Currently Article 110 of the Latvian Constitution states: “The State shall protect and support marriage, the family, the rights of parents and rights of the child.” Additionally Article 35(2) of the Civil Law explicitly bans marriage between persons of the same sex. The First Party’s amendment proposes to rephrase Article 110: “The State protects marriage – union between a man and a woman, the family, the rights of parents and rights of the child”.

According to the news agency LETA, the proposal will be supported by the People’s Party (20 seats in the 100 seats Latvian Parliament) and the First Party (14 seats). The New Era Party (24 seats) and the Green and Peasant’ Union (12 seats) announced it will allow a free vote on this proposal.

Janis Lagzdins, leader of the People’s Party at the Parliament, said that as a conservative party, his party would support this proposal prepared by the First Party, their coalition partner. At the same time he said that the Constitution should not be amended ‘each time it come to one’s mind, therefore the amendment should be considered in the context of other amendments to the basic law’. He believes this amendment needs more evaluations at the Parliament.

Karlis Sadurskis, leader of the New Era Party at the Parliament, said to the media that the aim of this proposal is not to amend the Constitution but rather to ‘raise populist issue to speculate with peoples’ convictions’. Nevertheless taking into account the seriousness of the issue, his party decided to allow a free vote for their MPs. He believes that during tomorrow’s discussion the amendment might be forwarded to the parliamentary commission. He also accused the First Party of ‘unserious attitude’ since the First Party did not consult the coalition partner when preparing and submitting this proposal.

In order to amend the Constitution, the proposal needs to be supported by ¾ of the MPs. The amendment can be forwarded to the parliamentary commission by a simple majority of the votes. However ¾ of the votes will be needed for the amendment to be passed during the readings.
The First Party came out with an explanatory statement stating that currently the Constitution does not provide a clear definition of marriage and therefore is a subject to disfiguring. The First Party wants to stress the traditional understanding of marriage and family to prevent the threats to their value.

The First Party mentioned the heated debates on lesbian and gay rights and the traditional family values taking place in the country last summer and therefore proposed to amend the Constitution to underline that a family created by a man and a woman should have a state protection. According to the party’s statement it is not an aim of the amendment to discriminate against sexual minorities or to ban cohabitation between persons of the same sex, but rather to provide state support for the development and welfare of traditional family. With their proposal the First Party wanted to remind that the values, proved during thousands of years, cannot be left aside and cannot be take for granted. They also referred to the statement by Janis Pujats, Archbishop of the Latvian Roman Catholics, that not following God’s created order would lead to the extermination of humanity since same-sex marriage does not result in a birth of a child.

15 September 2005

This morning the Latvian Parliament did not dismiss a proposal from the Latvia’s First Party to amend the Latvian Constitution to prevent same-sex marriage, but voted to forward this proposal to all parliamentary commissions for further consideration and to assign the Parliamentary Judicial Commission as responsible for the amendment.

Below is a translation of two speeches on the subject.

Inese Šlesere (First Party):

Our party proposes to amend Article 110 of the Constitution which speaks about the values protected by our state – marriage, family, rights of parents and children, to define that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Just recently such amendment seemed absolutely unnecessary and probably even now many of us do not realise today’s real danger and threats to the marriage and the family. I would like to use this opportunity and to thanks all MPs for the trust and opportunity given to me to work at the European Parliament, where I could see how incredibly strong is the lesbian and gay lobby in Europe and what incredible and immeasurable troubles face those people who defend traditional family values since the discussion on what is marriage in many European countries is not clear. And if such a definition as ‘family in all it diversity’ will be used at the international documents in our parliament, that would be an indirect inclusion of a same-sex marriage. In many countries, including a number of countries in Europe, as you know, such marriage is allowed, recognised and being officially registered. I have to admit I am proud that such marriage is not allowed in Latvia. And I would like to hope that the marriage means a value that our nation and legislature.

Therefore I also hope that in the near future Latvia will not join those countries where same-sex marriage, a parody on a family, is possible, since Article 35(2) currently prohibits marriage registration between persons of the same sex. Nevertheless time to time we see the attempts to break this fragile barrier. As an example I would like to mention the last week’s legislative amendments to the Civil Law banning sexual orientation discrimination in civil matters.

Undoubtedly such discrimination is not allowed. But the question arises – if these amendments are adopted, will there be a conflict with the abovementioned Article 35(2) of the Civil Law? Homosexual people will be discriminated against in their right to register marriage, adopt children etc. And as all of you know our legal principles provides that when there is a conflict between two laws, the newest law prevails. Therefore it is possible that Article 35(2) which bans same-sex marriage will mean nothing very soon.

And this is the answer why we want to amend our Constitution with those four words that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Supporting this amendment we strengthen that barrier that protects the family from various hateful and destructive tendencies.

Marriage is more than just a civil or legal contract. Regardless from different views expressed by various parts, the marriage between two loving opposite-sex persons is that social institution, that is the best for the state interest, procreation and bringing up a child.

Advocated of the same-sex marriage highlight equal rights for adult persons as a central subject, therefore leaving aside the interest of a child, and therefore the interest of the state. Strong, traditional family is the state’s most precious value. Only protecting and strengthening the family, we can overcome demographical crisis and to prevent demographic catastrophe in Latvia.

At the same time, dead colleagues, I am very disappointed, that this amendment is submitted only with the signatures of the MPs from the First Party and I would like to hope that this will not be a barrier to prevent you from supporting it.

I call upon you, colleagues, not to be naïve and not to avoid responsibility! Supporting this proposal, I call upon you to support the marriage, support the family, support the child and therefore to support our state and the interest of our nation!

Thank you.

Kārlis Šadurskis (New Era):

My intervention could be considered both supporting and opposing this amendment.

I definitely support the content of the amendment. At the same time I am definitely against its form. We do not amend the Constitution every day, it is our basic law. I personally very much support the introduction of such a norm in the Constitution, but I am categorically against playing with the Constitution.

If honourable First Party indeed wanted to amend our state’s basic law in this direction, dear colleagues, why did not you consult your coalition partners, why did not you harmonise the views, and why only at the last coalition meeting you threw this amendment to the table with about following idea – well, vote as you want!

Dear friends, things are not done this way. This is a question about person’s convictions. This is very important issue. It should have been discussed and consciously adopted, rather than played with such important topic for the humanity.

Of course, we support the family. Of course we support such a family which is necessary for the vitality of our nation and the normal ethic development. Of course we support that!

But the politics should not be mixed with populism. Suggested form is not the best. Our party MPs will have a free vote on this proposal, but not because of the content but rather because of its form.