Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

French gay couple lose adoption appeal at European Court

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good news, for once.

    1. How is this good news?

    2. Still want to know why you claim this is good news?

    3. Jock S. Trap 19 Mar 2012, 3:08pm

      Not for the children but then You people don’t ever think about the childs interest do you?!!

      1. TO whoever has inliked Jock’s comments, I think you may have misread his intentions. I think he means this is not good news for all concerned!

    4. Thankyou for your input Jean.

      Care to explain ?

    5. Commander Thor 19 Mar 2012, 6:33pm

      Flytipping.

  2. Civil partnerships (or PACS or however you want to call them) are a form of sexual apartheid.

    This we already know.

    So this result is no surprise.

    The Socialists need to win the next election if the Apartheid regime in France is to be defeated.

    That monstrous bigot Nicolas Sarkozy supports Aparthed after all.

    1. Unfortunately, dAVID, it’s not the PACS that are apartheid, as they are available to straights and gays. It’s the lack of equal marriage that’s apartheid.

  3. Such a shame for the family concerned!

    France really needs to look at its laws pertaining to same sex couples so they are equal to their straight conterparts!

  4. Every cloud, as they say.

    At least this case demonstrates the need for marriage equality everywhere.

  5. Father Dougal 19 Mar 2012, 2:56pm

    I don’t see the logic of the decision. Group A cannot adopt when in a PAC. Neither can group B. However group B are allowed to adopt if they do C. Group A are not allowed to do C.

    The court says this is not discrimination, because there is no right for group A to do C?

    It makes no sense at all.

    1. Perhaps the Court is indicating that another challenge to marriage laws in France is overdue

      1. SUrely if that is the case then they should have sided with the claimants forcing the French Government to look at its marraige laws?

        1. Yes, you’re probably right. So it looks like the court isn’t taking discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as seriously as other discrimination.

          If the court doesn’t uphold the rights of minorities then it is a waste of space.

    2. I think the court is making it clear what needs to change. The compromise that would have existed if the couple had won would have given strength to the argument that equal marriage is not needed in France.

      1. Father Dougal 19 Mar 2012, 7:36pm

        Not much comfort to the family in question.

  6. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 19 Mar 2012, 3:22pm

    Grr, that’s not good news. Interesting that both women have been called Madame rather than Mademoiselle, though. Incidentally, Pink News, please don’t say “straight couples” when you mean “mixed sex couples”. I’m in a mixed sex relationship, but neither of us is straight. Denying the existence of bisexuals by your use of language is not helping queer rights.

    1. True – and bisexual people chosing only to be out of the closet when it is convenient for them is equally damaging.

      How did your parents react when your partner came out as bi to them?

      How did his parents react when you came out as bi to them?

    2. Madame means an adult woman. Mademoiselle is a female child, like Master and Mister in English. This has been normal usage for a while but has recently been formalised in France. In English we use Miss to indicate that a woman cannot be considered an adult until she marries. All adult women should be Mrs.

      1. Surely all adult women should be Ms, Dromio?

    3. @Bisexual woman in Edinburgh — Strongly agree.

    4. Wether or not you are straight yourselves your still in a straight relationship! I have had straight relationships (back when I thought I was bi) and even though I was gay my relationship was straight.

  7. A classic example of absurd legal anomaly and injustice – the personal merits of the woman or the needs of the child she is seeking to adopt do not in this case even enter into contention. Joint adoption must be permitted under PACS, or France must open civil marriage (and all French marriages are civil) to all.
    Guess which would be simpler and fairer?

    1. Robert in S. Kengisnton 19 Mar 2012, 7:12pm

      As I intimated in my later comment below, this only proves how unequal PACS, CPs and other unions for gay people are across the EU. Civil marriage is the only union to resolve all of these problems once and for all.

  8. Robert in S. Kengisnton 19 Mar 2012, 3:53pm

    This is why I’ve been saying for a very long time that since CPs in the UK are not the norm for gay couples across the EU and elsewhere, only civil marriage equality will resolve the issue. CPs, are of course almost equal to marriage in the UK but once you take your CP to an EU country, few of the rights you already enjoy are not reciprocated in those member states that have varying degrees of legal unions for gay couples. How can even those in the UK who are against marriage equality claim that they are equal in the broader context? I raised the issue in the survey for the consultation. More of us should do just that.

