European Politics

I wonder how long it will last, then. The EU will eventually declare gay marriage a human right.
 
Unfortunately that will take long, probably. There's still lots of gay-hate in the union. Gay expression is something that's not accepted well in middle/eastern Europe. Gay marriage in all EU states sounds like something for the 22nd or 23rd century.

The first three articles of EQUALITY from the charter of fundamental rights of the EU:


CHAPTER III
EQUALITY
Article 20
Equality before the law
Everyone is equal before the law.

Article 21
Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic
features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority,
property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any
discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

Article 22
Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity
The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity


I am afraid that articles 20 and 21 clash "somewhat" with 22.
 
I already spoke about this in gay marriage thread. Some clarification is in order; the law prohibits the use of the word "marriage", "brak" in Croatian, for anything beside man-woman union. So laws won't be around marriages that umbrella any kind of marriage, they'll be around marriages and same-sex unions and whatever and whatever. There's no cutting down anyone's rights. Yet. Homosexual marriages were never institutionalized in Croatia. There's not even an initiative for such a thing.
We have an anti-gay constitutional referendum that just prohibited usage of the word to gays, that Croatian gays don't want to even use.

It doesn't seem to make much sense, but it's obviously the perfect reflection of the climate around here...the participation was really low, below 25% of voter corpus. The anti-gay option is well funded and mobilized, and since their prime sponsor is Church, they can count on khm. rural type of people because those tend to do as the priest tells them. Whole far right went out, 15% of the population. The rest pretty much ignored it, the referendum, for various reasons with no direct relation with this "gay issue" (politics and stuff). The goal they were trying to achieve isn't even threatening to other minorities.

You should see some of the demographic interpolations. Above 90% anti-gay for counties with 5-10% illiteracy rate and 10%-20% uneducated. Dalmatian hinterland. Between 60-70% pro-gay in most of Istria and Rijeka (Fiume) region.

Anyways, here we have this "citizens initiative" In The Name Of The Family. Their chairman, a well stuffed fascist woman, owns a multi million villa, on a piece of land that Church stole and then sold to her for peanuts. Then you have the whole clergy, who had never so stepped out of their boundaries. Right wing has been shattered to small fragments, without influence - on the state levels. Because of politics. The people's support always remained the same. The referendum is a platform for right-wing unification. It's destined to show they can mobilize and directly change something.

Current Croatian constitution is a next iteration of 1974 socialist constitution, with all the non-democratic stuff replaced with equivalent from French constitution. And yes we are in European Union, and no, you cannot declare a referendum on cutting someone's rights. By the constitutional court, this cause was declared valid, as it doesn't prohibit anything for anyone, apart from the free usage of the word. Well, institution terminology is, in any case, strictly defined.

About the only way for people to bypass government is to ask for a constitution amending referendum. Your request cannot be in conflict with other parts of the constitution. We most certainly have each and every rights-protection there already, so...

In this form, it's not an direct act. The current trends of extremism in Europe are rather alarming. About Croats...I'm not impressed, at all. Statistically, 1 out of 8 is an retard? I knew that beforehand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder how long it will last, then. The EU will eventually declare gay marriage a human right.
Click to expand...

I don't think that marriage qualifies as a human right. Family, yes, but marriage is completely unrelated.
 
Cause it's a piece of paper. It's more of a contractual thing, so that courts have guidelines and laws what to do, in case it breaks up.
People can establish healthy families without ever formalizing their relationship. They should not have to get married for their rights and benefits to apply.

Stuff like this doesn't belong in constitutions. Only 5 EU members have such amendments.
 
That is exactly what it is .. a contract that is not extended to gay couples (I think it should) .. but the way to sell it is as a contract . not a sacrament .. which is why I think countries that realistically will not pass something called gay marriage, should push for civil unions and emphasize the contractual portion of it .. which is really the part that matters .. equality before the state.
 
Thing is I'm fine with marriage being whatever, civil unions being whatever, but if you're telling person A&B they can have a contract that gives them tax benefits and stuff, and person C&D they can't because they both have vaginas, then there's an equality rights issue there.

Either make it so everyone has access to the same contract it or make it so there's no need for legal recognition and let people do whatever they want.
 
