Agreement between Lithuania’s governing coalition and opposition is rare, but about 50 lawmakers have joined forces on a proposal to hold an advisory referendum on defining the concept of family in the Constitution.
The initiators argue that the Constitutional Court of Lithuania overstepped its authority in previous rulings interpreting the concept of family, particularly by stating that it is gender-neutral, that it is not exclusive to married couples, and that limiting partnerships to opposite-sex couples is discriminatory.
Legal experts, however, say the initiative risks undermining both the Constitution and European legal principles, stressing that interpreting the law is the role of courts, not politicians. Some lawmakers have also described the move as a political strategy ahead of next year’s municipal elections.
The debate comes more than a year after the Constitutional Court ruled that the state had taken an unjustifiably long time to regulate civil partnership and that existing provisions in the Civil Code – restricting partnerships to a man and a woman – conflict with the Constitution.
“The extent to which partnership can be concluded only between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional, court president Gintaras Goda said in explaining the ruling.
Despite the decision, the Seimas has yet to adopt legislation regulating civil partnerships. Instead, lawmakers have moved forward with the referendum proposal, which would ask citizens whether they agree that family relationships arise solely from marriage between a man and a woman, as well as motherhood and fatherhood.
“Let’s end the disputes and ask the people of Lithuania what a family is,” said Ligita Girskienė, a member of the Seimas representing the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union and the Christian Families Alliance.
The proposed referendum would be advisory and not legally binding. Girskienė argues that previous court interpretations exceeded judicial authority by effectively directing lawmakers on how to regulate civil partnerships.
Criticism of the court has also come from conservative lawmaker Audronius Ažubalis, who described its actions as “legal activism”.
Yet divisions persist within parliamentary factions. Ažubalis’ fellow conservative MP Matas Maldeikis called the referendum initiative an electoral tactic aimed at mobilising voters ahead of municipal elections, potentially alongside the vote itself.
“My party should have a much clearer position,” he said, describing the proposal as a campaign tool linked to groups that emerged from the so-called Family March movement.
Others reject that characterisation. “If this is a meaningless or trivial issue, then don’t worry – support it and see what comes of it,” Ažubalis said.
Among parliamentary groups, only the Liberal Movement has so far reached a unified stance. Its leader, Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen, warned that such a referendum could violate human rights.
“Some political statements suggesting that children raised in certain families are destined for unhappy lives are completely unacceptable,” she said.
Social Democrat Ruslanas Baranovas said that while his faction initially voted differently on the proposal, most members now plan to oppose it.
“Most understand this is nonsense, but some worry it will be used against them politically,” he said, adding that politicians should not define what constitutes a family.
Meanwhile, legal tensions continue to play out in the courts. Around 50 same-sex couples have sought legal recognition of their partnerships, with roughly half receiving favourable rulings. However, those decisions have not been implemented.
The Justice Ministry, led by Rita Tamašunienė of the socially extremely conservative Electoral Action of Poles party, has appealed four such rulings, arguing that the issue concerns administrative procedures rather than the recognition of partnerships themselves.
Legal scholar Gabija Grigaitė-Daugirdė said the ministry itself should take the lead in proposing legislation.
“The rule of law is a fundamental value of the European Union,” she said. “Political institutions cannot ignore the reality that the law ensures respect for all families.”
Former Constitutional Court judge Toma Birmontienė warned that both the referendum and its potential consequences could face constitutional challenges.
“I see this as a second act of a populist opera,” she said, arguing the initiative reflects a misunderstanding of Western legal traditions.
Experts also caution that failure to implement court rulings and the push for a referendum could harm Lithuania’s international reputation.
“We will be seen as not respecting our citizens and failing to implement court decisions in their favour,” Grigaitė-Daugirdė said.
The Seimas is expected to revisit the referendum proposal later this month.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
