Concern expressed over yet another EU "Equality" directive

[McDave]

EU Parliament Removes Religious Exemption: Churches Could be Forced to Perform Same-Sex "Marriages"

What kind of source is "lifesitenews"?

Rhetorical question. Lots of moralistic content (Obama's anti-life record; preachy stuff about homos and abortion). Can't say it sounds very objective to me. Wouldn't think they've a constructive view on any aspect of the law on equality matters in the EU, its member states or anywhere else for that matter.

[Earnest]

From the Commission document (COM(2008) 426 final) introducing the directive:

The diversity of European societies is one of Europe's strengths, and is to be respected in line
with the principle of subsidiarity. Issues such as the organisation and content of education,
recognition of marital or family status, adoption, reproductive rights and other similar
questions are best decided at national level. The Directive does not therefore require any
Member State to amend its present laws and practices in relation to these issues. Nor does it
affect national rules governing the activities of churches and other religious organisations or
their relationship with the state. So, for example, it will remain for Member States alone to
take decisions on questions such as whether to allow selective admission to schools, or
prohibit or allow the wearing or display of religious symbols in schools, whether to recognise
same-sex marriages, and the nature of any relationship between organised religion and the
state.

- eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0426:FIN:EN: PDF

Incidentally, it's not adopted yet. The text "adopted", which is the official term, is merely the opinion of the European Parliament under the consultation procedure - see
Texts adopted - Thursday, 2 April 2009 - Equal treatment of persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation * - P6_TA-PROV(2009)0211

But then, the Daily Telegraph wouldn't know the difference.

[marmurr1916]

Again Mr D., you make untrue statements! Whereabouts in our constitution does it say that 'gay marriage' is disallowed??... NOWHERE!!

Granted that may be your interpretation. There are others!!

And to the OP : What a load of old sh1te.. I too am against the Lisbon Treaty, not however for this reason. What is so bad about removing discrimination(like anyone should have a right to discriminate in the first place!)?

Has the conserative right got so bad, that they'll defend to the last, their 'automatic' right to discriminate against others?? At all costs! And they accuse the 'gays' as having the agenda?!?!

And who says it would lead to churches being forced to perform gay marriages? Hog Wash!! They of course make that assumption because they think everyone wants to do it in a church/synagogue/mosque etc..

I, frankly, would never consider a religious ceremony if i were allowed to marry my partner. Marriage is not about religion IMO, it's about commitment, public, private and familial.

The proposed Directive has nothing to do with the Treaty of Lisbon.

It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage either which remains the sole business of each individual member-state.

As Earnest has pointed out, the proposed Directive will not include same-sex marriage.

Furthermore, the proposed Directive will only apply to services 'within the meaning of meaning of Article 50 of the EC Treaty.'

This article was originally numbered Article 60: [COLOR=#810081]Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC)[/COLOR].

It states:

Services shall be considered to be 'services' within the meaning of this Treaty where they are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.
'Services' shall in particular include:
(a) activities of an industrial character;
(b) activities of a commercial character;
(c) activities of craftsmen;
(d) activities of the professions.
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Chapter relating to the right of establishment, the person providing a service may, in order to do so, temporarily pursue his activity in the State where the service is provided, under the same conditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals.

A religious ceremony, including one of marriage, is not a 'service' as defined in the EC Treaty Article and is therefore not covered by the proposed Directive.

As if that wasn't enough, the European Parliament has amended the text of the original proposed Directive to ensure that member-states rights over the areas of education and healthcare are not affected:

11) This Directive is without prejudice to the exercise of the competences of the Member States in the areas of education and social protection, including social security and health care. It is also without prejudice to the essential role and wide discretion of the Member States in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest.

The parliament has also amended the original proposal to ensure that 'marital and family law' are not covered by the proposed Directive:

(17) While prohibiting discrimination, it is important to respect other fundamental rights and freedoms, including the freedom of religion, the freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of the press . This Directive is without prejudice to the secular nature of the State, state institutions or bodies, or education. This Directive does not alter the division of competences between the European Union and its Member States, including in the area of marital and family law and health law.

It's also amended the original proposal to allow educational institutions to continue to favour people of particular religions to allow them to protect their religous ethos:

(18) Member States are responsible for the organisation and content of education. They should ensure effective protection against discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The Commission Communication on Competences for the 21st Century: An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools draws attention to the need for special attention to be paid to disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs.

Member States may allow, only on the basis of objective justifications, for differences in access to educational institutions based on religion or belief when requiring individuals to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos, provided that this does not justify discrimination on any other ground and that other educational institutions are geographically accessible and form a reasonable alternative, in order to prevent indirect discrimination. Member States shall ensure that this does not lead to a denial of the right to education.

As for churches:

(19) The European Union in its Declaration No 11 on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations, annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty, has explicitly recognised that it respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States and that it equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

Finally, the Charter which will come into force under the Treaty of Lisbon specifically states:

Article 9
Right to marry and right to found a family


The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

So even if the Treaty of Lisbon does come into force, there will be no provision for same-sex marriage forced on any country.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

The proposed Directive has nothing to do with the Treaty of Lisbon.

It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage either which remains the sole business of each individual member-state.

In fact, the Charter which will come into force under the Treaty of Lisbon specifically states:

apologies.. i should have made myself clearer..

What i should have said.. the idea that people are linking it to Lisbon is ridiculous. I am anti-Lisbon and do not reflect the OP's points.

I see the legislation as a good thing. One of the benefits of Europe. I just wanted to disassociate myself from Lidl's beliefs!