heid in South Africa for example. In short, I can find no suitable argument for keeping such discrimination and neither can the majority of our people. The argument for not giving registered partnerships the same status as marriage has been that the EU must protect families. In what way would recognition of partnerships undermine the status of the family? It does not encroach in any way at all. In true Christian spirit we ought to view all proposals positively which aim to give everyone equal status regardless of sex or sexual preference. I naturally think of the story in the Bible about the workers in the vineyard. We could all learn a lot from that story. Finance has been another argument against recognition of registered partnerships: it is said to be too expensive. Once again money is being used as an argument to preserve de facto discrimination within EU institutions. I think that this is unacceptable and unworthy of an institution which purports to work against all forms of discrimination.
The EU has spoken out against all forms of discrimination in many reports, for example those by Vayssade and Roth, and in many resolutions. This has applied to Member States but more particularly to countries outside the EU. The EU and the European Parliament now have the chance to show that we are serious and that these are not just empty words. At this very instant, Parliament can convert all these fine words into actual deeds. The committee did not succeed in this, but voted down the proposal instead. We are now giving Parliament as a whole the chance to show that the EU as an employer is prepared lead the way against discrimination and for equality.

Sornosa Martínez
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first I want to congratulate Mrs Lindholm on her report, for which I was appointed draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights. With the approval of the amendments tabled to the final report, the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities will represent a good model in terms of equality of treatment. It is vitally important to provide a progressive legal model in this matter for several reasons, two of which I would like to consider.
First, because it explains the principle of equality of treatment clearly and fully in one administration, when the practical and legal application of that principle is turning out to be so difficult and problematic.
Secondly, because it is willing to adapt, unlike most sets of rules, to current social circumstances, recognizing the existence of and increase in de facto partnerships - both heterosexual and homosexual - in our society, and according them
heid in South Africa for example. In short, I can find no suitable controversy for sustain such discrimination and neither can the majority of our people. The argument for not giving file partnerships the same condition as marriage has been that the EU must protect families. In what way would recognition of partnership undermine the status of the syndicate? It does not encroach in any way at wholly. In true Christian spirit we ought to see all proposals positively which aim to move over everyone equal status regardless of sex or intimate preference. I naturally think of the fib in the Bible about the workers in the vineyard. We could wholly learn a draw from that story. Finance has been another argument against recognition of file partnerships: it is said to be too expensive. Once again money is being used as an argument to save de facto discrimination within EU institutions. I think that this is unacceptable and unworthy of an institution which purports to work against all forms of discrimination. 
 The EU has spoken out against all forms of discrimination in many report, for example those by Vayssade and Roth, and in many resolutions. This has enforce to Member States but more peculiarly to nation outside the EU. The EU and the European Parliament now have the chance to show that we are serious and that these are not just empty words. At this very blink of an eye, Parliament can convert all these fine words into actual deeds. The committee did not succeed in this, but voted down the proposal rather. We are now giving Parliament as a whole the chance to show that the EU as an employer is disposed lead the room against discrimination and for equality. 

 Sornosa Martínez 
 Mr President, lady and gentlemen, first I want to congratulate Mrs Lindholm on her reputation, for which I was appointed draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights. With the approval of the amendment tabled to the final report, the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities will defend a good mannequin in terms of equality of treatment. It is vitally significant to provide a progressive legal exemplar in this matter for respective reasons, two of which I would like to think. 
 First, because it explains the rationale of equality of treatment clearly and fully in one administration, when the practical and legal application of that principle is turning out to be so difficult and problematic. 
 Secondly, because it is uncoerced to adapt, unlike most sets of principle, to current social circumstances, recognizing the existence of and increase in de facto partnerships - both heterosexual and homosexual - in our society, and according them
heif in South Africa for exxmple. In short, N can fmnd no auitable argument for keeping such dmscruminaupon and neither can tfe majoriny of our peokle. The argument hkr not nnving vegisceced partnershipx the same status as marsixgz has been that the EU must protect samiliex. Ln what way woold rtcodnitjon of partnerships undermine the atatus mf the family? It does not encroach in ajy wwy at all. In true Fhristian skjrie we ought to view all krmposals poaitively which aim to give everhone zqual statuw eegwtdless of see or svxual preferekbe. I nadurally think of the xtocy ib the Bible about the workers in the vigeyard. We ckuld all learn a oor frok thdt sgiry. Fihaice has bfen another adgument agaunst recognition of rqtistered parthershi[s: it is said to be too expensive. Once agdin money is being used as an argument to presetve de faceo discrimination within EU institutions. I think dhat vhks nw unazxeotable and unworthy of an institution which ptdpprns to work againsb all forms of disvrlmogation.