  9. “When more Council of Europe countries than the current seven (out of 47) allow same-sex couples to marry, the court will be willing to consider ordering all of them to do so”

    Since when validity of the law depends on numbers, surely validity of the law should be based on logic. Its like saying; when more countries allow mixed race couples to marry the court will be willing to consider ordering all of them to do so”.

    Double standards anyone?

    1. Surely Court’s job is to decide if the law is equal for everybody. In this case Court’s verdict resembled political decision not legal one. Shame on The European Court of Human Rights

    2. Robert in S. Kengisnton 19 Mar 2012, 5:59pm

      I wonder what percentage of the 47 the Council would consider mandating same-sex marriage?

      1. I would guess that the whole of EU implementing equal marriage would be a good start for them. They think this particular human right is a hot political potato.

  10. DJ Sheepiesheep 19 Mar 2012, 6:42pm

    Thanks a lot, European Court of Human Rights. We can’t adopt and you won’t recognize the concept of same sex marriage, while at the same time you will recognize the right of prisoners to vote and the right of person not to be deported when they’ve committed a serious criminal offence just because they’ve had a child. Effing brilliant. Which bit of Human Rights don’t you get?

    1. Obviously you don’t get it either, since you don’t recognise criminals as human beings.

    2. Human Rights are for everyone, not just the people you like.

      1. DJ Sheepiesheep 19 Mar 2012, 11:52pm

        Listen, genius, the right to family life is a Convention Right. Would you like to give prisoners (note that word, numbnuts, it’s not criminals) the right to come and go as they please? Yeah, you probably do. Fortunately, the sane ones among us don’t.

        1. Father Dougal 20 Mar 2012, 12:46am

          So is the right not to be punished twice for the same crime. They are sentenced according to the criminal law, and pay the penalty. Apart from that they have the same rights as the rest of humanity. That includes the right to vote and not to have the additional punishment of being deported when they have a wife and kids here. They already got punished genius.

    3. Darth Dacre 20 Mar 2012, 10:26am

      DJ, have you considered writing for the Daily Mail? You’d fit right in.

      1. DJ Sheepiesheep 20 Mar 2012, 11:00am

        In case you haven’t noticed, my criticism of the ECHR was based on it’s failure the recognise the equality of a gay or lesbian family. I don’t think I’d fit in at the Mail. Given that as a country, and without any help from Europe, we have equalized the age of consent, introduced civil partnerships, are on the verge of marriage equality and have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation, I don’t think that I want to rely on the ECHR for my rights. If you think that my view that the UK and it’s electorate are grown up enough not to need to be dictated to by the ECHR puts me somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan, then so be it. But not every LGBT person (or our supporters) is a fan of a Court that won’t recognise the majority views of the UK in terms of marriage equality. Please don’t forget that the UK is a very very long way ahead of many European countries in relation to gay rights.

  11. I wish PN would provide a link to the judgement at the foot of the article.

  12. Another Hannah 19 Mar 2012, 10:07pm

    The hypocrisy of this is amazing. I thought the child came first? What do the European Court think the children are going to think of all the nasty old men when they grow up? Supposing there is a tragic accident, the children would be denied their home, and thrown around in adoption procedures. This is nasty, bigoted, illogical and CRUEL in the extreme. france really is backwards isn’t it. You would think the government would be ashamed to hold their head s up!

  13. Exactly what the Bulls were saying when they turned away 2 gay men in a Civil Partnership from their Cornish BB. “We only let double rooms to married people” That’s why gay MARRIAGE must happen!

    1. And hopefully the Bulls will be going to the ECHR.

      1. to have their arses kicked again! Anyway by the time their case gets looked at we’ll have SS marriage in the UK so they’ll have an even weaker case than they do now.

      2. “And hopefully the Bulls will be going to the ECHR.”

        Let them try, they’ve had a great track record so far in failing.

        A bit like you Aiden/Keith.

  14. de Villiers 19 Mar 2012, 11:18pm

    The obtaining of marriage for same-sex couples really has to be a political achievement.

    In America, the Supreme Court has granted rights which, decades later, still divide the country and have no political legitimacy. There is the absurd spectacle of same-sex marriage being decided in California by judges rather than by national assemblies.

    The attempt in Europe to secure same-sex marriage through the courts is misguided, will appear undemocratic and elevates the judiciary above elected assemblies. Political achievement is more important than the Court European of Human Rights.

