“Gay” activism and its demand for “marriage” rights, adoption rights and spousal benefits has taken a hit in a normally progressive forum with the rejection by the European Court of Human Rights of a lesbian’s attempt to adopt her partner’s child.
The case came out of France, where the lesbian had demanded the right to adopt her partner’s daughter, only to be refused by French courts. The courts ruled that only married couples are allowed the privilege.
The European court then rejected a claim that the discrimination was based on the woman’s sexual lifestyle, pointing out that all unmarried couples in France face the same ban.
Gregor Puppinck of the European Center for Law and Justice said the ruling “provides important specifications on the issue of adoption and artificial procreation for homosexual partners.”
The ruling, 6-1, is a “severe defeat for the LGBT rights advocates,” he said.
The case was Gas at DeBois v. France.
Puppinck explained that one woman wanted to adopt a child born to her “female partner” by means of artificial insemination.
“The French courts refused the adoption because it would deprive the biological mother of her rights and parental authority in respect of the child, and therefore, it would run against the child’s best interests,” he said.
The women claimed it infringed on their right to a private family life and was discriminatory.
Not so, said the judges.
They said that the Convention on Human Rights “does not require states to open marriage to a homosexual couple” and that “if a state chooses to provide same-sex couples with an alternative means of recognition, it enjoys a certain margin of appreciation to decide on the exact nature of the status conferred.”
Puppinck reported the court’s opinion confirmed “this particular status does not have to be identical to that conferred by marriage.”
And since heterosexual couples in civil partnerships cannot adopt the children of their partners, there is no basis for a claim based on sexual lifestyle choices.
Also, the ruling addressed artificial insemination, which under French law is confined to infertile heterosexual couples.
“Under French law, the treatment should aim to remedy infertility of a pathological nature which has been medically established or to prevent the transmission of a serious illness. Obviously, infertility amongst homosexual couples does not exist due to such physical causes. This is a very important position because the strategy of homosexual couples is to rely on the right to access to health care. However, their infertility is not caused by pathological factors, and so the function of medicine is not to fulfill their desire to have children. However, artificial insemination with anonymous donor sperm is not, strictly speaking, a therapeutic remedy, because the pathology of infertility is not addressed,” Puppinck’s report said.
One judge also noted, “There are areas where the national legislature is better placed than a European judge to change the institutions that affect the family.”
“This judgment is a severe defeat for the homosexual lobby and the coalition of [non-governmental organizations] that have brought this case which … attempts to use the European Court to impose, from above, its interests and choices,” Puppinck said.
Whether the influence of the judgment will make its way to the U.S., where homosexual groups with great success have gone to courts to have “gay” duos established as “married couples” remains to be seen.
Most of the U.S. states where same-sex duos are recognized as “married” have adopted that policy through judicial fiat.