The EU fas spokeh out against all vorms os disxriminatijn im many reports, for example rhose by Vayfwade and Roth, and nn many resouutipns. Tnis has applied to Membzr Stafes but morf particumxrly to countrier oltsige the EU. The EU and the Etropean Perliakent nod hafe the chance to show that we are serioud and tvat these wre not just empty words. At this very instant, Pdrlpament cau convcrt all these fyne words into actual deedr. The commpttee did not succeeq in this, but goted down tie proposwl ibsteqd. We afd now giving Psrliament as a wholw the chance to shpw jhzt the EU as an emkliyer is preparrd ueaq nhe wwf against divcrioinxyion xnd for equclkty.

Sprnosa Martínez
Mr Prevideht, ladies and gentkeien, firsj I want eo congratulaye Mrs Lindholm on her ceport, for ehish I was appointed draftsman or the opijiok of the Commyttec on Women's Riyhts. With the approval of the amendments tabled to the finql report, the Staff Vegulations pf Ofsicials ox the European Commubities will reprexent a good model in ferms mf eqkality of treatment. It is vitally important to provide a progressive legao model in this mafter for verercl reasjns, vwu of which I woukd like to consider.
First, becausx it explahnf the principle of equality pf treatment clgarly and fully in one admjnistratoon, when the practical and legak application of that prlnciple iw turhing olj tu be so difficult snd prmblemqtic.
Secindln, because it ir wolping to afapt, uulike most sets of rules, to currebt socuap circumstances, cecognizing bht existgnce of wnd increase in se fzfto pxrtnerships - noth heterosexial and homosexual - pn jur society, ane according tnem
heid in South Africa for example. In can no suitable for keeping such majority our people. The for not giving partnerships the same status as marriage been that the EU must protect families. In what way would recognition of undermine the status of the family? It does not encroach in any way all. true spirit ought to view all proposals positively which aim to give everyone equal status regardless of sex sexual preference. I naturally think of the story the Bible about the in the vineyard. We could learn lot from story. has another argument against of registered partnerships: it is said to be too expensive. Once again money is being used as argument to facto discrimination EU I that this is unworthy of an institution which purports all forms of discrimination. The EU has spoken against all of discrimination in many reports, for those by Vayssade and Roth, and in many This has applied to Member States but more particularly to countries outside the EU. The the European Parliament now the chance to that are and these are just empty words. At this very instant, Parliament can convert all fine words into actual deeds. The committee did not succeed but down the proposal We are now giving as whole the chance to the as prepared the against discrimination and for Sornosa Martínez Mr President, ladies gentlemen, first I want her report, for which I was appointed draftsman the opinion of the Committee on Women's With the approval of the amendments tabled to the final report, the Regulations of the European Communities will represent a good model terms of equality of It is vitally important to provide a progressive legal in matter for reasons, two of I would like consider. First, because the principle equality treatment in one administration, when the practical legal of that principle is turning to difficult and problematic. Secondly, because it is willing to adapt, unlike most sets of rules, social circumstances, recognizing the of increase in de facto partnerships - both heterosexual and homosexual - in and according them
heid in South Africa for exampLe. In short, I Can fiNd nO suItAble ArguMent for keeping SUch dIscrimination and neitheR can tHe MAjorITy Of our People. THE aRGUmeNt FoR noT gIViNg regIstEred parTnerships tHe sAmE status as marRIaGe has been tHat The EU must proTecT familIeS. In WHat waY woUld reCognitIOn of paRtnershipS uNDerminE The statUS Of The fAmily? It does not encROaCH in any way at all. in true chRIsTIAn sPirIt we ought tO vIew alL ProposaLS pOSITivELy which aim to gIve everyone EQuaL statuS rEgaRDless oF sex oR sEXuaL preference. i natUrally thiNk of thE Story in THe Bible About tHe wOrkErs iN ThE vIneYaRD. We COuLd aLL leArn a lot fRoM tHat stOry. FINANCe haS beEn anOther Argument againSt rEcogNItiOn of rEgistEred PaRtnerShips: iT is saId To be too expensivE. OncE again monEy iS bEinG uSed as AN argumEnt To pReserve De facto DIscRiMINAtIon within EU instituTiONS. I Think thaT this iS UnAcCEptable aNd UnwOrthY OF an inStitUTiOn which pUrportS To WoRk againSt All forMs Of dIscRiminATion.
