Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

UN Covenant recognises equal rights of all

In “Same-sex marriage is not a human right” (Oct 10, online), the writer attempts to use the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a basis to deny the rights of some by reason of sexual orientation.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp
Foo Jun Jie and Chiu Kai Ling

In “Same-sex marriage is not a human right” (Oct 10, online), the writer attempts to use the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a basis to deny the rights of some by reason of sexual orientation.

Contrary to his beliefs, the Covenant does not distinguish anyone by gender, race or any particular minority. It recognises the “inherent dignity ... the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”.

The misconstruction of Article 23 will also not lend credibility to his premise that marriage is a right only for heterosexuals.

He cites a communication from the United Nations Human Rights Committee as a justification, yet the drafting history and explanation of the language used in the Covenant shows otherwise.

First, the words “men and women” in Article 23(2) was not intended to exclude same-sex couples but to emphasise the principle of equality between the sexes, owing to the unjust inequalities as regards spousal rights during the mid-1900s.

Second, suggesting that those words entitle only heterosexuals to marriage is, unfortunately, wrong. If the intention were such, the same language would have been used throughout Article 23.

Articles 23(3) and 23(4), however, use the term “spouses” rather than “husband and wife”. This connotes individuals in a marriage that is recognised by a country’s laws.

South Africa’s Civil Union Act 2006 refers to a partner in a same-sex marriage as a spouse, which means that such a spouse is not determined by the gender composition of the marriage.

The Covenant is a living instrument, and the interpretation of its rights should be “applied in context and in the light of present-day conditions”, the UN Human Rights Committee has explained.

The words “spouse” and “men and women” should not be interpreted rigidly, where sexual orientation is a basis for human rights protection.

Finally, we agree that the state recognises the institution of marriage not because it is interested in anyone’s romantic relationships, but to support children’s right to be raised by their parents.

This is why marriage equality is important. The quality of parenthood and the ability of a parent do not lie solely in gender or sexual orientation.

It is also important for parents to support and protect LGBT youth and educate their children to be compassionate individuals. We should not teach children that homosexuals are somehow inferior to us or less deserving of the rights we have.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.