A week or so ago Sir Mark Potter rejected the case of Mrs Kitzinger and Mrs Wilkinson, who married in Canada a few years ago. Had they been a man and a woman, British law would have recognised their marriage. In fact, theoretically, before the Civil Partnership Act came into force, their marriage would have been recognised because it was legal in Canada.
Potter said that it was discriminatory not to recognise their marriage, but it was justified as marriage is an instution protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, and it would be "to fly in the face of the Convention" to allow their marriage. However, politicans and judges from other countries have already interpreted this in favour of gay couples - Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium all have gay marriage. Clearly Sir Mark Potter is off the mark, so to speak, in departing from the advanced position of other European countries.
Optional extra question: should Sir Mark Potter be hung by his balls from barbed wire?
2006-08-08
08:55:05
·
14 answers
·
asked by
quierounvaquero
4
in
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender