Referendum on same-sex marriage

From a procedural point of view, calling this referendum was legitimate and on this point there is no dispute. However, what is questionable is the necessity or the impropriety of its holding, considering the costs which it carries, the legal foundations for the definition that is to be written in the Constitution, and the question of basic human rights which could be seriously violated by the constitutional changes.

Huge costs in times of crisis

Croatia has lately been increasingly troubled by the heavy division among its citizens, and one of the reasons for this is the atmosphere created around the civic initiative “In the name of the family”. For starters, many consider even holding the referendum as being problematic, given its costs which amount to 47 million kuna (6,3 million €). Having in mind that the country is in a deep economic crisis without significant signs of imminent recovery, many citizens consider this cost highly unnecessary at the least. In times where the authorities do not or cannot find solutions to the problem of high unemployment and to many other problems, the cost of holding the referendum that consistently pops up in public, in some way offends those who are fighting for their own survival at the same time.

Constitutional assertion of discrimination and division

Even if the unneccesary costliness of the referendum is left aside, the question of legal basis of the referendum and subsequent possible constitutional changes still remains. The Croatian Constitution, as such, is not a legal glossary which is supposed to contain the definition of individual institutions (in this case – the definition of marriage), or at least this wasn’t the case until now. Article 61 of the Constitution states: “The family is under the special protection of the state. Marriage and legal relations in marriage, cohabitation and family are regulated by law.” So, what this initiative wants to protect – the family – is already protected in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution does not define, but points to further defining of the institution under the Law. In this case, it is the Family law in which the article 5 states: “Marriage is a legally regulated community of a man and a woman.” If we look at the desired constitutional change from this perspective, it raises an obvious question: Is it even necessary? We can conclude that the Family law clearly defines marriage the way the civic initiative wants it to, and the family as the primary object of protection already has the strongest – constitutional protection. However, the current legal and constitutional provisions are clearly not sufficient for some, so they want to penetrate in the sphere of family and living communities even more deeply.

General human values for all people

Because of that, we come to the most important instance – the protection, or in this case, the violation of human rights. This will be a referendum on the choice between protecting human rights and lives of LGBTQ citizens or their deliberate exclusion and degradation on the social ladder. The civic initiative states on its website that it “brings together individuals, families and civic organizations that promote general human values.” But is it actually true? The adoption of the provision on the definition of marriage will directly discriminate against one community, with a message that they are not equally worthy and valuable. In a country in the 21st century, that is a member of the EU and that has signed all of its conventions and agreements on human and minority rights, the recognition of the same rights is inhibited. The state is there to protect and respect all individuals as equal and equally valuable citizens. On the contrary, the initiative and the potential constitutional changes will create a division in the society on the citizens of the first and second order, by attacking the very dignity of these people.