This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talk pages in this namespace are not monitored by many users. Please post messages to Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory or Talk:LGBT rights in Europe instead of here. |
Same-sex couples have not a right to marry. Civil partnership it's not a marriage. Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
In the process of rewriting the Turkish constitution, the opposition party BDP, called for the liberalization of the marriage policies, which would include same sex marriage. The biggest opposition party in the Turkish parliament, CHP, supported the idea. The largest party in the parliament, the AKP, is against same sex marriage, all tough Premier Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the leader of the AKP, supported full equal rights for LGBT citizens in 2002. Same sex marriage will soon be discussed again by members of the parliament, since all political parties gather in committees to establish a new constitution. [1] [2] [3] [4]
You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory#Consistency of table headings across the continents regarding the column headers of this table. - htonl ( talk) 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Croatian Constitution does not ban same-sex marriage. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That is not a ban. Ban would be if the Constitution said SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS BANNED. I don't know why is someone insisting on writing things that are simply not true? And another thing. Some countries have a year when same-sex couples were first recognised, and some have a form of legal recognition. Why double standards? Can't we just have the same for all?
Well yes, countries that have a definition of a marriage in the Constitution is not a ban on same-sex marriage. And it's not just Croatia. I am talking about Croatia here because I personally know their law system very well. Some countries do have explicit ban on same-sex marriage, and that is completely different. From the law point of view to say the definition is a ban is simply wrong. That is my problem. There is a difference between DE FACTO and DE JURE. What happened in Croatia is that definition from the family law was simply copy/pasted to the Constitution. But in the past we wouldn't say same-sex marriage was banned cause it wasn't. So nothing changed.
And Life Partnership Act is the name of the law, so you can't just change the name cause you think so. UK has civil partnership, but you wouldn't call it registered partnership cause that is NOT the name of the law. Croatian judicial system will call and treat same-sex partnerships as life partnerships because that is the definition of the law. Not registered partnerships. Of course it will be noted in the article that same-sex couples will register their relationships as life partnerships.
And another thing is this; The table says "recognition of same-sex relationships", so what is the point of writing what sort of recognition for some countries, and then for other countries we just have the year when they were recognised? Doesn't make any sense. It is much better if we just state the year, and if reader wants to find out more he or she will simply click on the country and read about the history of same-sex relationships in that particular country.
What I am trying to do here is to give the reader a neutral and accurate description of what constitutions and laws say. Not my personal interpretation of the law, which as you can see most often gives a completely different story.
Countries that do not have a constitutional definition of the law still have family laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but you wouldn't say for those countries that they ban same-sex marriage, simply because they don't. We are not here to interpret laws but to write down word by word exactly what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
-- Emir234 ( talk) 13:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's fine, but if we are going down that road then it should say unregistered cohabitations since 2003, replaced by life partnership in 2014. And the reason for that is to give the reader idea of how long same-sex couples have been recognised by law in Croatia. If you remove unregistered cohabitations then the reader will not be aware that same-sex couples have been recognised by law for over 10 years. 11raccoon1 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Well as I am trying to change the column Laws concerning gender identity/expression for Germany I am asking myself if other users agree with the following depiction of the situation:
I wrote:
Parents of babies of the third gender can choose to avoid choosing a gender. The gender has to be declared male or female at a non-specified point in the future.
