EU: Gay politicians not happy about Croatian marriage referendum. But 80 Non-governmental organizations support the right of Croatians to have their say on same-sex marriage.

By J.C. von Krempach, J.D. | November 27, 2013

Citizens defend marriage against homosexual re-definition

As we have reported in a previous blog entry, a constitutional referendum will be held in Croatia this Sunday on the proposal to include a definition of marriage as the “permanent union of a man and a woman” in the Constitutions. The latest opinion surveys suggest that the outcome could be between 60 and 70% in favour of such an amendment.

In most countries, constitutional law does not contain such a definition. The reason for this is that until not many years ago nobody thought such a definition to be necessary, as there was universal agreement that marriages could only be concluded between one man and one woman. The Netherlands, which adopted a law on same-sex “marriages” in 2001, was the first country in the world to undermine this universal consensus. Other countries have followed. In some, the term marriage was re-defined with a simple parliamentary majority, whereas in other countries the constitutional courts suddenly and surprisingly “discovered” that homosexual relationships had the same or similar value as marriages, and should therefore be treated in the same way. In the same vein, international bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights started to adopt decisions that systematically undermine the meaning of marriage.

It is a “revolution from the top” on which ordinary people usually are not allowed to have a say. Indeed, for this revolution to be successful, it was necessary to overturn democracy, and to prevent any democratic debate on the issue. Normal people do not want marriage to be re-defined.

The most emblematic case is perhaps California, where (despite being considered the international stronghold of the homosexualist movement) a popular referendum held in 2008 resulted in a ban on same-sex “marriages” to be included in the State’s Constitution. However, the State’s political and judicial elites did not accept this democratic decision, but overturned it through grotesque manipulations. A federal judge (who happened to be the first openly gay person in that function) ruled that the referendum had been “unconstitutional”, and the State government, whose role it would have been to defend the Constitution adopted by the electorate, refused to do so. In the end, the US Supreme Court, in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruled by a narrow majority that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court. It results that even a clear majority of the people, or a constitutional law, may not suffice to defend the institution of marriage, if the political and judicial elites of a country are stubbornly determined to undermine it.

But that is no reason why such referendums should not be held, and why the reasonable majority should not make its voice heard. A growing number of European countries have amended their constitutions to clarify what is self-evident, namely that marriage has no other meaning than that of a union between one man and one woman. Those countries include Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Hungary. All these amendments were made to forestall possible attempts by the European Court of Human Rights or the EU to impose the legal recognition of same-sex “marriages” on the basis of flimsy interpretations of EU or CoE law. In Estonia and Slovenia, successful citizen’s initiatives managed to stall government initiatives to re-write the laws of nature. The public is awakening, and it does not want to live under the dictatorship of the gay lobby.

Now it is the turn of the Croatian people to send this message not only to their own government, but also to Brussels and Strasbourg.

Obviously, the lunatic fringe in the European Parliament are not at all happy about this. The same-sex agenda cannot be successful when there is too much democracy. In a video released a few days ago, Michael “Blitzkrieg” Cashman, and Ulrike “the Butch” Lunacek, two Members of the European Parliament who specialize in promoting sexual aberrances and fighting against the interest of normal families, released a video in which they say that they are “deeply worried” with regard to the referendum in Croatia. While, with sweet-sour mines, they cannot avoid recognizing the legitimacy for Croatia to hold such a referendum, they nevertheless claim that this is “a referendum that asks a majority to determine, or to take away, the rights of a minority” and that “this is not an inclusive version of democracy”.


Mrs. Lunacek even goes as far as saying that “I have no doubt that, whatever the outcome of this referendum, equality and justice will prevail in the end”. This should probably not be interpreted as a pledge of respect for the people’s will, but as a pledge to fight it: the butch hopes that, like in the case of California, some way will be found to overrule the will of the people. Clearly, she has a strange understanding of democracy.

The website of the European Parliament’s gay-rights lobby quotes another MEP, Nikola Vuljanić, as saying: “Of course, this referendum is organised within the remit of the law. But the fact that it is legal does not mean it is just. Putting issues of basic human rights to vote is a very dangerous move.”

It is absolutely worthwhile to watch this video, and to take note of these arguments, which are the best proof for the profoundly anti-democratic attitude, and the distorted understanding of human rights, that are so typical for the politicians who promote same-sex “marriage”

Indeed, saying that the majority should not have the right to determine the law is an attack on the fundamental principle of democracy itself. If each and every minority were to itself determine its own rights, then there would be no objection for Muslim minorities to introduce Jihad and Shariah law, for rich people to introduce tax exemptions for themselves, for thieves and murderers to abolish criminal sanctions for their misdeeds, for medical practitioners to abolish liability for malpractice, and so forth. Each of us can define himself as part of some “minority” that must be granted “autonomy”. Of course, it is necessary for a democratic society to accommodate the legitimate needs of ethnic or religious minorities. But democracy does not mean that everyone is allowed to make rules for himself, to the detriment of others. Society only needs one type of marriage, namely the marriage between a man and a woman, which serves the purpose of raising children and thus contributes to the common good. This type of marriage, and it alone, is necessary and needs protection. No minority has the right to undermine it.

It is therefore outlandishly silly to claim that the Croatian referendum is “not inclusive”. In fact, protecting marriage serves the best interest of everyone, gays and lesbians included. And it is nonsense to claim that same-sex “marriage” is a “basic human right”. In actual fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Human Rights Convention explicitly define and protect marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Same-sex “marriages” not only are not a human right, but they undermine the human right to marriage as set out in those documents.

And obviously, it is nonsense to claim that there is “discrimination” with regard to marriage, i.e. that lesbians and gays have no right to marry. Everybody has the right to marriage, – but gays and lesbians do not want to make use of that right. Fair enough, but that’s their own problem. The claim for same-sex “marriages” is in fact the claim to re-define marriage: in other words, those who do not want marriage (in the true sense of the word) for themselves think that it should be abolished for everyone else. Mr. Cashman and Mrs. Lunacek do not want marriage for themselves, so nobody should be allowed to marry.

"In the name of the family": marriage has the purpose of creating a stable legal base for raising children, something nature enables only a man and a woman to do.

But fortunately, there is by now a sufficiently strong and well-organized civil society to stand up for democracy. Not less than 80 non-governmental organizations have sent a joint   to the Croatian Members of the European Parliament, encouraging them to defend the correct understanding of marriage.

There is now a clear trend among European countries to defend marriage. I hope this trend continues and will also manifest itself on the European level.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter