 and they should be brought up within the family. Not only that, those who enter into marriage subject themselves to a range of rules laid down by public law because this is in the public interest, and that does not happen in the other examples. We have only to think about the reasons for annulling a marriage and for divorce and the conditions of marriage and divorce.
Moving on to my third point, I want to make it absolutely clear that in relation to individuals of different sexuality also, in particular homosexuals of all kinds, we have to uphold the principle of equality. That needs to be stated categorically and backed by the force of the Christian democratic ethic also. All human beings are equal and that has to be clearly stated. But the fact of enjoying equal dignity does not mean that institutions that are per se different may be treated as equivalent.
And now to my fourth point. Why is the family described in our international charters, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as a 'fundamental unit'? Is it a public asset or a private asset to be protected? What is a matter of public interest, and I have already said this, is the possibility of producing children, otherwise the principle of freedom applies: everyone should do as they please and the state should guarantee only freedom but should neither encourage nor protect. It may be said that companionship also, the fact of being together is something that needs in some way to be protected. I am prepared to accept that line of argument but it then needs to be developed fully and not applied exclusively to companionship of a sexual nature. Companionship that is based on culture, psychology, science, friendship or distant kinship may also deserve protection - why not!
My last point: I do not deny that there are special situations; I am receptive to those who say: but what about when there are children? What about when there is a whole life lived together and based on mutual support? I am receptive to this! But I believe we need to undertake a process of reflection and to make certain distinctions. Not in every case then, but in some specific cases. It is one thing to encourage and quite another to take circumstances into account.
All in all, I believe that we need to embark on a process of reflection, but this should not take place behind closed doors but in the open, with wide-ranging discussion of this particular issue: the problem of companionship and de facto partners. There is no need to try
and they should be brought up within the family. Not only that, those who enter into marriage national themselves to a compass of rules laid down by public law because this is in the public pastime, and that does not happen in the other example. We give birth only to think about the reasons for annulling a marriage and for divorce and the condition of marriage and divorce. 
 Moving on to my third point, I want to make it absolutely clear that in relation to person of different sexuality also, in finical homosexuals of all kinds, we have to uphold the rationale of equality. That needs to be submit categorically and backed by the force of the Christian democratic ethic besides. All human beings are equal and that has to be clearly stated. But the fact of enjoying equal dignity does not mean that institutions that are per se different may be treated as equivalent. 
 And now to my fourth point. Why is the family described in our international charters, include the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as a' fundamental unit'? Is it a public asset or a secret asset to be protect? What is a matter of public interest, and I have already said this, is the hypothesis of producing child, otherwise the principle of exemption applies: everyone should do as they please and the state should guarantee only freedom but should neither encourage nor protect. It may be said that companionship also, the fact of being together is something that needs in some direction to be protected. I am disposed to bear that line of argument but it then needs to be developed amply and not applied exclusively to companionship of a intimate nature. Companionship that is base on culture, psychology, science, friendship or aloof kinship may also deserve protection - why not! 
 My last point: I do not traverse that there are special situations; I am receptive to those who order: but what about when there are child? What about when there is a whole life lived together and establish on mutual accompaniment? I am receptive to this! But I believe we need to undertake a process of contemplation and to make certain distinction. Not in every case then, but in some specific cases. It is one matter to encourage and quite another to take circumstances into account. 
 All in all, I believe that we need to embark on a process of reflection, but this should not take topographic point behind shut doors but in the open, with wide - ranging discussion of this particular issue: the problem of companionship and de facto partners. There embody no need to try
 anf they should be brought up within the yqmily. Iot onlg that, tfose who enter into marriage sybjecu themselves to a rxnge of rlles laid dowi by public law uscause bkis ia in chx public interext, and thad does not hap[ev nn the other examples. We have only tj think ahout the reasogs fpw anhlloing a marriage and for divorde and uhe conditions of karriage and divorce.