Personenstandsgesetz § 22 Fehlende Angaben
For further information about the current situation I recommend to read:
So I am open to changes of the current version, and even to completely remove this part of article if response wishes this. But I personally believe that this is worth of mentioning in this article and it fits into the category Laws concerning gender identity/expression! Thanks. -- Areatius 17:19, 15 December 2014 (CET)
Contrary to what the template stated, same-sex civil unions are legal in Portugal since 2001 (Law 7/2001, from 11th May). I corrected the error on January 23rd and provided the reference link to the relevant Law text (in Portuguese). Two days later another user ( AHC300, if I'm not mistaken) changed it back to "No" (forbidden). Once again, I corrected the error. I would request that user not to change something from right to wrong. Being ignorant of the Portuguese language and thus unable to read the legal text is no excuse, on the contrary. Gazilion ( talk) 13:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
-- PjeterPeter ( talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Article 18 of the Constitution can be interpreted as a ban (due to its vagueness), but the lawyers question this interpretation, for the same reason [8] [9]-- 82.132.236.222 ( talk) 02:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the source for the Constitution of Belarus: [10] After reading it, I cannot find the explicit ban on same-sex relationships. I see terminology of "husband and wife" but this is merely in regard to the nature of a heterosexual marriage (equality of the sexes). Other than that, it completely ambiguous towards same-sex relations and given the fact that attitudes towards homosexuality are not as open there, I doubt it will come before the Courts anytime soon. Any one have their own thoughts? Chase1493 ( talk) 21:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
References
User:Chase1493, You have undone my revision once more, stating that "no sovereign state recognises them" - this is precisely why they have been added to a table for "Partially recognised or unrecognised states". These entities are de facto independent and in control of their territory. They have received recognition from South Ossetia, itself a state with limited recognition (recognised by several UN members). They have the capacity to enforce their anti-LGBT laws. Thus they should be included in the table. AusLondonder ( talk) 02:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where the previous editor's information that stepchild adoption is illegal in Ireland came from, but I checked on a government website (which I added as a reference) and it appears as follows: "Can I adopt my partner’s child? If you are married to your partner, and the child was born to your partner outside of a marriage then it may be possible to make an application for adoption. You make an application as a couple to adopt the child; this is usually referred to as Stepfamily adoption." Though this is technically a "joint" adoption, the result is exactly that of what is called a stepchild adoption: The pre-existing parent and their partner end up being the two legal parents of the child. Sigur ( talk) 21:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sigur, I have posted an article for reference: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/change-sought-to-anomaly-in-adoption-law-1.1848049 The article appeared as follows 'Under current legislation, if a husband wishes to adopt his wife’s child from a previous relationship, the woman must give up her legal rights and adopt her own child as part of what is known as the “step-family” process'. On top of that, I have also posted a source from ILGA, which clearly stated that only joint adoption is available but not any forms of second-parent adoption (at least for same-sex couples). Jonathankwanhc ( talk) 21:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC +8)
Something else: I just realised that the Rainbow Europe site says that "automatic co-parent recognition" is available. Which means that you don't even need adoption in lesbian couples in case of sperm donation. I had looked for that and hadn't found the relevant legislation, but I assume ILGA doesn't say that without a reason. However, that begs the questions whether this information should not be given in the table generally. It is a possibility offered by more and more jurisdictions, at least for lesbian couples (in Europe at least Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Netherlands, Belgium and Spain). I've listed references to relevant legislations here (references 1 to 10). Adding another column might be too much, but we could mention "automatic co-parent recognition" (where applicable: "for lesbian couples") in the "Adoption by same-sex couples" column. For sure, it's not "adoption", but in order to avoid an additional column, it might be the least bad place to put it. Sigur ( talk) 23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Adrian Fey and HumRC: Discuss your edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The Polish Constitution specifies marriage as a union of exclusively of a woman and a man. Thus, a contrario, it does not allow same-sex relationships.
The doctrine of constitutional law also indicates that the only normative element that can be decoded from Article 18 of the Constitution is the principle of heterosexuality of marriage.
The Act on Publicly Funded Healthcare Benefits does not explain, however, who is a spouse. But this concept is sufficiently and clearly defined in the aforementioned Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which refers to marriage as a union between a woman and a man. The literature emphasizes that Article 18 of the Constitution establishes the principle of heterosexuality of marriage, [...] which prohibits lawmakers from statutory granting the status of marriage to relationships between persons of the same sex. Therefore, it is obvious that marriage in the light of the Constitution, and hence, in the light of Polish law, can only be, and is only a heterosexual union, and thus same-sex individuals cannot be spouses in a marriage.
