However, as the Court itself had emphasized on countless occasions when it was occupied to justify its special status, marriage has social and symbolic connotations that cannot easily be dismissed. Finland delivered on 13 November passed almost unnoticed, is symptomatic of the fact that the widespread discrimination and human rights abuse that transgender persons suffer from remain largely ignored or neglected. Or, the Court could interpret Article 12 more broadly to apply to married life in general and in particular to any interference resulting in the termination of marriage as exemplified by this case. The Court would be well advised to accept the request pending before it that the case be referred to its Grand Chamber, before such an erroneous interpretation of the law becomes too entrenched. Thus, the Court ignored the situation in many European countries which ban same-sex marriage, but which do not at the same time make legal gender recognition contingent on the divorce of the person concerned. By construing the case in this manner, the Court mistakenly relied on the broad consensus against same-sex marriage in Europe, as per the Schalk and Kopf ruling. Either the Court could opt for a narrow interpretation of Article 12 as applying strictly to the foundational act of marriage.
© 2020 k000k.com - All rights reserved. All Models are over 21 y.o.