The State, Human Rights and Marriage

There has been a lot of attention lately to the topic of same sex marriages, so, in light of my focus on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  (U.N. 1948), I thought this might be a good topic to explore.

Personally, I know many same sex couples and I have friends who have successfully raised healthy families, friends who are now grandparents, so in my mind this debate was over a long time ago and it is about time the world caught up.

The reason why some countries seem to lag behind others when it comes to accepting laws that stray from the traditional are to be found in how much their government identifies with the accepted religious beliefs of its culture.

That is because legal laws are made on advice of ethical committees, which are composed of representatives of the dominant belief systems of a country; either its ruling religious institutions or in the case of countries claiming secular values and religious tolerance, the representatives from many different religions and members of (traditional) academic institutions.

In that light, and keeping in mind that this paper is almost 65 years old, let’s have a look at what the Human Rights Declaration actually says about marriage.

Article 16


(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as a marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Now, “the family” as the “fundamental group unit” is defined in different dictionaries as either “a group of people sharing a household”,  “a social unit consisting of parents and their children”, or “a group of people closely related by blood”, but no matter which definition one chooses, nowhere does it mention that these parents have to be of a specific gender when founding this family.

Opponents of same sex marriage could argue that under 16.1, where it mentions “without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion”, gender is not specified so that a government has the right to make a law without violating the rights of its citizens.

This is true, but religion is specified and most of the objections against same sex marriage are based on religious arguments and religion is separately mentioned in the Declaration:

 Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

If everyone has this right, then one entity (including the state) may not impose its religious views on its members.

So, it isn’t enough to just look at the article that deals with the topic of discussion, in this case, marriage; we need to see it in the context of the entire Declaration and ask whether the state (the writer of the legal laws) and the church (the writer of the moral ones) have more rights according to the Declaration than do individuals.

We need to ask whether the purpose of the state (or the church) as a social or cultural institution is to protect its members or is it also a moral judge?

Article 29


(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms and others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

To begin with, 29.1 does not say that the duties of the individual are to obey the moral teachings of the community but rather that the community is there to ensure that he is able to be free and develop as a person. The “personality” of a homosexual person cannot develop fully if he is asked to oppress his nature.

According to 29.2, the state is there to make laws to protect the rights and freedoms of its people and to ensure public order. Outside of this, the state has no right in the daily life of individuals or to dictate their beliefs or lifestyle.

Therefore, if “only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of… the rights and freedoms of others and… public order…” then any limitations (prohibitions) shall have to be justified by their interfering with the freedom of others or with public order, and if not, they are in violation of human rights.

And seeing that the only difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is to be found in the bedroom – which is a territory that neither the state nor the church have any business entering – and which in no possible way disrupts the public order, the prohibition of same sex marriages cannot be justified.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.  

A state that poses as a moral teacher is no longer protecting individual rights. In all of history, those that stood out as dictatorships were those that interfered in people’s private lives, took over the rearing of the children and told people what to believe and how to live. The moment the state oversteps its limits as protector of the individual’s freedoms and rights within the community, by dictating their beliefs or lifestyle, it has become a dictatorship.

The only angle left, and the one used by every government or church opposing same sex marriage (and any other such alternative lifestyle), is to claim that this opposes “meeting the just requirements of morality”(29.2).

And here lies the weakness of the Human Rights Declaration itself, for “morality” is an abstract term that refers to a notion of right and wrong behaviour as interpreted according to the perspective of the reader. This means that a state (or church) can impose its interpretation of morality on its members and make legal laws claiming to be in accord with human rights, while, in fact, the individual’s rights and freedoms and his perspective of right and wrong are ignored.

So, despite the UN Declaration, as a moral law and not a legal one, claiming human rights on the basis of its democratic views, in fact the interpretation of its articles is subject to the accepted beliefs of every nation that signed it.

The reason for this lies not so much in the religious views themselves as in the idea that the church (or the state) has the right or duty to set the moral values for its subjects. And it is in that belief that I think it contradicts the very foundation of the UN Declaration: that of “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”.




8 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. JJ
    Apr 11, 2013 @ 08:16:46

    This is convenient if you want to ignore that there is a moral law and a moral law giver. Nature did not intend on families having two parents of the same gender which is why two penises or two vaginas are inable to create offspring.