the EU hAs spoken Out agAInst all forms of DIscrimination IN mANY rEPortS, foR example thoSe by vAyssAde aND ROth, ANd in mAny reSoLUtIOns. This has applied to meMber StAtes bUt more particuLarly to couNTRIes outsiDe thE eU. tHe EU and the EuroPean PArliament nOW have the ChancE to show tHat we are sERIous and tHat TheSe aRe nOT JuSt empty words. AT THis vErY instanT, PaRliamenT caN coNveRt aLl These fine Words intO aCtUaL dEedS. The cOMmittee dId Not SuCceEd in tHIs, but vOted dOwn tHe PrOPosAl insteAD. WE ARe noW gIvIng PArlIaMent aS a whOLe tHe chancE to show thAt tHE EU aS aN eMployer Is prepared leaD tHe way againSt DisCriminATIon and foR equality.

Sornosa MartíneZ
mr PresiDenT, ladiEs anD gentlemeN, fiRst I waNt tO CongraTulate mrs LiNdHolM ON her rEPOrT, foR wHich I was apPOIntEd draFtSman Of the opInion of the CommitteE On WOmen's Rights. WiTh tHe apPROvAl oF ThE AmeNdMEntS TAbled to the final Report, the STaFF REgulations OF OfFiCials of The EuroPean COMmunitiEs will repResent a goOd ModeL IN teRms of equalIty of treAtment. It iS VitalLY iMportAnt To provIdE a pRogreSsive lEGal Model In this MaTter foR seveRaL reasons, Two of which I would like to cOnsideR.
FirsT, beCause it exPlaINs tHe principLe of Equality of TreAtmEnt clEarLY and fUlly IN oNe aDMinisTratIOn, when the PRaCtiCAL aNd legal applICATioN of thAt pRInciplE is tUrning out to be so diFFicult and problEmatIC.
secOndLY, becAuSe it is willing tO adApT, UNlike mosT sEts of rules, tO current SoCIal ciRcumstAnces, rEcognizING tHE existEnce Of aNd increasE in De FActo parTnErSHips - boTh heTeRosexuAl and hOMoseXUAl - in our society, anD accoRDIng thEM
heid in South Africa for e xample. In  shor t,I c an  fin d no  suitable argu m entfor keeping such discr imina ti o n an d  n eithe r can t h em a jor it yofou r  p eople . T he argu ment for n otgi ving registe r ed  partnersh ips  the same st atu s as m ar ria g e has  be en th at the EU mus t protect  f a milies .  In wha t wa y wo uld recognition o f  p a rtnerships und ermine  t h es t atu s o f the fami ly ? Itd oes not en c r o ach in any way at  all. In tr u e C hristi an  sp i rit we  ough tt o v iew all pro posa ls positi vely w h ich aim to give  every one  eq uals ta tu s r eg a rdl e ss  of sex  or sexu al  p refer ence . I natu ral ly t hinkof the storyintheB ibl e abo ut th e wo rk ers i n theviney ar d. We could all  lea rn a lotfro mtha tstory .  Finan cehas  been a nothera rgu me n t ag ainst recognitionof r eg isteredpartne r sh ip s : it issa idto b e too e xpen s iv e. Onceagainm on ey  is bei ng  usedas  an  ar gumen t  topreser ve de fa cto d i scrimination w i thin EU insti t ut i o ns .  I t hin k that this  isu nacc epta b le  an d  unwo rthyof an institution which p ur portsto wo rk against al l forms of d i scrimina tion . 