What I read here about Poland reminds me of Germany before 2001: The constitution simply stated (and still states) that marriage is under the special protection of the state, and the Constitutional Court had repeatedly mentioned that "marriage" as understood by the constitution is between a man and a woman. At that point, there even was a clear scholarly majority saying that this "special protection" ruled out civil unions. Then we had civil unions, and they were validated by the Constitutional Court. Over time, these civil unions became more and more marriage-like (sometimes even due to a decision by the Constitutional Court itself) and outside administrative contexts most people just called them "marriage". Finally, we now have same-sex marriage, and there is little doubt that if anyone tried to invalidate that on grounds of constitutionality, the Constitutional Court would turn them down. This was a gradual process over twenty years, of course, and if you time-warp back to, say, 1995, it would have been proper to say that the constitution prohibits same-sex marriage. Because for all practical purposes it did. Today, with the same text, it does not. Therefore, I think that writing something along the lines of "The Constitution is generally said by case law and scholars to prohibit same-sex marriage" would be adequate. And I would then still mention the Warsaw Administrative Court decision in one of the footnotes. On a side note, HumRC, some constitutions explicitly define and limit marriage as between a man and a woman; therefore it is far from erroneous and ridiculous to say that only those actually "ban" same-sex marriage, because case law can and does evolve (And as I can see the question coming: It is easy to see how case law would get around Article 18 in twenty years' time: That provision only defines the word marriage in order to say to whom the "special protection and care of the Republic of Poland" applies; it does not prohibit legislation from giving the same protection to others and use the same label on the ordinary law level. The day you want it because the general consensus has evolved to be in favour of it, it's simple to do). Sigur ( talk) 08:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Polska Konstytucja określa bowiem małżeństwo jako związek wyłącznie kobiety i mężczyzny. A contrario nie dopuszcza więc związków jednopłciowych.
W doktrynie prawa konstytucyjnego wskazuje się nadto, że jedyny element normatywny, dający się odkodować z art. 18 Konstytucji, to ustalenie zasady heteroseksualności małżeństwa.
Ustawa o świadczeniach zdrowotnych finansowanych ze środków publicznych nie wyjaśnia, co prawda, kto jest małżonkiem. Pojęcie to zostało jednak dostatecznie i jasno określone we wspomnianym art. 18 Konstytucji RP, w którym jest mowa o małżeństwie jako o związku kobiety i mężczyzny. W piśmiennictwie podkreśla się, że art. 18 Konstytucji ustala zasadę heteroseksualności małżeństwa, będącą nie tyle zasadą ustroju, co normą prawną, która zakazuje ustawodawcy zwykłemu nadawania charakteru małżeństwa związkom pomiędzy osobami jednej płci (vide: L. Garlicki Komentarz do art. 18 Konstytucji, s. 2-3 [w:] Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, Warszawa 2003). Jest wobec tego oczywiste, że małżeństwem w świetle Konstytucji i co za tym idzie - w świetle polskiego prawa, może być i jest wyłącznie związek heteroseksualny, a więc w związku małżeńskim małżonkami nie mogą być osoby tej samej płci.
art. 18 Konstytucji RP, który definiuje małżeństwo jako związek kobiety i mężczyzny, a tym samym wynika z niego zasada nakazująca jako małżeństwo traktować w Polsce jedynie związek heteroseksualny.
