Q: Please tell me, have you formulated your personal view about this weekend’s gay pride event?

A: My personal attitude is very clear, it has always been in place, and it will never change. I oppose absolutely any kind of intolerance, and that is the basic platform which I will always observe. I think that the main thing for people is not only to stop being intolerant, but also to understand others. We are talking only about tolerance, but we seldom talk about trying to form an understanding and comprehension vis-à-vis any minority group, no matter what kind.

Q: So you think that this march will be something like a “friendship day” and integration? Because there’s also the view that it’s extremism which exacerbates intolerance.

A: One thing of which I am certainly proud and of which I am proud whenever I meet with foreigners is that ours is a truly democratic country. We have a truly free country in which every citizen has the right to express himself, and that opportunity is respected. I think that those are values from which we must not retreat.

Q: Do government officials show tolerance by attending or not attending the pride event?

A: My friend Ainars Mielavs had a song: “We love to demand, we love to demand, we love to demand because we love too little.” I think that every person must be given a chance to express himself freely, and that is what ensures tolerance, understanding, comprehension and also freedom. That is the main thing. It is not enough to put all of these things – tolerance, freedom, understanding, comprehension and friendship in a single little frame of “only this way and no other way”.

Q: That means that there is no frame? No red lines with respect to our desire, for instance, to have a concrete idea of what these homosexual persons are demanding? After all, there are demands about marriage, about adopting children, about inheritance rights and so on. Where is the red line for you?

A: I think that one thing that we need to respect when we talk about various social privileges or legal issues is the so-called common household. If some people have a common household and they have, let’s say, the common life of a single gender, then we certainly need to resolve these aspects of social privileges – inheritance, the right of the spouse to enjoy certain privileges, and so on. That is what needs to be done, and it would be a gesture of understanding, comprehension and good will.

Q: Marriage should be part of establishing these relations?

A: I think that I explained quite clearly that we need to talk not about specific things, but about what kind of society we want to see. Anything that we do in terms of legislation and everyday life must be focused on the three things that I mentioned – tolerance, understanding, comprehension and freedom (four, in other words). These must be observed as thoroughly as possible. We can look at collisions in the world, when one group reacts quite differently to things than another. We can think about those unfortunate cartoons, for instance. You’re asking about red lines, but freedom says that each person draws the line, each person does not offend the freedom of another.

Q: Tell me, please – on these issues of homosexuality, do your views as president of Latvia differ from your views as the father of a son?

A: I am speaking as a person, a citizen, a father and a spouse.

Q: But the church quite categorically rejects such manifestations. Is it the case that you disagree with the church?

A: The church, too, has the right to express its views freely. They are also people, that is a manifestation of democracy and freedom, and they are specific people who express their views. We must allow them to do so.