GERMANY: Right Wing Pols Panic At Abrupt Marriage Vote, Claim Constitution Must First Be Amended

Germany’s The Local reports:

“The interior and justice ministries have always been of the opinion that same-sex marriage can’t happen without a change to the constitution,” Günter Krings [photo] told the Rheinische Post on Wednesday. “There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the proposed change to the law will contravene the constitutional definition of marriage.”

The Grundgesetz (German constitution) itself is not specific on what constitutes marriage. In Article 6 it declares that “matrimony and family are strongly protected by the rules of the state,” without going further on what matrimony means.

But, according to the Süddeustche Zeitung, the Constitutional Court – the highest legal authority in the land – insists that “the unity of a man and a woman still belongs to the essential components of marriage.” If the Constitutional Court were to reject a new law on same sex marriage, the Bundestag would need to vote on a change to the constitution, something that requires a two-thirds majority.

The Bundestag begins tomorrow’s session at 2AM Eastern. Watch live here. There will be two votes. The first is to put the marriage bill on the day’s agenda.

  • KnownDonorDad

    The Scheiße is gonna hit the fan on the anti-gay side over there. Wunderbar!

    Side note: I’m surprised the Family Association of Family Families over here didn’t think of that first.

    • bambinoitaliano

      Thinking is never their strongest suit.

    • Hue-Man

      Too busy terrorizing American LGBT community.

    • Gustav2

      They only go to countries where it will be an easy win for them. Germany will have marriage equality by popular demand and the bigots know it.

    • Craig Howell

      “Wunderbar!” is an especially appropriate reaction to all this news, since our very bisexual Cole Porter wrote a song by that title.

  • another_steve

    Neanderthals during their final days.

  • Ninja0980

    https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/880070745833054209
    If that’s the case, then why the fuck do you write glowing articles about Thomas, Scalia and Requist and other far right judges, who support exactly that?

  • Ninja0980

    Go jump off a cliff you whiny Nazi relics.

  • clay

    Those who know legalese German please respond, but isn’t the simple meaning of “the unity of a man and a woman still belongs to the essential components of marriage,” saying that the only way to create a legal unit across sexes is through marriage (rather than, say, adoption), but simply doesn’t exclude that unity within a single sex could also belong to marriage?

    • Tawreos

      The haters will interpret it in whatever way means “No Homos”

    • Stev84

      That article was written in light of anti-miscegenation laws during the Nazi era. Ironically it was supposed to prevent the government from just banning certain types of marriages

    • Ray Taylor

      I suppose that will be decided if they pass the legislation.

  • justmeeeee

    Yes because all the right wing voters are in favor of marriage, right?

  • Stev84

    There is no constitutional definition of marriage. That whole argument is pretty perverse. That article was intended as a defense against the state interfering in people’s marriages (e.g. bans on marriages with Jews or colored people). Which is the exact opposite of how it is used here.

    • Jonathan Smith

      hold on, one second. Jews can marry blacks?!?!?!?! time for me to join the altRight……… /s
      BTW, i’m Jewish & my hubby is black, so PLEASE don’t pile on

      • Todd20036

        I, for one, love when people pile on…

        • Jonathan Smith

          i see what you mean, and yes in THAT context, it’s GREAT:)

        • Oscarlating Wildely

          Oh, you dirty, dirty man.

          Come sit on me.

      • madknits

        Cool. I’m Jew-ish and my boyfriend is black.
        (I’m really a lapsed Unitarian.)

        • Jonathan Smith

          i think i picked it up by osmosis……think I’m getting better…..

        • j.martindale

          Close enough.

    • Shy Guy

      Exactly. It looks like they’re just grasping at straws.

      The full text of article 6 in English is here:
      https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0040

      I see nothing that would prevent the law from recognising same-sex marriages. The stuff about children might need tweaking, and recognising fathers in paragraph 4 might be nice.

  • Jonathan Smith
  • bkmn

    It’s not easy to get your undies in a twist while you wear them.

    • Jonathan Smith

      This is why i DON’T.
      Yes. it is.

  • Jonathan Smith
  • bambinoitaliano

    You think he was chase with a prickly giant dildo. Someone smells his limited agenda career is almost over.