    1. Father Dougal 20 Mar 2012, 12:55am

      This case was about adoption.

      1. de Villiers 21 Mar 2012, 9:55pm

        > But a chamber of seven judges upheld the European Court of Human Rights’ earlier view that gay couples do not yet have the right to access marriage equally.

        That was in the article. That the case was about adoption does not end the discussion on all the elements.

    2. “The attempt in Europe to secure same-sex marriage through the courts is misguided”

      However it is far less misguided than the HORRIFIC spectacle we see in the US, where human and civil rights are deemed an appropriate subject for popular vote.

      The court system is as integral to democracy as parliament. It is meant to safeguard the population (in this case the LGBT community) against the whims of Parliament or popular sentiment.

      What rights has the US Supreme Court granted than decades later have no poiltical legitimacy. I mean I know that the Republican Party is still racist, but even they accept that interracial marriage should be legal and have accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling on that.

      1. de Villiers 21 Mar 2012, 9:57pm

        The right to abortion is part of the culture wars in America. The issue of gay marriage through the courts led to suggestions of a constitutional amendment banning it.

        These matters are political issues and should be decided by political assemblies. All human rights and civil rights are matters for the democratic polity. They do not exist in a vacuum.

    3. ‘The attempt in Europe to secure same-sex marriage through the courts is misguided, will appear undemocratic and elevates the judiciary above elected assemblies.’

      Being a signatory to Human Rights Act, we have every right to use it when democratic and elected assemblies decide to deny us our human rights.

      1. de Villiers 21 Mar 2012, 9:55pm

        That is a misuse of the Human Rights Act where there is no popular consensus on the definition of marriage. That is a political and not a legal concept.

      2. de Villiers 21 Mar 2012, 9:59pm

        I use the word popular to mean not defined or accepted by a democratic assembly rather than in the meaning vulgar.

  15. May not be dscriminatory legally but it’s pretty damn cruel and illogical.

    So kids in a SS PACS (since they can’t get married in France) will be the ones to lose out. If one SS parent dies , the other parent has no rights over the child. What a cruel nasty mean small minded country to leave that child parentless despite the fact that he/she has been brought up with them.

    Honeslty so if the non related prent dies and leaves his/hers estate to the child then the child will have to pay 60% inheritance tax on the estate since they are unrelared whereas an adopted child will have automatic rights to the estate and pay very low IHT rates. It’s the child that is losing out and Sarkozy and the UMP party don’t give a damn.

  16. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Mar 2012, 1:42am

    Is it safe to come back on this site yet.

    Is the multi identitied alcoholic toon loon with the faeces and polygamy infatuation gone yet and if not why not. PN.

    Strange. I am actually scared to use this site now as it all seems pointless when they allow it to be taken over by Keith.

    We get enough issues in life without coming on to an allegedy gay site to receive our daily dose of abuse.

    1. I’m beginning to feel the same way. Yeah it can be fun to wind the loony up but eventually it just gets tedious. Plus once all his posts are removed the entire thread is left in disarray and it’s impossible to try and continue a discussion.

      I’m considering just leaving the boards here until some sort of sign in measure is set up and post on the PN facebook page until then.

  17. @Jean clearly had a moment to spare in her excruciatingly ‘happy’ existence to impart this wisdom.

    An interlude to twist the knife into complete strangers, to scratch that itch, to momentarily relieve that increasingly helpless…*something* in the back of her mind that only the mention of homosexuals can inflame. That impotence that’s sets her adrift in the modern world.

    It should go without saying that genuinely fulfilled, well-balanced people don’t troll news sites to inflict hurt, especially when the affected party (in this case, children) can’t, or aren’t able to defend themselves. Sadly, with derangement comes lack of self-awareness.

    1. DJ Sheepbrains 20 Mar 2012, 10:18am

      Jean is a French boy’s name. I think it translates as “Keith”.

  18. Wouldn’t it have been much simpler to say the French system sucks and needs to be changed instead of them tieing themselves in knots with this convoluted legal argument? I can’t believe the European Court generated such a stupid ruling. It’s like they went out of there way to avoid doing the right thing. SHAMEFUL is what I’d call it.

    1. de Villiers 21 Mar 2012, 10:00pm

      It is a court not a Parliament.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all