..
Another formerly devout Catholic country takes a large step towards Sodom. Are these the consequences of the Satanic paedophile priests and Bishops of the Catholic Church?
First same-sex couples marry in Chile as new law takes effect
By Doug Cunningham
Two men became the first same-sex couple legally married in Chile as a new law took effect Thursday.
Photo By Alberto Valdes/EPA-EFE
March 10 (UPI) -- Two gay men were the first same-sex couple legally married in Chile Thursday as the nation's new marriage law took effect.
Javier Silva and Jaime Nazar were married shortly after 7 a.m. local time in Santiago. Chilean Justice Minister Hernán Larraín and Deputy Human Rights Secretary Lorena Recabarren attended the wedding.
"It is a terrific moment for us as a couple," Silva told the Washington Blade. "This act will be felt across Chile."
Consuelo Morales and Pabla Heuser were married less than half an hour after the men were wed.
Morales said she and Heuser got married for the sake of their two-year-old daughter Josefa. Josefa was born through reciprocal in vitro fertilization.
"It was our dream that we both be her parents," Morales told BBC News.
Civil unions have been legal in Chile since 2015. But same sex marriages were illegal until the new law took effect Thursday.
Legal same sex marriage has more benefits under the law than civil unions do. Until this new law, only one of the two people in a same-sex partnership had full parental rights.
The same-sex marriage law in Chile was introduced by former left-wing President Michelle Bachelet. The law was enacted by her right-wing successor, President Sebastian Piñera.
British appeals court blocks same-sex marriage for Bermuda,
Cayman Islands
By Adam Schrader
The pride flag flies next to European flags in front of European council headquarters in Brussels, Belgium,
in May 2017. File Photo by Olivier Hoslet/EPA
March 14 (UPI) -- A top appeals court in Britain on Monday blocked same-sex marriage in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands after siding with the governments of the two self-governing overseas territories in two landmark rulings.
The Cayman Islands case stems from two women, Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush, who were refused an application to marry in 2018 because local marriage law defined marriage as "the union between a man and a woman as husband and wife," according to court documents.
Day and Bush successfully sued the government in a case heard before Chief Justice Anthony Smellie on the grounds that the marriage law conflicted with the Cayman Islands Constitution.
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands found that the law violated the rights of Day and Bush to private and family life and their freedoms including the freedom to manifest their belief in marriage, according to court documents. The Grand Court then modified the marriage law to define "marriage" as "the union between two people as one another's spouses."
However, the case was successfully appealed by the government to the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, which ruled that the right to marriage under the constitution did not extend to same-sex couples but that Day and Bush were entitled to legal protection functionally equivalent to marriage.
Bush and Day then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which serves as the final appeals court for Bermuda and the Cayman Islands despite the fact they are administered as their own nations.
However, the couple could still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.
"The right to marry in section 14(1) of the Bill of Rights has been drafted in highly specific terms to make it clear that it is a right "freely to marry a person of the opposite sex,'" the Privy Council wrote in its unanimous judgment.
"It is obvious that this language has been used to emphasize the limited ambit of the right and to ensure that it could not be read as capable of covering same-sex marriage."
The Privy Council ruled that the interpretations of other stipulations in the Constitution cannot circumvent the explicit limit on marriage established in the Bill of Rights.
However, the Privy Council noted that its interpretation of the Bill of Rights in the judgment does not prevent the legislative assembly in the Cayman Islands from passing laws that recognize same-sex marriage.
"The effect of the interpretation endorsed by the Board is that this is a matter for the choice of the Legislative Assembly rather than a right laid down in the Constitution," the Privy Council wrote in its judgment.
The Bermuda case came after the Bermudian Parliament passed a law in 2018 voiding same-sex marriages but allowing for same-sex couples to enter domestic partnerships, according to court documents.
The law was challenged to the Supreme Court of Bermuda by a series of people affected by it, including a Bermudian LGBTQ+ charity on the grounds that the provision revoking same-sex marriage went against the constitution of Bermuda.
The Supreme Court ruled that the provision did contradict the Bermudian constitution but case was appealed by the attorney general to the Court of Appeal of Bermuda, which upheld most of the Supreme Court's ruling.
The attorney general then appealed the case to the Privy Council, which struck down the rulings of the two lower courts in a 4-1 decision with Lord Phillip Sales dissenting.
