Statement by the President of Latvia regarding her decision to sign a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman:[unofficial translation by Juris Lavrikovs, official English translation of the President’s speech will be available on her website: www.president.lv ]

“Indeed as a ‘nice Christmas present’ I had a constitutional amendment on my desk. I examined its substance and decided that in fact and honestly speaking it does not change anything. What happened is that what is stated in the Civil Law is taken to a constitutional level, that definition of what is marriage. Despite the fact that is already clearly stated in the Civil Law. In terms of the law there are no changes, neither in terms of practicalities. One could say that by upgrading this provision and writing that marriage is a union between man and woman somehow family will be strengthened. But this is just a declaration without any practical consequences since its real consequences are already provided in the Civil Law. If one had in mind that by adding such requirement to the constitution it will guarantee that it will stay there for ever and all the time, than it is of course an illusion, a wrong hope. This is because this Seima [parliament], or during the next session can, providing it has necessary support, amend it whatever way it likes.

Honestly speaking, I, as a president, cannot see clearly the benefit of this amendment to the nation. However since indeed it does not change anything in substance for the better neither for the worst, I do not see any reason not to sign it. Servants of the nation agreed on such definition therefore literary it remains that according the law of Latvia marriage takes places between two partners, a man and a woman. Our Civil Law has other provisions, for example, prohibiting marriage between sisters and brothers or half-sisters and half-brothers, there are also other provisions, which already included in the Civil Law.

I would also like to stress that this constitutional amendment in no way introduces any discriminatory requirements towards gays and lesbians. Everything remains exactly the same as it was before, as it was defined by the Civil Law and what conforms to the international standards which allow a state to choose a definition of marriage the way society wants. It is already defined by the Civil Law and according to the letters I received conforms to the wishes of a significant proportion of our society.

What else I would like to add is that the debates which took place in the Saeima [parliament] when discussing this amendment, in my view, very often demonstrated very explicit intolerance and explicit homophobia, which I believe, in a democratic nation neither should be unexpected or encouraged. People can have their own religious beliefs, their own understanding of what is sin and what is not, what is appropriate and what is not appropriate behaviour. However, as a president, I would like to remind, that in a democratic nation as we are, a private life is separated form a public sphere  and what people do in their intimacy is no one’s business, unless it contradicts our Therefore this Christmas eve I would like to remind everyone, that we want to see our nation where democracy, in its most deepest and true expression, prevails, which means each and everyone is equally valued as a human being, before the state and not only before the God. Everyone is equal in their rights. I also would like to ask people not come out with extreme statements which encourage and promote hate, prejudice and which humiliate and devalue those thinking or living differently. We all want to enjoy freedom provided by our constitution and our democracy. Please, let us be tolerant towards other people’s freedom of choice!”

Latvian LGBT activists expressed their ‘bitter disappointment’ with the President’s decision and calling on her to introduce partnerships registration legislation for same-sex partners.

Between last Sunday morning and today 2000 signatures calling on the Latvian President not to sign the amendment and sent it back to the parliament were collected on a special on-line petition: http://pret.diskriminaciju.esmu.es.