    • nonentiti
      Apr 11, 2013 @ 09:38:13

      JJ: Thank you for responding, but while some people may acknowledge a moral lawgiver, others go by their inner ethic. And although I agree that nature has a certain way to create offspring, there are many variations to nature. If the only objective of people was to create offspring, we would not need families (or marriage) at all. Humans have to raise their offspring beyond the physical. At this point it matters not whether the adults are of the same or of different genders.


  2. Walt
    Apr 17, 2013 @ 01:04:56

    So long as there is religion, there will be conflict. So long as there is politics, there will be conflict. Politics + Religion = Power = Conflict


    • nonentiti
      Apr 17, 2013 @ 09:17:22

      Thanks for your comment, Walt.
      I think it is a bit more complex than that. As long as there are people with different beliefs (including non-religious beliefs) and they try to impose these beliefs on each other, using power/politics, there will indeed be conflict. But the problem is not that religion and politics exist, but rather that human beings have different beliefs. Yet without those differences, we would have not had progress. Conflict is inherent in our ability to be creative in our thinking and this stems from our evolutionary psychology.
      Additionally, many of these conflicts don’t result from people trying to gain power to impose on others, but from their need to make everybody adapt their own belief, because they truly believe that this will make the world better for everybody. It makes no difference what that belief is.


  3. Michel Horps
    Apr 23, 2013 @ 21:51:04

    Nonentiti, it appears to me that , in the Human Rights Declaration (article 16), it was self evident that by “Men and women of full age” who have “the right to marry and to found a family”, it was meant “one man and one woman of full age” have “the right to marry and found a family”. A family is a group of parents with their chidren, agreed ? And “founding” clearly refers to the inception of such an entity, obviously through the natural way of making chidren. Otherwise, why of full age ?
    Furthermore, If one is tempted to use the phrase “Men and women” in the largest meaning it allows, why then should one limit the meaning to either “one man and one woman” or “two men” or “two women” ? Why not “two men and one woman”, “three women” and so on, any number being permitted ? Clearly, if we limit the possibility to a group of two persons, we refer to common sense and the usual use of “family” – one man and one woman.
    So I wonder if such comments are not in fact trying to make the old and dignified Declaration say what was never thought of, precisely by using the fact that in that time, it was not necessary to forbid what was unthinkable (in our society).


    • nonentiti
      Apr 24, 2013 @ 08:43:19

      Michel: The Declaration is a moral law that, indeed, reflects the values of the time. But values change. As the Declaration ages, so its values lose their validity. The problem with the Human Rights Act, and every other such document, is that it is written in abstract terminology, which can be interpreted in any manner the reader wishes. Therefore, what is “self evident” for one person is never self evident for another. If “founding” would only imply physically creating babies, then we could not consider any two people who already have children and want to get married a family unit, and adopted or fostered children would be considered without a family. Personally, I have no issue with the idea of three or more people founding a family – whatever works for everybody. From a personality type perspective, children benefit from multiple adults in their life, because they are more likely to have an adult around with some traits in common.


  4. Michel Horps
    Apr 24, 2013 @ 22:37:05

    nonentiti : Thanks a lot for your quick reply. I mostly agree with your comments, my only point was that the original wording of the Human Rights Act, in the marriage issue, most probably did not even consider the many possibilities that were left open by the abstract terminology used.
    I am interested in the way you approach this question because of the present discussion taking place right now in France about the legal extension of “marriage” to ” same sex marriage”. This law has been voted yesterday 23d of april, and is being submitted to the Conseil Constitutionnel (our Supreme Court) within the delay of one month. Is this law constitutional ? It appears that French Constitution (dating 1958) has not said anything about the nature of marriage nor about the definition of family, leaving it to the regular law.
    From a moral point of view, this kind of extension does not change anything for the already “married” (two-sex marriage) couples. However, it does change the meaning of the word they used (we are “married”), so it may change an important component of their meaning of life. To avoid this, maybe a different wording should be used (“civil union”, “civil alliance”) ?


    • nonentiti
      Apr 25, 2013 @ 09:28:57

      Hi Michel. I am originally from The Netherlands where “common law” marriage already exists. In New Zealand (where I live) people have also only just votes on it.
      I would agree that a name change may make it easier for everybody. “Civil union” would sound fine, which should be a title also open to two-sex couples if they chose it. The risk is that small changes to laws might eventually regard one different than the other, and I think that people who are not yet open to this idea – especially churches – will not agree to change their word.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: