Romania May Redefine Marriage "Between 1 Man and 1 Woman"

[Radiatia]

What a weird thing to even include in your constitution. Sounds like someone in power is trying to distract the public using the most divisive and controversial cultural issue they can think of.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Ha, I took Ukraine
Last sock

Overall winner gets to determine the type of sex?

God, RISK would be horrible foreplay thinking about it.

"Wanna have sex?" "Yeah" *fast forward end of 5 hour game* "Let's just go to bed"

Better than the last time I tried kinky role playing
My ranger got killed my gnolls

[Ifreann]

For me, I'll reminisce that my wife and I destroyed a major nation state, and conquered half the world.

It's just risk with sex.

Strip RISK is a boardgame idea I could get behind.

Hold onto Down Under, keep wearing your Down Underwear.

---

The cat doesn't. Cats only love themselves.

Molly wasn't dumb. She knew where her food and treats came from. Also where the really warm bit of my bed was.

I won't say that love isn't knowing where the warm bit of the bed is.

[Des-Bal]

GOVERNMENT used SMOKESCREEN. It's super effective!

Yeah so the redefinition wouldn't actually change anything this is a snowjob.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Strip RISK is a boardgame idea I could get behind.

Hold onto Down Under, keep wearing your Down Underwear.

Why would you do this.

[Kannap]

What a weird thing to even include in your constitution. Sounds like someone in power is trying to distract the public using the most divisive and controversial cultural issue they can think of.

A decisive power move.

[A m e n r i a]

Homosexuality is a sin, so they almost got the idea right. Almost. By wording the law that way, they also ban polygamy, and to deny a man his God-given right is wrong. Forgive the pun.

[Ifreann]

Hold onto Down Under, keep wearing your Down Underwear.

Why would you do this.

I removed the part of my soul that can feel shame and used the space for a second liver.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Love who you want to love, as long as it's not a child. And it's consensual. And it's a human. There.

Do your duty to God and country. Marry someone with whom you can have children, and raise them right.

Adoption doesn't count?

[Minzerland II]

The two-day vote on changing their constitution has been portrayed by supporters of the referendum as a way of protecting the status of the "traditional" family. Opponents warn it will come at the expense of same-sex couples, single parents and children too. And there are accusations that the whole exercise is a sideshow to distract from a corruption case involving the leader of the ruling party.

Romania does not recognise gay marriage or civil unions, and the referendum does not change that. Instead, it is about clarifying the language in the constitution. Article 48 says the family "is founded on the freely consented marriage of the spouses". A Yes vote would change that to "marriage between a man and a woman". "We want to protect, at a constitutional level, the definition of marriage - between one woman and one man," says Mihai Gheorghiu, president of the pro-referendum Coalition for Family. Mr Gheorghiu - a former government minister - is adamant that same-sex couples would not lose out. "In respect of LGBT rights and needs, there will be no change," he says. Homosexuality in Romania was decriminalised in 2001.

The proposal certainly has plenty of support. Mr Gheorghiu's coalition collected three million signatures to start the process, in a population of under 19 million. The Romanian Orthodox Church backs the campaign and as many as 85% of Romanians consider themselves Orthodox Christians. But while Romanians are expected to vote yes, the No campaign's strategy is to boycott the vote and hope the turnout falls below the 30% needed to be valid. Romania has seen referendums invalidated in the past because of a low turnout. The 2016 general election saw under 40% of the electorate cast a vote.

The vote is a battle for hearts and minds, says Katrin Hugendubel of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).She accuses the Yes campaign of framing the vote around gay marriage when "what it's actually trying to do is change the definition of family". "It's a broad attack on family rights." Romania continues to have one of the lowest rates of acceptance towards LGBTI rights, she says, with no legal protection for same-sex couples, either in partnerships or marriage, and high rates of "homophobic and transphobic hate" - especially in rural areas.

Critics argue that defining family as based on a marriage between a man and a woman would mean that constitutional protection would no longer apply to single parents, partners with children or grandparents raising children. Neither is uncommon in a country where working-age parents can earn more abroad and send money home to support their family. The Coalition for Family argues that the rights of these groups are already protected elsewhere in Romanian law. "Speaking from a legislation point of view and from a constitutional point of view, the situation is balanced," says Mihai Gheorghiu.

A group of 47 MEPs wrote to Romania's prime minister ahead of the vote warning that redefining the family had the potential to harm children in all families. Romania's current approach to "non-traditional" family relationships remains unclear. At the end of September, the constitutional court ruled that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexuals. It followed a June 2018 ruling by the European Court of Justice in favour of a Romanian man, Adrian Coman, who had married his American partner in Belgium. His partner had been denied a spousal visa when the pair had tried to move to Romania.

Source

It's always a shame to hear when countries or groups of people are moving against a minority of people, in a potentially hateful way. Yes, Romania doesn't recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions, but defining marriage to be between one man and one woman at the constitutional level will make it harder for progress to occur in the future. There is no reason to deny marriage rights for same sex couples, but here Romania may just do that.

So, NSG, what's your opinion on this one?

Good on Romania!

[Kannap]

The two-day vote on changing their constitution has been portrayed by supporters of the referendum as a way of protecting the status of the "traditional" family. Opponents warn it will come at the expense of same-sex couples, single parents and children too. And there are accusations that the whole exercise is a sideshow to distract from a corruption case involving the leader of the ruling party.