  • KnownDonorDad
  • Ninja0980

    All Merkel has to do is say these folks are like Donald Trump and that will be that.

  • S1AMER

    Aw, c’mon, Germany! You know what’s the right thing to do!

    • Jonathan Smith

      invade Poland?

      • Gustav2

        The night after Germany invaded Poland, a bunch of Polish immigrants and Polish Americans showed up at my grandparents house in Detroit with torches and an American flag. They demanded my American born grandfather kiss the flag. Grandpa Gustav shut the door and called the cops.

        The following day my grandmother went to the Polish owned butcher shop, she said everyone was very, very nice. Nicer than usual.

        • Jonathan Smith

          fine. sigh…..invade Czechoslovakia?

          • Gustav2

            My cousins in Sudetenland….

            kidding!

          • Jonathan Smith

            i hate you………..
            🙂

          • William

            The people who drew the borders after WWI really screwed up.

          • sword

            Not only Europe, but also the Middle East. Throwing religious sects together without their permission.

          • Craig Howell

            This, and most of what else they did at Versailles.

          • Johannes Stier

            Sometimes, when I’m really frustrated with German politics, I think the US should gone ahead with the Morgenthau Plan. Or even better, divide Germany between France, Poland and Denmark. From the moment I was old enough to learn and understand what Germany (and Germans) did from 1933 to 1945, I always thought we got of pretty lightly.

          • William

            Germans under Polish control would have been a powder keg. The Germans east of the Oder didn’t get off so lightly. It should have been Bavaria that was put under Soviet control.

          • Kruhn

            It’s the Czech Republic since 1991

  • Ben in Oakland

    That’s the ticket. Protect marriage by keeping people who want to be married from getting married, while subsequently doing absolutely nothing about people who are married from getting unmarried, or encouraging people who aren’t married from getting married.

    • Frank Hut

      The laws of nature . Did you ever see an elephant in a birds nest. Its your lie tell it how how you want to.

      • Ben in Oakland

        Nope, I haven’t seen an elephant in a birds nest, but then, I don’t have the kind of intellect that thinks that elephants can climb trees or fly, and certainly don’t view Dumbo as a documentary.

  • medaka
  • Boreal
  • Boreal
    • Mikey

      I’m still always amazed no one has smashed a searing-hot cast-iron pan in his face.

  • Lynn Treuber

    This is just noise from the opponents as they desperately try to slow things down. There is nothing in the the German constitution or “Basic Law” which defines marriage or limits it to opposite sex couples and there is no court precedent for any such interpretation. The Constitutional Court has ruled in favor of equal treatment for gay couples every time the issue has come up.

  • Johannes Stier

    If some Conservatives drag this in front of our Constitutional Court, they could still lose. In the last years, the court repeatedly ruled that Civil unions deserve the same rights as marriages. In fact, every verdict came against the will of the CDU. If they win, it won’t mean the end of marriage equality but it will take some time to change the Grundgesetz. And the Conservatives could just hinder it the way they did with marriage equality during the last years.

    • Gustav2

      I hate speed bumps.

    • bobbleobble

      Well they will drag it before the Constitutional Court because opponents will use whatever means they have available to them to try to prevent gay people from marrying. The result of that is up in the air though I think it’s probably more likely to benefit gay people given their recent rulings. I suppose we’ll have to wait and see.

      • Frank Hut

        Marriage is between a Man & woman. That is nature . But there should be a union between couples of the same sex if they want that .

        • bobbleobble

          Marriage, just like religion, is about as unnatural as it gets. Most animals put it about as much as they can and there are almost none that mate for life.

          Oh and I’m sure gay people feel so grateful to you for allowing us to have some kind of union /s

          In fact there’s a perfectly good union available which we can make easy use of, it’s called marriage.

  • Hank

    I wonder how many votes Merkels party and the Green party have if they have to change the Constitution??

  • Dejerrity

    Geez, another country that won’t let me marry my air conditioner.

    • djcoastermark

      That would be one cold, heartless marriage if you could.

      • (((GC)))

        Think of all the poor toasters sitting there alone, unloved, unmarried… perhaps used for a few minutes in the morning and then abandoned….

