NEW YORK, January 26 (C-Fam) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights published a much-anticipated advisory opinion earlier this month that says homosexual marriage and transgender identity change are human rights in the American Convention on Human Rights.
“States must guarantee access to all existing legal institutions in their domestic laws to ensure the protection of all the rights of families formed by couples of the same sex without discrimination,” the Court concluded in its opinion. Only one of the seven judges on the Court dissented from this conclusion.
The advisory opinion reflects the progressive leanings of the Court in recent years and is the culmination of more than a decade of jurisprudence from the Court to undermine the understanding of family with which the Inter-American Convention was negotiated and ratified.
“Human rights treaties are living instruments whose interpretation must accompany the evolving times and present conditions of life,” the Court explained.
The reasoning of the Court was based on its views of what the American treaty means by the word “family.” It said the treaty “does not protect a singular or determinate model of family.”
“A family may be formed by persons with different gender identities and/or sexual orientations,” it said.
“A restrictive interpretation of the concept of ‘family’ that excludes the affective bond between couples of the same sex from the protections of the inter-American system would frustrate the object and purpose of the treaty,” the Court opined.
The Court also instructed Costa Rica to allow individuals who want to change their legal sex to reflect their preferred gender identity, adding that such changes must be confidential and fast.
The result was expected but observers will likely be puzzled by the wide-ranging nature and scope of the 140-page opinion and the eclectic group of legal authorities cited by the Court. The Court as opposed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, previously has taken a more judicious and less activist approach in its interpretations of the treaty.
The Court said it did not think its interpretation was inconsistent with the original intent of the framers of the American Convention. At the same time, it admitted no one contemplated homosexual marriage at the time the treaty was adopted.
It repeatedly cited the European Court of Human Rights as an authority in support of a right of people of the same sex to marry each other, even though the European Court has not recognized same-sex marriage as a right. It has instead decided that civil unions adequately protect the right to privacy and family life of individuals who identify as LGBT.
The Inter-American Court also cited the non-binding LGBT activist Yogyakarta Principles as if they were a semi-official authority alongside the non-binding UN resolutions and opinions of UN expert bodies. It even cited the acceptance of LGBT non-binding recommendations during the Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council.
The Court urged nations to quickly modify their laws to permit homosexual marriage or to take steps to make it happen. It cited its doctrine of constitutional control whereby its opinions are to be treated as binding precedents by courts on the entire American continent.
With regard to religious objections, the said that “such convictions cannot affect what the Convention establishes about discrimination based on sexual orientation.”