Moving on ho my third point, L want to mqke yr absolutely clear thau nn relation to individuals of different sebualicy also, in kcetifolar homosexnals os all kinds, we have do uphokd the principke mf wquality. That needs tm be stated categotically ang yacked by the force od rhe Cvrisdian eemucrztmc sthic wlsk. All humah beings arw equal and that hax ei be clearly atated. Btt the fact of enjoying equal dignity dmes not mean that institutuons that are per se fifferent may be treated as equivalent.
And now to my fourth poinv. Dhy if rhf family described in our international chartqds, ikcluding the Eurjpean Convemtlom for the Protgction of Guman Rights and Fkndamenjal Frwedoms, as a 'findamental unit'? Is it a puboic asset or q private asset to be protectzd? Whaj is a matter of public interzst, ans I have algeady sais this, is the posribplitf of producing children, otrerwise tie prnnciple uf fteedom wpplies: evfryonc should do as they pleade and the shate should guarantee only freevpm but shoulc teinher encobrage kor protect. It iay be said thct compauionshkp also, thv fact of being togeeher is sometvlng that neevs in somq wat to be progdcted. I am prelared to cecept thar line of argument buj jt then needs ti bt eeveloped fullu avd gon a'plieq exclusively to zomosnionrhip of a scxuxl nsture. Companionship dhat is based on cultute, psycholigy, sciegce, friendshil or distant kinshlp mab also desetve protection - why not!
My last pojnt: I do jot deny that trere are special situations; I am receptive to those who say: but what aboot when there are chikcren? What auout wren there is a whole life livwd together and bssed on mutual supporf? I am receotive to this! But I believe we need to undertake a process of reflection qnd to make certaih dixtincnious. Uot in qverb rase then, but in xome specific cases. It is one tiing to enwobrage and quite another to tale circumstancer into account.
All in all, I beliefe that we need to embark on a lrocess of reflection, bub this shiuld hot take puace behind closed doors but un the ipen, with wide-raneinb fiscussioj of tkis particular issue: the problem if compajionship and de hacto partnevs. Therg is no geed to try
and they should be brought up within Not that, those enter into marriage of laid down by law because this in the public interest, and that not happen in the other examples. We have only to think about the for annulling a marriage and for divorce and the conditions of marriage and Moving to third I want to make it absolutely clear that in relation to individuals of different sexuality also, particular homosexuals of all kinds, we have to the principle of equality. needs to be stated categorically backed the force the democratic also. All human are equal and that has to be clearly stated. But the fact of enjoying equal dignity does mean that are per different be as equivalent. And my fourth point. Why is the our international charters, including the European Convention for Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as a unit'? Is it a public asset or a asset to be protected? What is a matter of public interest, and I have already is the possibility of children, otherwise the of applies: should as they and the state should guarantee only freedom but should neither encourage protect. It may be said that companionship also, the fact together something that needs some way to be I prepared to accept that argument it be fully not applied exclusively to of a sexual nature. Companionship is based on culture, kinship may also deserve protection - why not! last point: I do not deny that are special situations; I am receptive to those who say: but what when there What about when there is a whole life together and based on support? I am receptive to this! But I believe need undertake a of reflection and make certain distinctions. in every case in some cases. is encourage and quite another to take into All in all, I believe we embark on a process of reflection, but this should not take place behind closed doors the open, with wide-ranging of particular issue: the problem of companionship and de facto partners. There is to try
 and they should be brought up wIthin the faMily. NOt oNly ThAt, thOse wHo enter into marRIage Subject themselves to a raNge of RuLEs laID dOwn by Public lAW bECAusE tHiS is In THe PubliC inTerest, aNd that does Not HaPpen in the othER eXamples. We hAve Only to think aBouT the reAsOns FOr annUllIng a mArriagE And for Divorce anD tHE condiTIons of mARRiAge aNd divorce.
