But I asked why.(Original post by mmmpie)
It's widely accepted as being one. It's in the UDHR, ECHR, EU CFR, ICCPR, ICESCR etc. In some conventions (usually the older ones) the wording is specifically "man and woman", in others it's more neutral.
Such conventions mostly incorporate wording regarding the convention being able to extend rights by way of reinterpretation, but not restrict them except as expressly provided. The "man and woman" language found in the UDHR, for example, is therefore not a bar to interpreting human rights conventions as providing for same-sex marriage.
Not who accepts it.
Is it a waste of public money that an MP calls for gay marriage referendum? Watch
- 17-05-2013 18:03
- 17-05-2013 18:22
- 17-05-2013 18:42
What is the rational, the logic, the foundation of it being so.
I mean it's obviously not a very highly regarded human right, it's the only one I can think of for instance that you have to pay the government money to exercise.