December 6th, 2011

Hungarian gay rights groups go to European Parliament, Council of Europe over “family defense” bill

Human rights groups have appealed to the European Parliament (EP) and the Council of Europe to appeal the family defence bill, calling it discriminatory.

Háttér Társaság a Melegekért (Background Society for Homosexuals) official Tamás Dombos told Népszabadság that the bill could push hundreds of thousands of couples into a position of legal uncertainty.

The draft stipulates that families are solely based on heterosexual marriage or common-law partnerships.

The human right groups noted that the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that all co-habiting couples constitute a family, regardless of sexuality.

Christian Democrat chairman Tamás Lukács told Magyar Hírlap on Monday that Parliament’s human rights committee had ruled that the bill was “fit for general debate”.
The national society of large families also welcomed the bill, saying it could increase family stability in Hungary.

For more than 15 years, Hungary Around the Clock has published the premier daily news briefing available for business executives, diplomats, journalists and other decision-makers who need to stay abreast of political, economic and general news about Hungary. For a free one-week trial subscription delivered to you by e-mail or fax, please click here.
Please note that due to a large volume of trolling and false abuse flags, we are currently only accepting comments from logged-in users.
  • Lily

    oh no, imagine what would happen if people could marry someone of the same sex!! The world would end! The country would collapse overnight because no one would want to be heterosexual any more!! Women would finally get to orgasm!

    AAHHH…the sky is falling! Yes, Yes, oh GOD, YES!

  • Andy

    I’m sick and tired of gays, usually at gun point, forcing married couples to abuse their children or divorce.

  • Leto

    Let me welcome the bill along with the national society of large families. 🙂

    • democrat

      ….which society comprises largely middle class families and few, if any, Roma families. This is an elete lobby group who have secured benefits which could probably have gone to more needy families. Small families can be poor too!!

  • cogito

    Marriage as an institution precedes all other human institutions, including the state and religious institution. In fact, it is the source of all other institutions. As such, it had the following major constitutive characteristics from its very beginnings: a union between a man and woman, for the procreation and upbringing of children and for the mutual help of spouses.

    Therefore, already the definition and description of this eminently important institution, by the virtue of its stated goals and assumed role in the development of human society, is inherently discriminative: it clearly defines who can and who cannot participate in this institution. Gay people, as men and women, were not excluded as long as they appreciated the above-described two main goals of marriage. People, despite their ability to love another person, who lacked the aptitude (except for medical disorder or disability to procreate), were excluded: siblings, parents-children, adult dependents (people who lacked the mental and emotional aptitude to support a spouse or a child). In other words, the main reason for discrimination in who can get married is aptitude and not gender.

    Society continues to discriminate according to aptitude even if it has gender, racial or cultural connotations. We have separate schools for boys and girls (the aptitude there is determined primarily by social standards: how boys and girls are able to relate to one another at certain age, and only in a secondary way, how that influences academic performance). We have male female sports and sports teams. We discriminate culturally (and so, implicitly racially): I can belong to a Japanese cultural club only if I do not demand that the club’s customs and traditions will be changed in order to accommodate my own ethnic customs and traditions). On the international level, for example a Chinese person cannot demand a change to the Hungarian constitution to include him, while not a Hungarian citizen, even though he/she can claim common humanity. In other words, we always have and continue to discriminate in our institutions, and we do apply the separate but equal principle when it is necessary.

    Therefore, the campaign by the gay lobby to turn the re-definition of marriage into a human rights issue is utterly despicable. It is a strategic and political move and it has nothing to do with the truth about marriage.

    The fact is that same-sex couples, by default and not by exception (for example, because of existing medical conditions), cannot have children without the involvement of a third person. Therefore, a same-sex couple is cannot satisfy the requirements of marriage and family.

  • Replier

    “Therefore, the campaign by the gay lobby to turn the re-definition of marriage into a human rights issue is utterly despicable.”

    It is the legal (and hence often economic) benefits that marriage brings that makes it a human rights issue… tax breaks, shared ownership, inheritance, the right to be present in medical emergencies, etc.

    As you point out, our institutions are so heavily reliant upon the concept of marriage that often there is no easy way to replicate such a legal standing between 2 (or, in some cultures, more) people without a whole host of individual contractual agreements…. many of which may or may not be honoured internationally.

    You intertwine marriage and family, but whilst the benefits of marriage certainly help to provide a stable base to raise a child, not all that can procreate do. So even if one argued that the restriction of such benefits (aka marriage) to only hetero couples is justified because they procreate, you would have to restrict it to only those that actually do.

    “In other words, we always have and continue to discriminate in our institutions, and we do apply the separate but equal principle when it is necessary.”

    We ‘discriminate’, as you put it, girls and boys from playing some sports together because of the natural difference in strength; in some schools with an aim to improve academic performance; restrict behaviours in clubs and societies to (rightly or wrongly) protect a ‘culture’. All these have a beneficial aim. I don’t really see what the beneficial aim is of discriminating non-procreating couples from the legal benefits of marriage?

All content © 2004-2015 The All Hungary Media Group. Articles, comments and other information on the All Hungary Media Group's network of sites are provided "as is" without guarantees, warranties, or representations of any kind, and the opinions and views expressed in such articles and columns are not necessarily those of the All Hungary Media Group.