the drafters of the 1997 Polish Constitution included a legal definition of a marriage as the union of a woman and a man in the text of the constitution in order to ensure that the introduction of same-sex marriage would not be passed without a constitutional amendment.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
Z przeprowadzonej powyżej analizy prac nad Konstytucją RP wynika jednoznacznie, że zamieszczenie w art. 18 Konstytucji RP zwrotu definicyjnego "związek kobiety i mężczyzny" stanowiło reakcję na fakt pojawienia się w państwach obcych regulacji poddającej związki osób tej samej płci regulacji zbliżonej lub zbieżnej z instytucją małżeństwa. Uzupełniony tym zwrotem przepis konstytucyjny "miał pełnić rolę instrumentu zapobiegającego wprowadzeniu takiej regulacji do prawa polskiego" (A. Mączyński, Konstytucyjne podstawy prawa rodzinnego, s. 772). Innego motywu jego wprowadzenia do Konstytucji RP nie da się wskazać (szeroko w tym zakresie B. Banaszkiewicz, "Małżeństwo jako związek kobiety i mężczyzny", s. 640 i n.; zob. też Z. Strus, Znaczenie artykułu 18 Konstytucji, s. 236 i n.). Jak zauważa A. Mączyński istotą tej regulacji było normatywne przesądzenie nie tylko o niemożliwości unormowania w prawie polskim "małżeństw pomiędzy osobami tej samej płci", lecz również innych związków, które mimo tego, że nie zostałyby określone jako małżeństwo miałyby spełniać funkcje do niego podobną (A. Mączyński, Konstytucyjne podstawy prawa rodzinnego, s. 772; tenże, Konstytucyjne i międzynarodowe uwarunkowania, s. 91; podobnie L. Garlicki, Artykuł 18, w: Garlicki, Konstytucja, t. 3, uw. 4, s. 2, który zauważa, że w tym zakresie art. 18 nabiera "charakteru normy prawnej").
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
Constitutional bans on same-sex marriage are now applicable in ten European countries: Article 32, Belarus Constitution; Article 46 Bulgarian Constitution; Article L Hungarian Constitution, Article 110, Latvian Constitution; Article 38.3 Lithuanian Constitution; Article 48 Moldovan Constitution; Article 71 Montenegrin Constitution; Article 18 Polish Constitution; Article 62 Serbian Constitution; and Article 51 Ukrainian Constitution.
Article 18 of the Polish Constitution limits the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples.
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talk pages in this namespace are not monitored by many users. Please post messages to Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory or Talk:LGBT rights in Europe instead of here. |
Same-sex couples have not a right to marry. Civil partnership it's not a marriage. Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
In the process of rewriting the Turkish constitution, the opposition party BDP, called for the liberalization of the marriage policies, which would include same sex marriage. The biggest opposition party in the Turkish parliament, CHP, supported the idea. The largest party in the parliament, the AKP, is against same sex marriage, all tough Premier Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the leader of the AKP, supported full equal rights for LGBT citizens in 2002. Same sex marriage will soon be discussed again by members of the parliament, since all political parties gather in committees to establish a new constitution. [1] [2] [3] [4]
You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory#Consistency of table headings across the continents regarding the column headers of this table. - htonl ( talk) 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Croatian Constitution does not ban same-sex marriage. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That is not a ban. Ban would be if the Constitution said SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS BANNED. I don't know why is someone insisting on writing things that are simply not true? And another thing. Some countries have a year when same-sex couples were first recognised, and some have a form of legal recognition. Why double standards? Can't we just have the same for all?
Well yes, countries that have a definition of a marriage in the Constitution is not a ban on same-sex marriage. And it's not just Croatia. I am talking about Croatia here because I personally know their law system very well. Some countries do have explicit ban on same-sex marriage, and that is completely different. From the law point of view to say the definition is a ban is simply wrong. That is my problem. There is a difference between DE FACTO and DE JURE. What happened in Croatia is that definition from the family law was simply copy/pasted to the Constitution. But in the past we wouldn't say same-sex marriage was banned cause it wasn't. So nothing changed.
And Life Partnership Act is the name of the law, so you can't just change the name cause you think so. UK has civil partnership, but you wouldn't call it registered partnership cause that is NOT the name of the law. Croatian judicial system will call and treat same-sex partnerships as life partnerships because that is the definition of the law. Not registered partnerships. Of course it will be noted in the article that same-sex couples will register their relationships as life partnerships.
