Not even a technicality, it's not a treaty and was never meant to be binding, I don't think that if it were a treaty it would have a snowballs chance in hell of being ratified, even with the normal senate exceptions and declarations tacked on to treaties.





If it makes you feel better go ahead The ICJ is not likely to rule more liberally than the European Court on Human Rights, which ruled there was no violation of human rights about a month ago on a gay marriage case arising in Austria. If most countries don't allow gay marriage though, that doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but it does mean the current consensus of opinion is that it isn't a right, and naysayers are well advised to remember that 'on the international stage' the US has far more liberal laws on homosexuality than most countries. But whether it does or doesn't call it a right or allow gay marriage, it's basically tilting at windmills since it has no legal power and was designed not to have legal power. Our courts regularly borrow foreign judicial rulings as examples, they do not cite them as having legal power [some exceptions like maritime law]. The UHDR, while considerably more ethical than human rights laws of say, China, have no more legal weight in the US.