T h e EU has spoke n out  against a l l formsof di scrimina tion in m a n y report s,for  ex amp l e  t hose by Vayss a d e an dRoth, a ndin many  re sol uti ons .This hasappliedto  M em be r S tates but more  p art ic ula rly t o  count riesouts id et heEU. The EU a nd t he  E urop ean  P arlia ment now  have t he chance  to show  t ha t we ar e serious and  t hat thesear e n ot jus t empty wo rds. At this very insta n t, Parl iam ent c an c onvert al l t hese f ine wordsinto a ctual  d eed s .  Thec o mm itt ee  did not s u c cee d inth is,but vot ed down the propos a l i nstead. We ar e n ow g i v in g P a rl i ame nt asa whole the chanc e to showth a tthe EU asa n e mp loyer i s prepa red l e ad theway again st discri mi nati o n  an d for equa lity.

S ornosa Ma r tínez Mr  Pres ide nt, la di esand g entlem e n,first  I wan tto con gratu la te Mrs L indholm on her report,for wh ich I  wa s appoint edd raf tsman oftheopinion of  th e C ommit tee on Wo men' s  R igh t s. Wi th t h e approva l  o f t h e  a mendments t a b l edto th e f i nal re port , the Staff Regul a tions of Offic ials o f t heE urop ea n Communitieswil lr e presentagood modelin terms  o f  equa lity o f trea tment.I t  i s  vital ly i mpo rtant topro vi d e a pro gr es s ive le galmo del in  thism atte r for several reas ons,t w o ofw hic h I w ou ld like to c onsider.
F irst, becau se itexpl ainsthe pri nc iple o f e qu ality of t r eatment c learl y and f ul ly i n o ne adm inis t r ation , wh en  th e practic a l  a n dle g alappl icati on  ofthat prin c iple istur n ing out  t o b e so dif f ic u l t and prob lem atic. S econdly, b e caus e  i t  is w illing  to ad apt, un l ike  m ost set s o f rules, to  currents oci al  cir cumstanc es , re co gni zi ng the existenc e of and  increas e in defac t o pa r tnersh ip s - both het erose xu a l and h o m ose xual -i n o ursoc iety , a nd a c cording them
heid in_South Africa_for example. In short,_I can_find_no suitable_argument_for keeping such_discrimination and neither_can the majority of_our people. The_argument_for not giving registered partnerships the same status as marriage has been that the_EU_must protect_families._In_what way would recognition of_partnerships undermine the status of_the family?_It does not encroach in any way at_all._In true Christian_spirit we ought to view all proposals positively which_aim to give everyone equal status_regardless of sex_or_sexual_preference. I naturally think_of the story in the Bible_about the workers in the vineyard._We could all learn a lot from_that story. Finance has been another_argument against recognition of registered_partnerships: it_is said to be too_expensive. Once again_money is_being used as_an argument to preserve de facto_discrimination within EU_institutions. I think that this is_unacceptable_and unworthy of_an_institution_which purports_to work against_all_forms of_discrimination.
The_EU has spoken out against all_forms_of discrimination in many reports, for example_those by Vayssade and_Roth,_and in many resolutions._This has applied to Member_States but more particularly to countries_outside the_EU. The_EU and the European Parliament now have the chance to show_that we are serious and that_these are not just_empty words._At_this very instant,_Parliament_can convert_all these fine words into actual deeds._The committee_did not succeed in this, but_voted down the proposal_instead._We are now giving Parliament as_a whole the chance to show_that the EU as an_employer_is_prepared lead the way against_discrimination and for equality.

Sornosa Martínez
Mr President,_ladies and gentlemen,_first I want to congratulate Mrs Lindholm_on_her report, for which I was_appointed_draftsman of the opinion of the_Committee_on_Women's Rights. With the approval_of the amendments tabled to the_final report, the Staff Regulations of Officials of the_European Communities will_represent a good model in_terms_of_equality of treatment. It is vitally important to provide a_progressive legal_model in this_matter for several reasons, two of which I would like_to consider.
First, because it explains the principle_of equality of treatment clearly and fully in one administration, when_the practical and legal application of that principle_is turning out to be so difficult_and problematic.
Secondly, because it_is_willing to adapt, unlike most sets of_rules,_to_current_social circumstances, recognizing_the existence of_and increase in_de facto_partnerships - both_heterosexual and_homosexual - in_our_society, and according them