Queerty is better as a member
From here on out, Hungary will consider only opposite marriage to be legal, according to the country’s new constitutional revisions. (Also: No abortions.)
A little depth here would be nice. Being in the EU, Hungary *has* to offer civil unions. Rather than being the backward nation implied in the headline, then, it appears they’re further along than us.
There is nothing in EU rules that state that its members have to offer Civil Unions. In fact members are currently not even obliged to recognise same sex unions from other member states. Both of these are likely to change before long but it will be a difficult process.
From what I can gather on the net,EU members must recognize each other’s documents of marriage/civil unions, but it appears Sapienthomo is correct that each individual country is not required to offer SSM OR CU.
It is *proposed.*
Thankfully this is only a proposal for the new constitution. Sadly, it is likely to pass though as there was a huge right wing victory in the last elections. My bet is that the abortion thing will be taken out but the same sex marriage ban will stay in. KDNP, Hungary’s version of the religious wrong will make sure of that.
Hungary provides registered partnerships (Hungarian: bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolat) to same-sex couples since 1 July 2009. This institution offers nearly all the benefits of marriage. The unregistered cohabitation (élettársi kapcsolat) of same-sex couples was recognised and placed on equal footing with the unregistered cohabitation of different-sex couples in 1996.
I agree that this post is completely lacking in perspective. Even if this constitutional ban goes through, it still has a relationship law that is equivalent to France, the UK or even California, but this vague little post makes it sound like it’s some backwards conservative theocracy like Poland.
Thank you to all the people who have sent in corrections.
Okay #6 & 7 if the CU’s give almost all the benefits of marriage then why put a marriage ban in the Constitution? (I’m not doubting you, just asking). I think for myself and many others what makes this disconcerting is that Same Sex Marriage is now legal in quite a number of places, this is not a new discussion, the sky has not fallen in places where SSM does exist, so it raises questions in my mind why this hateful, narrow minded thing “needs” to be in the Constitution. And historically, Constitutions exist to GIVE and DEFINE rights, NOT take them away. This is not a small thing, philosophically and from a legal (as in try to remove it later)point of view.
If they place a SSM ban in the constitution then expect to see an immediate legal challenger to its constitutionality.
If the Hungarian Supreme Court finds the ban consitutional, then it will be appealed to the European Court of Justice.
Need an account? Register It's free and easy.
Here's The Internal Document The Salvation Army Doesn't Want You To See
That Time Colton Haynes And Greg Berlanti Hit A Gay Piano Bar, Plus James Franco Hires A Bodyguard
Here's What You Need To See At Sundance 2015
Parents Warned That Vaccinating Kids May Turn Them Gay