And another thing is this; The table says "recognition of same-sex relationships", so what is the point of writing what sort of recognition for some countries, and then for other countries we just have the year when they were recognised? Doesn't make any sense. It is much better if we just state the year, and if reader wants to find out more he or she will simply click on the country and read about the history of same-sex relationships in that particular country.
What I am trying to do here is to give the reader a neutral and accurate description of what constitutions and laws say. Not my personal interpretation of the law, which as you can see most often gives a completely different story.
Countries that do not have a constitutional definition of the law still have family laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but you wouldn't say for those countries that they ban same-sex marriage, simply because they don't. We are not here to interpret laws but to write down word by word exactly what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
-- Emir234 ( talk) 13:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's fine, but if we are going down that road then it should say unregistered cohabitations since 2003, replaced by life partnership in 2014. And the reason for that is to give the reader idea of how long same-sex couples have been recognised by law in Croatia. If you remove unregistered cohabitations then the reader will not be aware that same-sex couples have been recognised by law for over 10 years. 11raccoon1 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Well as I am trying to change the column Laws concerning gender identity/expression for Germany I am asking myself if other users agree with the following depiction of the situation:
I wrote:
Parents of babies of the third gender can choose to avoid choosing a gender. The gender has to be declared male or female at a non-specified point in the future.
Personenstandsgesetz § 22 Fehlende Angaben
For further information about the current situation I recommend to read:
So I am open to changes of the current version, and even to completely remove this part of article if response wishes this. But I personally believe that this is worth of mentioning in this article and it fits into the category Laws concerning gender identity/expression! Thanks. -- Areatius 17:19, 15 December 2014 (CET)
Contrary to what the template stated, same-sex civil unions are legal in Portugal since 2001 (Law 7/2001, from 11th May). I corrected the error on January 23rd and provided the reference link to the relevant Law text (in Portuguese). Two days later another user ( AHC300, if I'm not mistaken) changed it back to "No" (forbidden). Once again, I corrected the error. I would request that user not to change something from right to wrong. Being ignorant of the Portuguese language and thus unable to read the legal text is no excuse, on the contrary. Gazilion ( talk) 13:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
-- PjeterPeter ( talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Article 18 of the Constitution can be interpreted as a ban (due to its vagueness), but the lawyers question this interpretation, for the same reason [8] [9]-- 82.132.236.222 ( talk) 02:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the source for the Constitution of Belarus: [10] After reading it, I cannot find the explicit ban on same-sex relationships. I see terminology of "husband and wife" but this is merely in regard to the nature of a heterosexual marriage (equality of the sexes). Other than that, it completely ambiguous towards same-sex relations and given the fact that attitudes towards homosexuality are not as open there, I doubt it will come before the Courts anytime soon. Any one have their own thoughts? Chase1493 ( talk) 21:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
References
User:Chase1493, You have undone my revision once more, stating that "no sovereign state recognises them" - this is precisely why they have been added to a table for "Partially recognised or unrecognised states". These entities are de facto independent and in control of their territory. They have received recognition from South Ossetia, itself a state with limited recognition (recognised by several UN members). They have the capacity to enforce their anti-LGBT laws. Thus they should be included in the table. AusLondonder ( talk) 02:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where the previous editor's information that stepchild adoption is illegal in Ireland came from, but I checked on a government website (which I added as a reference) and it appears as follows: "Can I adopt my partner’s child? If you are married to your partner, and the child was born to your partner outside of a marriage then it may be possible to make an application for adoption. You make an application as a couple to adopt the child; this is usually referred to as Stepfamily adoption." Though this is technically a "joint" adoption, the result is exactly that of what is called a stepchild adoption: The pre-existing parent and their partner end up being the two legal parents of the child. Sigur ( talk) 21:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sigur, I have posted an article for reference: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/change-sought-to-anomaly-in-adoption-law-1.1848049 The article appeared as follows 'Under current legislation, if a husband wishes to adopt his wife’s child from a previous relationship, the woman must give up her legal rights and adopt her own child as part of what is known as the “step-family” process'. On top of that, I have also posted a source from ILGA, which clearly stated that only joint adoption is available but not any forms of second-parent adoption (at least for same-sex couples). Jonathankwanhc ( talk) 21:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC +8)
