Featured Image

January 16, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – In what one expert called the “most bold exercise in judicial tyranny imaginable,” an international human rights court has ordered that 16 countries ignore their own laws and recognize same-sex “marriage” and transgenderism.

In one of these countries, Barbados, sodomy is illegal.

The ruling came from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which exists based on the American Convention of Human Rights. Twenty-five Latin and South American countries have ratified or adhered to the Convention, according to the Court’s website.

The Court heard the case because the Costa Rican government sought “relatively minor” advice, Gualberto Garcia Jones, executive director of International Human Rights Group, told LifeSiteNews.

“Costa Rican officials asked for clarification on what process [was] required to legally change the name of a gender confused person and the rights to property of homosexual partners under the Convention,” Jones explained. “Instead of answering the questions asked, the court attempted to issue a unilateral ruling that homosexual marriage with adoption rights is required by the American Convention on Human Rights.”

The Court “overreached its jurisdiction in an unprecedented manner,” Jones said, ignoring the Vienna Convention – the accepted rules of interpretation for international treaties – and instead delegating “to itself the authority to overrule national constitutions in order to implement its opinions.”

Gay Star News called it the “biggest marriage equality court order in history.”

Judge Vio Grossi partially dissented, writing, “Legislation recognizing same sex unions cannot be imposed upon member states through the judicial process, much less so through an advisory opinion, which is not binding even on the party requesting the opinion, and much less upon the other member states.”

There is “no source of international law that provides the necessary recognition of such [homosexual] rights,” Grossi wrote.

The Court also ignored “the text of the American Convention itself, whose only reference to marriage limits it to the union of one man and one woman,” said Jones.

The order “pretends to overturn the overwhelming majority of the internal legislation that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman through an advisory opinion,” he said. “This would be impossible even if the opinion of the court came after a litigated case in controversy, since the rulings of the court are only binding upon the litigating parties.” 

“Therefore, to attempt to impose an advisory opinion as binding upon all countries that ratified the convention is the most bold exercise in judicial tyranny imaginable,” Jones warned.

The ruling even went as far as to say “polygamous families” are licit.

“The richness and diversity of the region is seen in the cases that are submitted to the court; through those cases the court has recognized diverse family makeups as protected, including polygamous families,” the majority ruling said on page 78, which Jones translated for LifeSiteNews.

Opposition to same-sex “marriage” that is “based on religious or philosophical convictions” shouldn’t be considered, the ruling said.

This “shows a visible prejudice against religious convictions and religious individuals,” said Jones.

The court disqualified “any principles which it arbitrarily determines to be religious ones without bothering to offer any legal precedent for such anti-religious prejudice.”

It also didn’t produce “any analysis that opposition to same-sex unions is in fact a theological position.”

Eleven countries “must pass trans rights laws” because of this ruling, Gay Star News wrote. The Dominican Republic, Honduras, Barbados, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Suriname are the countries most affected by this ruling, because they neither recognize same-sex “marriage” or transgenderism.

Brazil and Colombia already recognize same-sex “marriage” and transgenderism. Parts of Mexico do as well.

Perú, Panamá, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Bolivia all have some pro-transgender laws but not same-sex “marriage.”