Jump to content

Thai Charter court rules that only heterosexual marriages are constitutional


webfact

Recommended Posts

G0DL5oPyrtt5HBAivY9LORST4vLLBPieAhfCdJjsoBcLgpWIcJeUoV.jpg

 

Same-sex marriage in Thailand will have to wait, as the Constitutional Court ruled unanimously today (Wednesday) that Section 1448 of the Civil and Commercial Code, defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, is constitutional.

 

The court did, however, suggest that parliament, the government and relevant state agencies should enact a law to codify the rights of the LGBT community.

 

The issue was brought to the attention of the Court after the Juvenile and Family Court asked the Charter Court for a ruling in the case of Puangpetch Hengkham and Permsak Saeung, both belonging to the LGBT group, in which they claimed that they should be allowed to marry legally and that Section 1448 is unconstitutional.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/charter-court-rules-that-only-men-women-marriages-are-constitutional/

 

Logo-top-.png
  • Like 2
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay ... In fact it is a small step forward, but still a long way to go. I expected that a real marriage was not possible at this moment. But with the Civil Union Bill there is a good alternative for LBGTQ community to get some rights.. But please Government you have the Bill ready pass as soon as possible now. You have waited for the verdict now it is time to pas that Bill

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, TunnelRat69 said:

I suppose it is akin to "It''s their country, their rules"   Thailand has a long way to go, let's face it, wasn't long ago when they tore out the centerfold out of Playboy magazine, and advertisers could go to jail for showing Girls in their underwear, or cloud out someone smoking a cigarette on TV.............Step by Step.

And someone who has been shot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And i'm sure as the sure as the sun will rise today that among those who were against legalizing non heterosexuals there are many who are gays and lesbians and those who swings both ways, whom just had to continue hiding in the closets and voted the way they did out of shame and being labeled as such...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

They didn't allow same sex marriages. But same sex relationships are allowed and common. What's the problem?

Personally I have no problem with people of all shades of LBGT+/- whatever. Live and let live and all that.

 

But why do many people pretend those relationships are just as normal as male/female relationships? I.e. when two gay guys adopt children. Who is the mother? How about breast feeding and all those natural things? It seems some people think all people should be allowed to do anything. Really?

 

What's next? Can I marry my favorite pet? Can we adopt children? You might think I am crazy and that has nothing to do with reality. But think twice. Not long ago nobody would have imagined gay guys marrying and adopting children. Now it's not just described as normal. Now people who don't think it is normal are attacked for their position.

 

How about accepting people like they are. Hetero people can accept that LBGT exist. And LBGT should also accept that not everybody wants to support anything what they want.

How do you feel about two women marrying?   Both of them could possibly breast feed.  Oh wait, was either of them pregnant or did they adopt?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Same-sex marriage in Thailand will have to wait, as the Constitutional Court ruled unanimously today (Wednesday) that Section 1448 of the Civil and Commercial Code, defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, is constitutional.

For a country that purports to recognising the 3rd gender [possibly more] this is the truth and the real Thailand.

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

As long as you can teach your pet to give verbal consent, why not?

I should be constitutional to marry a goat! As long as you do not violate the goats rights, and never do anything that the goat does not consent to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

The issue should be around human rights, not sexual orientation or gender. Equal rights is the issue

Equal right to do what? Equal rights that a guy can kiss a guy or a woman a woman? Equal rights for all children that they have a right to have a father and a mother and that they have the right to be breastfed? 

Rights will always have boundaries. Maybe about humans and animals or age restrictions or whatever. And it makes sense that there are boundaries. The only question is where exactly those boundaries are.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tracyb said:

How do you feel about two women marrying? Both of them could possibly breast feed.  Oh wait, was either of them pregnant or did they adopt?

Every child should have a mother who cares about the child. A father is good to have but in a way optional.

I think one of the problems is that many laws were written (decades ago) with female/male couples in mind. If i.e. there is a law about adoption I am sure in most countries the lawmakers had married female/male couples in mind. But in the law is probably only written "married couples".

So if now a new law allows not only male/female couples to marry that has a lot of consequences for other laws.

Maybe first all existing laws should be amended to refer to married male/female couples. After that then a law can allow other couples to marry each other - without having automatically also the right to adopt children, etc.. 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Every child should have a mother who cares about the child. A father is good to have but in a way optional.

I think one of the problems is that many laws were written (decades ago) with female/male couples in mind. If i.e. there is a law about adoption I am sure in most countries the lawmakers had married female/male couples in mind. But in the law is probably only written "married couples".

So if now a new law allows not only male/female couples to marry that has a lot of consequences for other laws.

Maybe first all existing laws should be amended to refer to married male/female couples. After that then a law can allow other couples to marry each other - without having automatically also the right to adopt children, etc.. 

thanks for the reply.  I respect your opinion!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChipButty said:

Having lived here for 25 years I would have thought the powers that be would have been more tolerant to same sex marriages, they seem to allow everything else

Look who the current powers that be are; completely devoid of humanity and all rational thought. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.







×
×
  • Create New...