European court rules that Romania must legally recognize same-sex unions

20 comments
  1. We must pay fines, u must legalize LGBTQ.. and the western countries are examples of 21st century authoritarianism..

    it’s not like in democracy people of a given country decide what they want their country to be like, oh no..

    you MUST obey the masters in Brussels!

  2. I mean we kind of need to do that not going to lie.

    At least it’s the decent thing to do to recognize same-sex unions if not marriages, people with different sexual orientations are pretty much entirely ignored here.

  3. I’m all about same sex marriage but other countries telling one country how to act is historically not awesome

  4. Hehe.. give the right wing more ammo… It’s not like next year we will vote for all the elections possible (EU parliament, presidential, local, and parliament) …

    Edit : Clusterf*ck ensured.

  5. This is authoritarianism.

    Great job EU, that’s how you get people to be and more against you. That’s how you’re indirectly awakening fascism.

  6. Don’t get me wrong, I like the result of the case, but this is a very broad interpretation of article 8 of the Convention. The Convention was adopted in the 1950’s, clearly it was not meant to legalize same-sex unions. These kinds of decisions should be taken by democratically elected legislators, not judges.

  7. I think it’s a little sad it actually had to come from the echr, it should just be accepted in this day and age but still good news.

  8. I know the title doesn’t exactly help, but does nobody even click on the article? This has nothing to do with the EU. This is a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, a completely different institution.

  9. This already gonna make PIS and other right-wing parties in Poland get at least +1pp in election results. It will be used against the EU as “Evil Eurocrats force on independent country harmful ideology”

  10. Maybe slightly off topic, but the whole “instrument vivant” thing really annoys me, considering it’s just a way for the EHRC to say that the Convention says whatever they currently decide it says.

    Does the text and the intention in which it was written as of the time of writing even matter if the Court can just claim that they’ve *found* something in the Convention which absolutely wasn’t written in there before, but they have decided it *should* follow from what was written? It makes them judge ethics more so than legality.

Leave a Reply