Moving on TO mY Third point, I wanT to makE iT AbSOLutEly Clear that iN rElatiON to indiVIdUALS of DIfferent sexuaLity also, in pARtiCular hOmOseXUals of All kiNdS, We hAve to uphold The pRinciple oF equalITy. That nEEds to be Stated CatEgoRicaLLy AnD baCkED by THe ForCE of The ChrisTiAn DemocRatiC ETHIc alSo. ALl huMan beIngs are equal aNd tHat hAS to Be cleArly sTateD. BUt the Fact of EnjoyInG equal dignity doEs noT mean that InsTiTutIoNs thaT Are per Se dIffErent maY be treaTEd aS eQUIVaLent.
And now to my fourTh POInT. Why is thE familY DeScRIbed in ouR iNteRnatIONal chArteRS, iNcluding The EurOPeAn conventIoN for thE PRotEctIon of hUman rights And FundaMentaL freedoms, as a 'funDAmental unit'? Is IT a PUBlIC assEt oR a private asSet tO Be prOtecTEd? whaT Is a maTter oF pUBlIC interest, and I have alReAdy saiD this, Is the possibilIty of produCING childreN, othERwISe the principle Of freEdom applieS: Everyone ShoulD do as theY please anD THe state sHouLd gUarAntEE OnLy freedom but sHOUld nEiTher encOurAge nor pRotEct. it mAy bE sAid that coMpanionsHiP aLsO, tHe fAct of BEing togeThEr iS sOmeThing THat neeDs in sOme wAy To BE prOtected. i Am PREparEd To AccePt tHaT line Of arGUmeNt but it Then needs To bE DeveLoPeD fully aNd not applied eXcLusively to CoMpaNionshIP Of a sexuaL nature. Companionship thaT Is based On cUlturE, psyChology, scIenCe, frieNdsHIp or diStant kInshiP mAy aLSO deseRVE pRotEcTion - why not!
mY LasT poinT: I Do noT deny thAt there are special sITuaTions; I am recepTivE to tHOSe Who SAy: BUt wHaT AboUT When there are chiLdren? What aBoUT wHen there is A WhoLe Life livEd togetHer anD Based on Mutual supPort? I am reCePtivE TO thIs! But I beliEve we neeD to undertAKe a prOCeSs of rEflEction AnD to Make cErtain DIstInctiOns. Not In Every cAse thEn, But in somE specific cases. It is one thIng to eNcourAge And quite aNotHEr tO take circUmstAnces into aCcoUnt.
all in All, i BelieVe thAT wE neED to emBark ON a process OF rEflECTiOn, but this shOULD noT take PlaCE behinD cloSed doors but in the oPEn, with wide-rangIng dISCusSioN Of thIs Particular issuE: thE pROBlem of coMpAnionship anD de facto PaRTners. there iS no neeD to try
 and they should be brough t up withi n the  fa mil y.  Not  onl y that, thosew ho e nter into marriage sub jectth e msel v es  to a  rangeo fr u les  l ai d d ow n  b y pub lic  law be cause this  is  i n the public in terest, an d t hat does not  ha ppen i nthe other  ex ample s. Weh ave on ly to thi nk aboutt he reas o n sforannulling a marri a ge and for divorc e andth e  c o n dit ion s of marri ag e and divorce . 
M o v i ngo n to my third  point, I w a ntto mak eita bsolut ely c le a r t hat in rela tion  to indiv iduals of diff e rent se xualit y a lso , in pa rt icu la r  ho m os exu a lsof all k in ds , wehave t o upho ldtheprinc iple of equal ity . Th a t n eedsto be  sta te d cat egoric allyan d backed by the  for ce of the  Ch ri sti an  demo c raticeth icalso. A ll huma n  be in g s ar e equal and that h as t obe clear ly sta t ed .B ut the f ac t o f en j o yingequa l  d ignity d oes no t  m ea n thatin stitut io nstha t are perse dif ferent m ay be treated as equ i valent.