Something else: I just realised that the Rainbow Europe site says that "automatic co-parent recognition" is available. Which means that you don't even need adoption in lesbian couples in case of sperm donation. I had looked for that and hadn't found the relevant legislation, but I assume ILGA doesn't say that without a reason. However, that begs the questions whether this information should not be given in the table generally. It is a possibility offered by more and more jurisdictions, at least for lesbian couples (in Europe at least Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Netherlands, Belgium and Spain). I've listed references to relevant legislations here (references 1 to 10). Adding another column might be too much, but we could mention "automatic co-parent recognition" (where applicable: "for lesbian couples") in the "Adoption by same-sex couples" column. For sure, it's not "adoption", but in order to avoid an additional column, it might be the least bad place to put it. Sigur ( talk) 23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Adrian Fey and HumRC: Discuss your edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The Polish Constitution specifies marriage as a union of exclusively of a woman and a man. Thus, a contrario, it does not allow same-sex relationships.
The doctrine of constitutional law also indicates that the only normative element that can be decoded from Article 18 of the Constitution is the principle of heterosexuality of marriage.
The Act on Publicly Funded Healthcare Benefits does not explain, however, who is a spouse. But this concept is sufficiently and clearly defined in the aforementioned Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which refers to marriage as a union between a woman and a man. The literature emphasizes that Article 18 of the Constitution establishes the principle of heterosexuality of marriage, [...] which prohibits lawmakers from statutory granting the status of marriage to relationships between persons of the same sex. Therefore, it is obvious that marriage in the light of the Constitution, and hence, in the light of Polish law, can only be, and is only a heterosexual union, and thus same-sex individuals cannot be spouses in a marriage.
What I read here about Poland reminds me of Germany before 2001: The constitution simply stated (and still states) that marriage is under the special protection of the state, and the Constitutional Court had repeatedly mentioned that "marriage" as understood by the constitution is between a man and a woman. At that point, there even was a clear scholarly majority saying that this "special protection" ruled out civil unions. Then we had civil unions, and they were validated by the Constitutional Court. Over time, these civil unions became more and more marriage-like (sometimes even due to a decision by the Constitutional Court itself) and outside administrative contexts most people just called them "marriage". Finally, we now have same-sex marriage, and there is little doubt that if anyone tried to invalidate that on grounds of constitutionality, the Constitutional Court would turn them down. This was a gradual process over twenty years, of course, and if you time-warp back to, say, 1995, it would have been proper to say that the constitution prohibits same-sex marriage. Because for all practical purposes it did. Today, with the same text, it does not. Therefore, I think that writing something along the lines of "The Constitution is generally said by case law and scholars to prohibit same-sex marriage" would be adequate. And I would then still mention the Warsaw Administrative Court decision in one of the footnotes. On a side note, HumRC, some constitutions explicitly define and limit marriage as between a man and a woman; therefore it is far from erroneous and ridiculous to say that only those actually "ban" same-sex marriage, because case law can and does evolve (And as I can see the question coming: It is easy to see how case law would get around Article 18 in twenty years' time: That provision only defines the word marriage in order to say to whom the "special protection and care of the Republic of Poland" applies; it does not prohibit legislation from giving the same protection to others and use the same label on the ordinary law level. The day you want it because the general consensus has evolved to be in favour of it, it's simple to do). Sigur ( talk) 08:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Polska Konstytucja określa bowiem małżeństwo jako związek wyłącznie kobiety i mężczyzny. A contrario nie dopuszcza więc związków jednopłciowych.
