Reversibilità gaya

La notizia viene ripresa da qualche agenzia e forse domani sarà su qualche giornale (un trafiletto?), ma a me sembra di una certa portata. Si tratta di una decisione del comitato per i diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite, e precisamente:

Case No. 941/2000: Young v. Australia
This case concerned an Australian man who applied for a pension on the basis of being a dependent of a war veteran. He was refused as he was not considered a “member of a couple” within the meaning of the pertinent legislation. He complained that the State party’s refusal, on the basis of him being of the same sex as his partner, that is, due to his sexual orientation, to provide him with a pension benefit violated his right to equal treatment before the law and was contrary to article 26. As the State party had provided no arguments on how a distinction between same-sex partners, who are excluded from pension benefits under law, and unmarried heterosexual partners, who are granted such benefits, is reasonable and objective, the Committee found a violation of article 26

Marco Mazzei
Biciclette, Milano, viaggi e stelle.