Is marriage sacred or is it for everyone?
Martin Komárek.
| Photo: Deník/Martin Divíšek
Fifty-four MPs from different parties want the constitution to state: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. President Zeman is also for them. The constitutional change will certainly not pass, there will not be enough votes in the parliament for that, yet this dispute has an important symbolic meaning.
Democratic conservatives say: Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman whose purpose is family and children. Nothing against homosexual relationships, but registered partnership is the right name for it.
Democratic liberals shake their heads: Let all those who like each other be allowed to get married. The registered partnership of gays and lesbians discriminates, not only in terms of certain rights. It actually denies them equality with mainstream society.
There is no simple solution to this cultural and civilizational dispute. It is foolish for conservatives to blame liberals for saying that domestic animal marriage will soon be possible. And it is just as belated when liberals send supporters of the sacred union somewhere in Russia to Putin. Both sides have some truth. And this despite the fact that most civilized Western countries recognize full equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples. And it also enables them to adopt children.
Sip with paper from paper
The marriage of one man to one woman is one of the basic values of Western culture. No matter how many transformations it went through. Never mind that for most of history men lived in de facto polygamy (and in modern times women in polygamy). Regardless, we can divorce and remarry like on a treadmill. Courts are also often protracted and unfair, yet we do not want to abolish them and put justice in the hands of some ruler or people’s tribunal.
On the other hand, society is moving in a direction that contemporaries often have no idea about. In the enlightened 19th century, few would have thought that anyone but wealthy men would have the right to vote. Or that blacks are just as valuable people as whites, and that they could even govern themselves. If we go back a little further into the past: wasn’t a woman loved and considered a second being? Did not the masters of learning dispute whether it had a soul at all? Marriage for all is seriously a trifle against these and other historical changes.
A debate in which each side is right is pointless. Moreover, Parliament can turn it into a leaven of demagogic demagoguery. There is only one fair solution to this “marriage” dispute: a referendum.