Romania does not recognise gay marriage or civil unions, and the referendum does not change that. Instead, it is about clarifying the language in the constitution. Article 48 says the family "is founded on the freely consented marriage of the spouses". A Yes vote would change that to "marriage between a man and a woman". "We want to protect, at a constitutional level, the definition of marriage - between one woman and one man," says Mihai Gheorghiu, president of the pro-referendum Coalition for Family. Mr Gheorghiu - a former government minister - is adamant that same-sex couples would not lose out. "In respect of LGBT rights and needs, there will be no change," he says. Homosexuality in Romania was decriminalised in 2001.

The proposal certainly has plenty of support. Mr Gheorghiu's coalition collected three million signatures to start the process, in a population of under 19 million. The Romanian Orthodox Church backs the campaign and as many as 85% of Romanians consider themselves Orthodox Christians. But while Romanians are expected to vote yes, the No campaign's strategy is to boycott the vote and hope the turnout falls below the 30% needed to be valid. Romania has seen referendums invalidated in the past because of a low turnout. The 2016 general election saw under 40% of the electorate cast a vote.

The vote is a battle for hearts and minds, says Katrin Hugendubel of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).She accuses the Yes campaign of framing the vote around gay marriage when "what it's actually trying to do is change the definition of family". "It's a broad attack on family rights." Romania continues to have one of the lowest rates of acceptance towards LGBTI rights, she says, with no legal protection for same-sex couples, either in partnerships or marriage, and high rates of "homophobic and transphobic hate" - especially in rural areas.

Critics argue that defining family as based on a marriage between a man and a woman would mean that constitutional protection would no longer apply to single parents, partners with children or grandparents raising children. Neither is uncommon in a country where working-age parents can earn more abroad and send money home to support their family. The Coalition for Family argues that the rights of these groups are already protected elsewhere in Romanian law. "Speaking from a legislation point of view and from a constitutional point of view, the situation is balanced," says Mihai Gheorghiu.

A group of 47 MEPs wrote to Romania's prime minister ahead of the vote warning that redefining the family had the potential to harm children in all families. Romania's current approach to "non-traditional" family relationships remains unclear. At the end of September, the constitutional court ruled that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexuals. It followed a June 2018 ruling by the European Court of Justice in favour of a Romanian man, Adrian Coman, who had married his American partner in Belgium. His partner had been denied a spousal visa when the pair had tried to move to Romania.

Source

It's always a shame to hear when countries or groups of people are moving against a minority of people, in a potentially hateful way. Yes, Romania doesn't recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions, but defining marriage to be between one man and one woman at the constitutional level will make it harder for progress to occur in the future. There is no reason to deny marriage rights for same sex couples, but here Romania may just do that.

So, NSG, what's your opinion on this one?

Good on Romania!

Alternatively, bad on Romania.

[Liriena]

Bans on same-sex marriage are the epitome of pointless virtue signalling that have no material benefits for anyone and only make the lives of many innocent people worse. Romania is being stupid.

[Kannap]

Bans on same-sex marriage are the epitome of pointless virtue signalling that have no material benefits for anyone and only make the lives of many innocent people's worse. Romania is being stupid.

100% agreed.

[Minzerland II]

Good on Romania!

Alternatively, bad on Romania.

Nah, this is pretty good.

[Liriena]

Alternatively, bad on Romania.

Nah, this is pretty good.

So what's the angle here? "Muh culture", "muh degeneracy", "muh natural law", "muh religion" or just simply "yucky gays make me feel weird"?

[Kannap]

Alternatively, bad on Romania.

Nah, this is pretty good.

Nah, this is pretty shitty.

[Dark Socialism]

Nah, this is pretty good.

So what's the angle here? "Muh culture", "muh degeneracy", "muh natural law", "muh religion" or just simply "yucky gays make me feel weird"?

The last one is always right

[Scomagia]

Love who you want to love, as long as it's not a child. And it's consensual. And it's a human. There.

I love plenty of children. And a cat. I think they love me too.

The children do. The cat doesn't. Cats are only capable of pretending to love.

On topic, this just seems like a convenient smokescreen from a corrupt politician. Hopefully he gets nailed like he deserves.

[Salus Maior]

Bans on same-sex marriage are the epitome of pointless virtue signalling that have no material benefits for anyone and only make the lives of many innocent people worse. Romania is being stupid.

Same-sex marriage wasn't legal before either. So how's anyone worse off? It's status quo.

[Liriena]

Bans on same-sex marriage are the epitome of pointless virtue signalling that have no material benefits for anyone and only make the lives of many innocent people worse. Romania is being stupid.

Same-sex marriage wasn't legal before either. So how's anyone worse off? It's status quo.

It's a constitutionally enforced status quo, meaning that the possibility of positive change is greatly reduced. But also, when these things happen, they tend to go hand in hand with added shittiness from the people on the streets.

[Conserative Morality]

Same-sex marriage wasn't legal before either. So how's anyone worse off? It's status quo.

As many nations can attest, often the impetus to same-sex marriage is the argument of equality under pre-existing law, often on a constitutional level.

[Minzerland II]

Nah, this is pretty good.

So what's the angle here? "Muh culture", "muh degeneracy", "muh natural law", "muh religion" or just simply "yucky gays make me feel weird"?

A mix of them all. Romania is doing good work with this decision. :^)

[United Muscovite Nations]

Of course the thread is mostly Western liberals angry that not every country in the world has embraced modern Western liberalism.

[Salus Maior]

Same-sex marriage wasn't legal before either. So how's anyone worse off? It's status quo.

It's a constitutionally enforced status quo, meaning that the possibility of positive change is greatly reduced. But also, when these things happen, they tend to go hand in hand with added shittiness from the people on the streets.

Legalizing same sex marriage, clearly, doesn't change that violence against LGBTs still happens.

And of course "positive change" is subjective here.

[Great Winminster]

Not surprising.