A preceding article of the charter states this.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. "
So to me that says putting gender limitations on marriage rights would be a breach of that article.
Article 2, which you quoted, states that the rights contained in the Declaration extend to everyone. That's fine, I don't disagree with that. However, Article 16 does not extend a blanket right of marriage to men and women, you need to read it in toto per my previous post.
I'm pretty sure Article 16 was a direct response to the Nuremberg laws.
The people who care most about children, all else being equal, are their biological parents.
Article 2 states that the rights extend to everyone regardless of gender, and that gender isn't a determining factor.
So how then can gender be used as a test to see if a marriage is valid?
Its a bit like the USA declaration of independence states
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Now, they had slavery at the time, and the statement might not have been written with the intent of freeing the slaves, however once you accept that statement, you must understand that it automatically follows that slavery is wrong.
Its the same with the statement of human rights, article 2 says gender isn't a valid test, yet we currently will deny marriages based on gender.
Its the same with the statement of human rights, article 2 says gender isn't a valid test, yet we currently will deny marriages based on gender.
Article 16 explicitly says it applies to both men and women, so I have no idea where you're trying to go with the gender argument..
. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status
Maybe you would like to take your interpretation to the Hague and get a ruling ?
Jane marries paul - valid
Tom marries paul - invalid
Tom can not marry paul because he is male, jane is allowed because she is female.
Paul is being restricted because of his gender, he should be entitled to marry tom just as jane can, restricting his rights to marry tom because of his gender goes against Article two.
There is no right to marry, there is only the right to marry without restrictions based on race, religion or nationality. Using your logic a polygamous or incestuous marriage would also be a human right.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family
Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.
It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.
The Declaration was signed in 1948. SSM was unknown then and homosexuality was still frowned on by many countries at the time, so it can hardly be said that the intention of this Declaration was to provide a basis for SSM.
I think you are reading too much into this document. It pretty clearly states support for men and women marrying the opposite sex and founding a family by natural means. You may like to think it supports your case for SSM, but that was not the intention imo.
Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.
It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.
-------------------
Read it slowly, especially the part after the third comma.
It clearly says a right to marry exists, and it doesn't say anything about only marrying the opposite sex.
One final observation, Article 16 begins with "men and women", every other article begins with "everyone". Quite a telling contrast.
Maybe because they didn't want to extend it to children, legitimising child marriage? It did commence "men and women of full age...."
Given the existence of a specific provision in the Covenant on the right to marriage, any claim that this right has been violated must be considered in the light of this provision. Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using the term "men and women", rather than "every human being", "everyone" and "all persons". Use of the term "men and women", rather than the general terms used elsewhere in Part III of the Covenant, has been consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that the treaty obligation of States parties stemming from article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is to recognize as marriage only the union between a man and a woman wishing to marry each other.
Clearly then it is "men AND women" which can be interpreted in the singular or the plural
If it was intended to exclude gay or lesbian unions it would have been worded " man and woman"
The fact that it was not indicates that the legislators intention was to be inclusive for all possible combinations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?