Granting everyone access to the contract makes the most sense .. there are contractual benefits and some drawbacks to being married .. but I think that contract is important if anything to ensure a fair division in case of divorce.

I think it would be easier to push for that (just by not calling it marriage) in some places .. and from a legal point of view, it would be the same thing. It would be nice if it could have the same term, but the term is really meaningless if legally the contract is the same.

Completely off topic, but in the US and in other places I assume people are prevented from being married if they are a close relation to prevent issues with kids/keep te genetic pool moving (and it is kinda creepy .. but there is a scientific reason to keep first cousins from marrying or brother/sister) .. is there really a need for that in a gay union/marriage since conception is impossible?
 
bearfan said:
I think it would be easier to push for that (just by not calling it marriage) in some places .. and from a legal point of view, it would be the same thing. It would be nice if it could have the same term, but the term is really meaningless if legally the contract is the same.
Click to expand...

My biggest problem but that is dealt with in Brown v. Board. "Separate but equal" can never be equal. I remain a fan of everyone gets a civil union from the government, and people can call it whatever the fuck they want. Want a church wedding? There's churches that'll do it in all 50 states if you're gay. Even Alabama.

bearfan said:
Completely off topic, but in the US and in other places I assume people are prevented from being married if they are a close relation to prevent issues with kids/keep te genetic pool moving (and it is kinda creepy .. but there is a scientific reason to keep first cousins from marrying or brother/sister) .. is there really a need for that in a gay union/marriage since conception is impossible?
Click to expand...

Who knows? Interesting question though!
 
LooseCannon said:
My biggest problem but that is dealt with in Brown v. Board. "Separate but equal" can never be equal. I remain a fan of everyone gets a civil union from the government, and people can call it whatever the fuck they want. Want a church wedding? There's churches that'll do it in all 50 states if you're gay. Even Alabama.
Click to expand...

I think it is a bit different though .. since the only part of the marriage/union the state is involved with (at least in the US) is what you file at the courthouse .. beyond that you can have a state official marry you, you can go to a church, you can have a guy who is a minister after filling out a form on the internet marry you. Not every church will marry all people now, I cannot go to a Synagogue and be married as I am not Jewish for example. Once the state part is done, everything else is just ceremony but does not add any legal force. So long as the state part carries the same rights, there really is no separate but equal .. as everything else is in the private sector
 
Although Turkey isn't fully a European country, I think it's fair to talk about their politics in this thread. All in all we're part of Europe and there's no "Asian Politics" or "Eurasian Politics" thread. Posting stuff related to politics in the 100k thread always seemed odd to me, so there you go.

Some businessmen, son of the minister of economy, son of the minister of environment, son of the interior minister, some people connected to the government have been taken into custody for an alleged 87 billion dollar defraudation today. The background of the story is depending on the recent fallout and growing tension between the congregation and the government party, it's no surprise that the congregation is going full force on government with their connections in the very much corrupt judicial system of the country. It was just a matter of time until this connection between them fell apart. Except for the government's supporters, we all knew what the hell this government was doing all along.

As an hater of both the congregation, the government party, the corrupt judicial system, the rich sons of ministers, the lying/cheating rich businessmen, I'm both excited and worried. This is the fight of two bad big boys we're witnessing. The whole thing is very deep and I'd be writing for hours if I were to go into details so I'll leave it like this. It's not a given that these people will be punished, I expect them not to be actually. They probably won't resign and they probably will get elected again in 2015. That's how we roll, sadly.
 
Last edited:
Asocial behaviour by diplomats, part II. The Belgian Foreign Minister has had enough of unpaid fines and issues warnings and mentions countries by name for the first time:


Malta's EU mission in Brussels gets warning over unpaid fines

Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders, replying to a parliamentary question, said that over the past three years, the Foreign Office was informed of 971 cases of unpaid fines related to parking tickets or other traffic offences by diplomats of various countries. This, he said, was an abuse of the Vienna treaty on Diplomatic Relations.

The worst offenders among the ‘traditional’ country embassies were Saudi Arabia and India. Turkish diplomats were the worst among the Permanent Representatives to NATO.

As to the European institutions in Brussels, the Permanent Representatives of Greece, Germany, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia and Cyprus had received warnings.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top