Hacker News Reader

Comment by maze-le | Hacker News Reader

>> Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

>> Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination:

>> The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. [0]

Granted, its not about marriage, but according to the ECHR, its a human right to live free of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[0]: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventio...

View on HN

I don't see anything about sexual orientation, just sex which would be about being male/female (possibly transexual depending on the interpretation?).

[Edit] There is this, which seems to leave it to the nations:

>>Article 12 – Right to marry

>> Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Discriminating against sexual orientation isn't possible without discriminating against sex. A woman is allowed to marry a man, but a man is not.

Both man and women have the right to enter marriage, which is defined in the document as the union between Man and Women (Much clearer in the french version).

People are starting to realize that this definition is incompatible with rules against gender-based discrimination.

I am a person. And I am not starting to, at all.

I mean that there's a building legal recognition that laws against sex discrimination are incompatible with laws that discriminate against sexual orientation or gender identification. I did not mean that every single person on earth is aware of being at the start of a personal change.

That's only if you believe that discrimination (selection bias) is the same as discrimination (categorizing). There's no apparent failure of logic until you start confusing them (eg "starting to realize"). If some people are starting to believe that the definitions are synonymous, they are wrong and will have to deal with the issues that naturally occur when you confuse ideals with reality. Generally some population group suffers for another population group to be supplicated in an arbitrary way.

This isn't about the kind of discrimination being allowed. This is about which groups we apply protections to. Do you also think I'm mistaken that a law defining marriage as the union between two people of the same race is incompatible with a law forbidding racial discrimination in marriage rights?

How does Russia remain a signatory?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com