W doktrynie prawa konstytucyjnego wskazuje się nadto, że jedyny element normatywny, dający się odkodować z art. 18 Konstytucji, to ustalenie zasady heteroseksualności małżeństwa.
Ustawa o świadczeniach zdrowotnych finansowanych ze środków publicznych nie wyjaśnia, co prawda, kto jest małżonkiem. Pojęcie to zostało jednak dostatecznie i jasno określone we wspomnianym art. 18 Konstytucji RP, w którym jest mowa o małżeństwie jako o związku kobiety i mężczyzny. W piśmiennictwie podkreśla się, że art. 18 Konstytucji ustala zasadę heteroseksualności małżeństwa, będącą nie tyle zasadą ustroju, co normą prawną, która zakazuje ustawodawcy zwykłemu nadawania charakteru małżeństwa związkom pomiędzy osobami jednej płci (vide: L. Garlicki Komentarz do art. 18 Konstytucji, s. 2-3 [w:] Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, Warszawa 2003). Jest wobec tego oczywiste, że małżeństwem w świetle Konstytucji i co za tym idzie - w świetle polskiego prawa, może być i jest wyłącznie związek heteroseksualny, a więc w związku małżeńskim małżonkami nie mogą być osoby tej samej płci.
art. 18 Konstytucji RP, który definiuje małżeństwo jako związek kobiety i mężczyzny, a tym samym wynika z niego zasada nakazująca jako małżeństwo traktować w Polsce jedynie związek heteroseksualny.
the drafters of the 1997 Polish Constitution included a legal definition of a marriage as the union of a woman and a man in the text of the constitution in order to ensure that the introduction of same-sex marriage would not be passed without a constitutional amendment.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
Z przeprowadzonej powyżej analizy prac nad Konstytucją RP wynika jednoznacznie, że zamieszczenie w art. 18 Konstytucji RP zwrotu definicyjnego "związek kobiety i mężczyzny" stanowiło reakcję na fakt pojawienia się w państwach obcych regulacji poddającej związki osób tej samej płci regulacji zbliżonej lub zbieżnej z instytucją małżeństwa. Uzupełniony tym zwrotem przepis konstytucyjny "miał pełnić rolę instrumentu zapobiegającego wprowadzeniu takiej regulacji do prawa polskiego" (A. Mączyński, Konstytucyjne podstawy prawa rodzinnego, s. 772). Innego motywu jego wprowadzenia do Konstytucji RP nie da się wskazać (szeroko w tym zakresie B. Banaszkiewicz, "Małżeństwo jako związek kobiety i mężczyzny", s. 640 i n.; zob. też Z. Strus, Znaczenie artykułu 18 Konstytucji, s. 236 i n.). Jak zauważa A. Mączyński istotą tej regulacji było normatywne przesądzenie nie tylko o niemożliwości unormowania w prawie polskim "małżeństw pomiędzy osobami tej samej płci", lecz również innych związków, które mimo tego, że nie zostałyby określone jako małżeństwo miałyby spełniać funkcje do niego podobną (A. Mączyński, Konstytucyjne podstawy prawa rodzinnego, s. 772; tenże, Konstytucyjne i międzynarodowe uwarunkowania, s. 91; podobnie L. Garlicki, Artykuł 18, w: Garlicki, Konstytucja, t. 3, uw. 4, s. 2, który zauważa, że w tym zakresie art. 18 nabiera "charakteru normy prawnej").
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
Constitutional bans on same-sex marriage are now applicable in ten European countries: Article 32, Belarus Constitution; Article 46 Bulgarian Constitution; Article L Hungarian Constitution, Article 110, Latvian Constitution; Article 38.3 Lithuanian Constitution; Article 48 Moldovan Constitution; Article 71 Montenegrin Constitution; Article 18 Polish Constitution; Article 62 Serbian Constitution; and Article 51 Ukrainian Constitution.
Article 18 of the Polish Constitution limits the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples.