Why same-sex marriage States statement wrong

Given that fact, I will concentrate on just one aspect: human rights law.

Section 7 of the Billet contains the following statement to which all members of the Policy Council have signed their names:

'In July 2015 the court judged that Italy had been in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life) by not allowing same-sex couples to get married or enter into a civil union.'

This statement is not true.

For the Policy Council's statement to remain factual, the words 'get married or' would have to be removed.

In a landmark decision in 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that two people of the same sex do not have the right to marry, a fact that the Liberate group have been keen to suppress.

Article 12 of the European Convention makes it clear that only marriage between a man and a woman must be recognised in law by its signatories.

It is the only article that refers to 'men and women' rather than 'everyone' or 'no one'; the intention of the article is quite clear.

What the Italian judgement of July 2015 did state is that there has to be a legal provision under human rights law for the recognition of relationships between homosexuals.

In other words, the provision is there for administrative purposes – something that should be available between all consenting adults for any legitimate, mutually agreed purpose anyway.

Appendix B of section 7 of Billet XXIII contains a press release from the European Court of Human Rights that supports my assertion about the wording of the Policy Council's statement as mentioned above.

The press release states: 'The Court accordingly declared the complaint under Article 12 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 inadmissible.'

Article 12 refers to the right of men and women to marry.

Our States deputies should not be bullied into bringing in legislation that the vast majority do not support and which is not necessitated by the human rights legislation that Guernsey is obliged to uphold.

For every militant homosexual protagonist of 'right to marry' legislation, there are hundreds of ordinary people who quietly disagree.

The States survey on the subject should not be taken as being representative of the opinions of Guernsey people.

It does not constitute a random sampling of people within the population or their opinions; it gives an opportunity to a vociferous minority to appear much more representative of the general population than is actually the case.

NAME AND ADDRESS

WITHHELD.