The Bermuda case largely revolved around the religious belief in the right to same-sex marriage, with the Privy Council ruling that the legislation does not prevent people from holding such a belief but that the government is not required to provide for such a legal right under existing law.
"[The law] does not prevent a church or other religious body from carrying out a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple and giving recognition to such a marriage as a matter of religious practice within their faith community," the Privy Council wrote.
"The protection of a 'practice' does not extend to a requirement that the state give legal recognition to a marriage celebrated in accordance with that practice."
The Privy Council then made a series of comparisons, including that "the protection of a belief in the right to life does not compel the state to ban all forms of abortion ... just as the protection of a belief in communism does not require the state to adopt a particular form of government."
"In making those comparisons, the Board does not seek to diminish or understate the importance of marriage as a fundamental social institution or the value of social recognition of committed and loving relationships," the judges wrote.
Ben Tonner, an attorney for the couple in the Cayman Islands case, told the Cayman Compass that they are "extremely disappointed with the Privy Council's judgment issued earlier today."
"Were it not for their courage in standing up for their rights, and the rights of many others, there would still be no legal framework for the recognition of same-sex couples in the Cayman Islands [allowed under the Civil Partnership Act]," Tonner said.
"Their strength and bravery throughout these proceedings has been truly inspirational."
BREAKING: U.S. Congressmen Complain to UN
About Blocking Pro-life Groups
By Austin Ruse | March 14, 2022
Sima Sami Bahous, Executive Director for UN Women UN Photo/Manuel Elías
NEW YORK, March 14 (C-Fam) Twenty-five U.S. Congressmen have joined 400 international groups, and almost 9,000 individuals complaining to the UN that pro-life groups are being blocked from participating in a UN process connected to a major negotiation.
The letter, organized by Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO), and sent to UN Women Executive Director, says, “It has come to our attention that NGO CSW has repeatedly denied the parallel event applications of several pro-life and pro-family organizations in recent years.”
The letter continues, “NGO CSW informed these organizations it was because their events and ideas did not ‘align with NGO CSW’ values.” The letter calls these developments “very troubling.”
Representative Boebert told the Friday Fax, “UN Women receives $11.3 million dollars every year from the American taxpayers, and if they wish to continue to receive those funds, they should immediately change course and allow organizations like C-Fam to participate in future summits.”
The UN Commission on the Status of Women, which will negotiate a non-binding document that will later appear at the UN General Assembly, began meeting this week, along with “parallel” events hosted by non-profit advocacy groups. In years past, conservative groups were allowed to host panels but not this year.
Pro-life and pro-family groups began getting rejection letters earlier this year and in comparing notes, the group realized all conservative groups have been rejected. At the same time, on a listserv of NGO CSW, there have been increasing calls to have conservative groups kicked out of the UN altogether.
While NGO CSW is a project of “civil society”, it gets its mandate from UN Women, the $1 billion a year UN agency dedicated to left wing feminism. As such, NGO CSW is acting as an agent of the United Nations.
The precedent for blocking pro-life and pro-family groups from UN processes was set in 2019 when the UN Population Fund blocked such groups from the Nairobi Summit on reproductive health.
One of the main issues for the left is that pro-life groups have been so successful over the years in blocking the radical feminist agenda. Though feminists have tried for more than 25 years to garner a global right to abortion, they have failed in no small part because of the persistence of pro-life groups.
In the current debate, feminists have said the presence of pro-life groups makes them feel “unsafe” and that the Commission on the Status of Women is their own bailiwick. They say they have the right to keep out those who disagree.
As the Boebert letter says, “…[it seems] as though UN Women and Member States are no longer interested in facilitating inclusive and respectful dialogue on issues that affect women and, instead, want to enforce a kind of global feminist orthodoxy, siding with powerful governments and special interests who want to silence pro-life and pro-family organizations…”
The document under discussion starting this week is loaded with leftwing language, including language promoting abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and much else. These are highly controversial topics at the UN and have never been accepted by the consensus of the General Assembly. It is expected that most, if not all, will be removed during negotiations. It might happen that the meeting will end without agreement at all, as has happened in other commissions over such controversial language.
Biden, through a despicable arrangement with Nigeria, was able to get some of that woke, PCMad language through the UN, at the cost of many Christian lives and well-being.
=====================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment