No right to same-sex marriage under the European Convention on Human Rights . . . yet

On 24 June 2010, a unanimous Chamber (7 judges) of the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not oblige Austria (and therefore the other 46 States Parties to the Convention) to grant same-sex couples access to marriage. Here is the judgment. The primary reason for the Chamber's holding is "[T]here is no European consensus regarding same-sex marriage. At present no more than six out of forty-seven Convention States allow same-sex marriage." (para. 58) Those six countries are Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

I don't think this judgment is legally surprising, and I would be surprised if a Grand Chamber (upon referral under Article 43) holds that Article 12 does require same-sex access to marriage. However, I will not be surprised if within my lifetime the Court departs from this Chamber's judgment because a European consensus has emerged to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. Only time will tell.

Perhaps the more legally interesting part of the judgment is the question of whether the lack of any means of legal recognition of same-sex couples (e.g., registered partnerships) violates Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. The majority dodged the question (para. 103), while a Joint Dissenting Opinion of three judges answered it this way: "Any absence of a legal framework offering them, at least to a certain extent, the same rights or benefits attached to marriage . . . would need robust justification, especially taking into account the growing trend in Europe to offer some means of qualifying for such rights or benefits." (para. 9) These three judges found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 because Austria did not advance a justification, let alone a robust one, for the absence of legal recognition until 1 January 2010. (para. 8) It would be worth reading how a Grand Chamber upon referral decides this particular question. Again, only time will tell.

The battle continues for freedom of religion in Canada

A private Catholic high school in Quebec, Canada (that "receives provincial government subsidies") has been exempted by the Quebec Superior Court from teaching a compulsory course on ethics from a secular perspective, as required by Quebec regulations. Instead, the school may teach the compulsory ethics course from its religious perspective. Read the Globe and Mail story here. For those who read French, the decision of the Quebec Superior Court can be found here.

Compassionate curses?

One could say that the Psalms are filled with what may seem like imprecatory prayers and petitions. But the same Psalmist who offered so many of such prayers and petitions, also said this:

"But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth; I humbled my soul with fasting, And my prayer kept returning to my bosom. I went about as though it were my friend or brother; I bowed down mourning, as one who sorrows for a mother." (Psalm 35:13-14 (NASB))

Who are "they"? King David is referring to "malicious witnesses", "smiters", "godless jesters", "the lions", and "enemies".

What do these verses from Psalm 35 reveal to us about David's character? About God's character? About the relationship between justice and compassion?

Food for thought on use of midwives

What do readers think of this NYTimes article?

Happy (early) Father's Day, Pops

While I sit here in Phnom Penh trying to think of a way to honour my Dad for this coming Father's Day, here are some things about my Dad that can't help but make me smile:

1. Dad's friendly way with people. Dad loves to chat, to joke, to smile, and to laugh with others;

2. Dad's impressive career: he retired from the RCMP in Jan. 2010 after 35 years of service.

3. I am impressed at Dad's fluency in French. Some day I want to follow in his footsteps and learn French too.

4. Dad's horrible jokes that he has been laying on Sean, Colin, me, and our friends since we were adolescents: "Did I give you permission to speak?" "I resemble those remarks."

5. Dad's horrible fashion sense: short bright blue running shorts with a beige golf shirt anyone? Thank God he has met Dorothy, his soon to be wife in September 2010. I worry that I might be inheriting Dad's poor fashion sense. Jen, please restrain me should I err down that path.

6. His hilarious golf swing, or should I say golf swing minus the back swing and more like a slap shot. Who can blame him. He grew up in a family who worshipped hockey; his mother, Rita, 91 years old, still faithfully watches the NHL. She must have been proud of the Habs this year.

7. More seriously: his generosity, kindness, and grace to Jen, Joshua, and me.

8. For all the times when I was young that he calmed me down or just showed me some love by scratching/rubbing my back. I have passed this soothing tradition on to Joshua, my 3 year old son.

9. Dad's an example of humble service by all the ways he volunteers with his Catholic parish and other community projects.

10. Finally . . . ok I gotta make this one a little funny . . . how Dad is a low maintenance cat. He just installed the internet at his home a few months back. Welcome to the 21st century, Dad. Man, I couldn't even convince you to use Skype! Maybe cause you have no idea what it is.

What are you reading these days?

I am reading "Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom" by Samuel Fisk, published in 1973. The book was recommended to me by Pastor Wayne A. Snyder who is a missionary here in Phnom Penh, Cambodia with Baptist World Mission. At the age of 64, Pastor Wayne and his wife, Dee, left the U.S. to be missionaries in Cambodia.

The right not to reveal your (non) religion

On 3 June 2010, a unanimous Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that "requiring the applicants to reveal their religious convictions in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration had interfered with their freedom of religion, and that the interference was neither justified nor proportionate to the aim pursued." See this press release on Dimitras et autres c. Grèce for details.