L’importance de l’opinion publique: l’homoparentalité et la décision de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme dans l’Affaire Fretté c. France (Lesbian and Gay Parenthood: The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Fretté v. France)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans l'affaire Frette c. France, l'Etat francais a echappe d'extreme justesse a une condamnation de la Cour europeenne des droits de l'Homme pour discrimination fondee sur l'orientation sexuelle. Dans l'affaire Frette, la Cour europeenne confirme que l'interdiction d'adoption opposee par l'administration francaise aux personnes homosexuelles ne porte pas atteinte aux droits de la personne. Selon l'auteure, la Cour a neglige le fait qu'un grand nombre d'hommes gais et de lesbiennes presentent les qualites humaines et educatives requises d'un candidat a l'adoption, et elle a prefere avaliser une difference de traitement discriminatoire et absolue envers les personnes homosexuelles. La Cour ne fonde aucunement ses motifs sur une preuve explicite et concluante quant au prejudice que peut presenter l'homosexualite d'un parent pour l'enfant adopte. Elle invoque plutot la controverse publique pour motiver sa decision en faveur de l'interdiction d'adoption par les gais et lesbiennes, et ce faisant, abdique son role avant-gardiste en matiere de droits fondamentaux.In Frette v. France, France narrowly escaped condemnation by the European Court of Human Rights for discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Frette, the European Court upheld a French decision that denied a gay man the right to adopt. The author argues that despite the fact that many gay men and lesbians possess the educational and social qualities required of adoptive parents, the European Court endorsed a discriminatory treatment towards sexual minorities. In the author’s view, the Court failed to require explicit and conclusive proof that children are at greater risk if placed with gay or lesbian adoptive parents. Rather, the Court points to public controversy over the issue to justify its refusal to overturn the French ban on gay and lesbian adoptions. In doing so, the European Court of Human Rights abdicated its leadership role on pivotal human rights issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".