The emails of Saeima deputies are flooded with LGBTQ+ sexual minority agitation these days. They try to overthrow the amendments to Article 110 of the Constitution proposed by the National Alliance (Nacionālā apvienība) so that they do not even reach the Saeima commissions. Parliament will decide on it this Thursday.
The need to clarify what is a family arose from the scandalous judgment of the Constitutional Court, which granted the right to paternity leave to a woman who is not the child's mother, but lives with the child's mother in a homosexual relationship. This judgment essentially disrupts the traditional understanding of the role of men and women in childbearing, as well as the understanding of the structure of the natural family. In addition, if a court has stated that the Labor Law does not comply with the Constitution and a woman is entitled to a man's leave, most likely all other laws that will be challenged in the Constitutional Court because they differentiate people by gender will be declared wrong. And then there is only one step left until the introduction of same-sex marriage regulations and the right to adopt children for two women or two men, or transgender people, or any other LGBTQ+ individuals that can be found in this abbreviation. This is not in the interests of children or in the interests of the state as a whole.
The majority of society, represented by conservative politicians, cannot force the Constitutional Court to withdraw a judgment. Therefore, the National Alliance urges to amend the Constitution itself - by explaining even more literally what a family is.
The current Article 110 of the Constitution was adopted in 2005. Already at that time, the LGBTQ+ community was trying to bring about same-sex marriage, and parliament said a clear 'no!' to such an idea. At the time it seemed to the parliament that the issue would be removed from the political agenda if the Constitution clarifies that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This is still the case today:
"The State shall protect and support marriage - a union between a man and a woman, the family, the rights of parents and rights of the child. The State shall provide special support to disabled children, children left without parental care or who have suffered from violence.”
Everything about marriage is clear, there is no discussion about how a man differs from a woman, at least yet, but with regard to the concept of “family”, the decision of the Constitutional Court has necessitated a more specific definition. Here is how it is explained in the annotation of the draft law:
"In its Judgment, the Constitutional Court has also included “families of same-sex partners” in the concept of “family” specified in Article 110 of the Constitution, further determining the state “obligation to protect and support” such “families”.
Such an arbitrary interpretation of the concept of family does not correspond to the will of the legislator, by the Article 110 of the Constitution in the current wording, nor to the understanding of the Latvian society as to what is a “family”.
The National Alliance is now proposing a new wording. To express Article 110 of the Constitution in the following wording:
"The State shall protect and support marriage - a union between a man and a woman, a family based on marriage, kinship or adoption, the rights of parents and rights of children, including the right to grow up in a family based on mother (woman) and father (man). The State shall provide special support to disabled children, children left without parental care or who have suffered from violence."
Thus, the significant change is that the state protects the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, kinship, or adoption. It is also said that a man can not be a mother and vice versa.
LGBTQ+ lobbyists spread deliberate lies in public, claiming that the wording is directed against single parents. That is not true. Mother and son, grandfather and grandson are united by blood relationship. They are also a family. But the family is not, for example, two students who rent one room in dormitories. Even if they have sex. Two friends are not family either. They are two friends.
The LGBTQ+ community has long been trying to incorporate its ideology into Latvian law. Efforts are being made to ratify the Istanbul Convention, as it conceals the concept of gender as a social construct. And, of course, the formulation of the traditional concept of family in the Constitution does not correspond to the interests of LGBTQ+. In particular, the sentence proposed in the bill that the family is "based on mother (woman) and father (man)".
For several days now, detailed instructions have been circulated in the environment of the warring liberals and LGBTQ+ to address the Saeima deputies, addressing the proposed amendments to the Constitution. There is a sample letter, there are e-mail addresses of 100 deputies.
They are particularly encouraged to record those responses that could be translated as homophobic, transphobic, biphobic or hostile.
Obviously, LGBTQ+ has some retaliation plan in this regard. In the Excel file attached to the instruction, the Saeima deputies are divided into three groups: those who support LGBTQ+, those who are against LGBTQ+, and the third are those whose position is in doubt. They are sorted by their previous votes in cases where the bills under consideration have affected LGBTQ+ interests. As this manual is also accompanied by a comprehensive explanation in English, it is very likely that this English version is in fact the source of the manual that was sent from abroad.
Emails from sexual minorities and their supporters now calling for the rejection of the proposal to amend the Constitution are now flooding the deputies' inboxes. However, in recent days, defenders of conservative family values have also mobilized. They also send emails to the deputies, respectively, calling for support for the amendments to the Constitution, which will tell the seemingly self-evident - that the mother is a woman, but the father is a man. Also in various public or joint letters of various public organizations. The support letter written by the Family Association (Asociācija Ģimene) has been signed by 76 organizations, and that is a lot.
Of course, the number of signatures and the number of letters are not decisive in deciding issues of public importance, but in this case, it is a method chosen by LGBTQ+ that requires an adequate response from the opposing camp. Otherwise, it would seem that MPs are addressed only by LGBTQ+ activists, but the silent majority had no objections. But there are objections.
And every supporter of conservative values, anyone who believes that the mother is a woman, the father is a man, and that it is preferable for a child to grow up with parents, not friends, is invited to tell so to the deputies of the Saeima. After all, it is the people of Latvia who decide the Constitution for themselves.