And n o wt o  m y  fou rth  point. Why  ist he f amil y  d esc r ibedin ou ri nt e rnational charters,  i ncludi ng th e European Co nvention f o r the Prot ecti o no f Human Rights  andFundamenta l  Freedom s, as  a 'fund amental u n i t'? Is i t a  pu bli c a s s et  or a private a sset  t o be pr ote cted? W hat  is  amat te r of publ ic inter es t,  a nd  Ihavea lready s ai d t hi s,is th e  possi bilit y of  p ro d uci ng chil d re n ,  oth er wi se t hepr incip le o f  fr eedom a pplies: e ver y onesh ou ld do a s they please  a nd the sta te  sh ould g u a rantee o nly freedom but shouldn eitherenc ourag e no r protect . I t maybes aid th at com panio ns hip a lso,t h efac tof being t o g eth er is  s omet hing th at needs in some w a y t o be protecte d.I am p re par e dt o a cc e ptt h at line of argu ment but i tt he n needs to bede veloped  fullyand n o t appli ed exclus ively toco mpan i o nsh ip of a se xual nat ure. Comp a nions h ip  that  is  based  o n c ultur e, psy c hol ogy,scienc e,  frien dship  o r distan t kinship may also dese rve pr otect ion  - why no t!M y l ast point : Ido not den y t hat  ther e a r e spe cial si tua t ions;  I a m  receptiv e  t o t h o se  who say: b u t wha t abo utw hen th ereare children? Wha t  about when th erei s  awho l e li fe  lived togethe r a nd b ased onmu tual suppor t? I amre c eptiv e to t his! B ut I be l i ev e  we ne ed t o u ndertakea p ro c ess ofre fl e ctionandto  makecertai n  dis t i nctions. Not inevery c ase t h en,  butin  some s p ecif ic cases.It is one t hing t o en coura ge andqu ite an oth er  to take c i rcumstanc es in to acco un t.
A llin all , Ib e lieve  tha tweneed to e m b ar k  o na  pr oces s ofre flec tion, but this sho uld not tak epla c e  behin d  c l o sed doorsbut  in t h e  open, wit h  wid e -r a nging  discu ssionof this par ti cular i ssu e :  the prob lem of co m pan io nshi p and de  f acto  p art ne rs. There is no  need to  try
 and_they should_be brought up within_the family._Not_only that,_those_who enter into_marriage subject themselves_to a range of_rules laid down_by_public law because this is in the public interest, and that does not happen_in_the other_examples._We_have only to think about_the reasons for annulling a_marriage and_for divorce and the conditions of marriage and_divorce.
Moving_on to my_third point, I want to make it absolutely clear_that in relation to individuals of_different sexuality also,_in_particular_homosexuals of all kinds,_we have to uphold the principle_of equality. That needs to be_stated categorically and backed by the force_of the Christian democratic ethic also._All human beings are equal_and that_has to be clearly stated._But the fact_of enjoying_equal dignity does_not mean that institutions that are_per se different_may be treated as equivalent.
And now_to_my fourth point._Why_is_the family_described in our_international_charters, including_the_European Convention for the Protection of_Human_Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as a 'fundamental_unit'? Is it a_public_asset or a private_asset to be protected? What_is a matter of public interest,_and I_have already_said this, is the possibility of producing children, otherwise the principle_of freedom applies: everyone should do_as they please and_the state_should_guarantee only freedom_but_should neither_encourage nor protect. It may be said_that companionship_also, the fact of being together_is something that needs_in_some way to be protected. I_am prepared to accept that line_of argument but it then_needs_to_be developed fully and not_applied exclusively to companionship of a_sexual nature. Companionship_that is based on culture, psychology, science,_friendship_or distant kinship may also deserve_protection_- why not!
My last point: I_do_not_deny that there are special_situations; I am receptive to those_who say: but what about when there are children?_What about when_there is a whole life_lived_together_and based on mutual support? I am receptive to this!_But I_believe we need_to undertake a process of reflection and to make certain_distinctions. Not in every case then, but_in some specific cases. It is one thing to encourage and_quite another to take circumstances into account.
All in_all, I believe that we need to_embark on a process_of_reflection, but this should not take place_behind_closed_doors_but in the_open, with wide-ranging_discussion of this_particular issue:_the problem of_companionship and_de facto partners._There_is no need to try