        • djcoastermark

          All those hot buns waiting to be buttered, never to be 🙁

      • Dejerrity

        But still better than my last 2 ex-husbands.

  • Hue-Man

    Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, a catholic, made probably the most coherent case for marriage equality in his speech in the House of Commons on February 16, 2005. An excerpt:

    Four years ago I stood in the House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same sex couples were a function of my faith and my perspective on the world around us, but much has changed since that day.

    http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/house/sitting-58/hansard (at 1540. There’s also a YouTube video.)

    Much has changed in 12 years, none of the calamities that were predicted by conservatives has occurred, and countries have sorted out how to make it work. It will be no different in Germany.

  • JWC

    go for it Germany

    • Jonathan Smith

      didnt that cause problem in the 19teens and 19fourtys?

  • j.martindale

    Where have I heard whining, mewling and puking like this before? Oh, I remember!

    • djcoastermark

      Well at least thankthelard, it never happened happend here. /s

  • KarenAtFOH

    The dinos are raging at the meteor, I see.

  • Oscarlating Wildely

    Of course! I mean, 24 hours before a vote is always the requisite time to note a constitution. No-one ever looks at the damned thing until that deadline.

    • Johannes Stier

      To be fair (not thet they deserve it), some conservatives made this argument for some time now. And some legal scholars agree. But of course there are others (including our minister of justice) who say its not necessary.

      • billbear1961

        Well, then it sounds like the damned thing will end up before the Court, God DAMN it!!

        Do you have any idea how long that will take, if they agree to hear the case?

        • Johannes Stier

          I can’t imagine they will go to court before the election in September. After that, I don’t know and I have not read any article with a potential timeline. I just know that even if the law passes tomorrow, it will take until November to fully come into effect.

          • billbear1961

            I wondered how long it would be before people would be able to start getting married.

            If it’s in November, that will give the Court 4 to 5 months to decide if it needs to rule on this matter.

          • billbear1961

            Thank you for your answer, by the way!

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      Well, at least he noticed it; I don’t the Republicans have actually read the U.S. constitution…beyond the 2nd amendment that is.

  • billbear1961

    Oh, for God’s SAKE! I hope this is just desperation whining!

    That Court has been consistently friendly to same-sex couples from what I’ve read, and since there’s nothing in the actual Constitution that defines matrimony further than what’s quoted in the article, I don’t see how this argument holds water, especially if Stev84 is right and “that article [quoted out of context] was intended as a defense against the state interfering in people’s marriages.”

    Besides, do you mean to tell ME that, during all the YEARS this has been STALLED, not ONE politician or lawyer or activist or journalist had the FORESIGHT to look into whether or not a change in the Constitution would be required to permit same-sex couples to marry?!

    EDIT: The Constitution does not define marriage, that is, the make-up of the couple. Has the Constitutional Court ever defined it, in an actual RULING??

  • david fairfield

    Well, there’s one thing that might help…the catholic church probably won’t kick and scream about this with the shadow of more priest perversion looming over them. Possibly.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Germany’s own Tony Perkins/Brian Brown hybrid…how efficiently German, how wonderfully laughable.

  • Pfefferdog

    If, in fact “matrimony … [is] strongly protected by the rules of the state” – than I guess divorce is NOT protected, and should be unconstitutional.

  • Frank Hut

    What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?” is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term “sodomy” came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.

    • Frank Hut

      Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.

      • bobbleobble

        It does nothing of the sort. And even if it did, perhaps, given that he hasn’t destroyed any of the countries that have legalised same sex acts then he maybe has changed his mind?

    • Frank Hut

      Is God Wrong ?

      • bobbleobble

        God doesn’t exist.

    • bobbleobble

      A fairy story in the Bible. There’s little evidence that the cities of the plains even existed never mind how they were destroyed if indeed they were. And it’s worth pointing out that this amoral thug that you worshipped was quite happy to save a man who offered his own daughters up for rape to spare the ‘angels’.

      In any event, in a secular society, what it says in your big book of myths is irrelevant.

      Oh and just so you know, if you hover your cursor over the upvotes you receive it tells you who voted for your comments. So the fact that you voted for yourself is on display for everyone to see. That’s pretty sad.