Латвияда бір жынысты одақтар заңдастырылды

none

Latvia does not recognize same sex marriage. On 9 November 2023, the Saeima passed legislation establishing same sex civil unions, which was subsequently signed into law by President Edgars Rinkēvičs in January 2024. The law is scheduled to take effect on 1 July 2024. On 12 November 2020, the Constitutional Court of Latvia ruled that the Latvian Constitution entitles same sex couples to receive the benefits and protections afforded by Latvian law to married opposite sex couples, and gave the Saeima until 1 June 2022 to enact a law protecting same sex couples. In December 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that should the Saeima fail to pass civil union legislation before the 1 June 2022 deadline, same sex couples may apply to a court to have their relationship recognized. The Saeima failed to meet this deadline, and the first same sex union was recognized by the Administrative District Court on 30 May 2022.

Following Krišjānis Kariņš' resignation as prime minister in August 2023, a new government, led by Prime Minister Evika Siliņa and consisting of the New Unity, the Union of Greens and Farmers and The Progressives, was sworn in on 15 September 2023. A political analyst said, "The most significant policy shift could be the new government’s intention to legislate on human rights, such as to try to allow marriages for same sex couples." Kaspars Briškens, party leader of The Progressives, said there is "a willingness [in the government] to work on a new Law on Cohabitation for same sex persons". On 26 October 2023, the New Unity party proposed a newly drafted legislative package recognising same sex unions. The legislation would establish civil unions providing some, but not all, of the rights and benefits of marriage. On 30 October, Prime Minister Siliņa announced that the coalition government had decided to support the bill, and that there was unanimous support for the legislation from The Progressives and the Union of Greens and Farmers, as well as Independent MP Oļegs Burovs, who had previously stated his opposition to same sex unions. On 2 November, the legislation passed its first reading in the Saeima by a 53–40 vote, with all 52 coalition MPs and Burovs voting in favour. On 9 November, the legislation passed its second and final reading in the Saeima by a 53–43 vote. However, 34 opposition MPs tabled a motion, as provided for by the Latvian Constitution, asking President Edgars Rinkēvičs to delay promulgating the bill until January 2024. Opponents were seeking to collect 154,241 signatures (10% of voters) in order to proceed with a referendum on the civil union law. Rinkēvičs reacted, "This [suspension of publication of the law] will be done in accordance with the Constitution. Saeima deputies have the right to exercise their constitutional rights, and now, the society, citizens of Latvia, have two months to support this idea or not." Prime Minister Siliņa welcomed the law's passage, tweeting, "This is a good day. Society has taken an important step in creating a modern and humane Latvia." The Central Election Commission reported on 26 December that only 16,170 signatures had been collected by then. By the deadline on 5 January 2024, only 35,191 signatures had been collected, meaning the referendum initiative failed. The law was subsequently signed by Rinkēvičs and is scheduled to take effect on 1 July 2024.

In December 2005, the Saeima voted 65–5 to approve an amendment to the Constitution of Latvia banning same sex marriage. The amendment took effect on 17 January 2006. Article 110 reads: "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".

On 5 June 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that member states of the European Union (EU) must recognise the freedom of movement and residency rights of same sex spouses, provided one partner is an EU citizen. The court ruled that EU member states may choose whether or not to allow same sex marriage, but they cannot obstruct the freedom of residence of an EU citizen and their spouse. In addition, the court ruled that the term "spouse" is gender neutral and does not necessarily imply a person of the opposite sex. The Latvian Government and the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs announced their intention to abide by the ruling. Later that same month, a Russian national, who had married her Latvian same sex partner in Portugal, received a residence permit allowing her to reside with her spouse in Latvia.

In 2015, two same sex couples attempted to register their marriages at the Registry Office in Riga, which refused citing Latvia's constitutional ban on same sex marriage. The Administrative District Court, and later the Administrative Regional Court, ruled against the couples, holding that the recognition same sex marriage was not possible in Latvia and that this was a matter for the Parliament to deal with. In May 2016, the Supreme Court of Latvia overturned the Administrative Regional Court's decision. A court press spokeswoman said that the court agreed with the administrative court that current regulations do not allow for same sex marriages to be legally recognized in Latvia; however, the matter "should have been considered in a context not of marriage, but of registering familial partnership". Additionally, it would have been impossible to conclude whether the applicants' rights had been violated unless their claim was accepted and reviewed in a proper manner. In June 2021, the Supreme Court submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court of Latvia and stayed proceedings in the case. The Constitution Court had already ruled in November 2020 that the Constitution imposes an obligation on the Parliament to establish a legal framework for same sex unions, based on the principle of human dignity. In July 2021, the Constitutional Court rejected the petition, stating that the Supreme Court had not properly explained why its November 2020 ruling was not applicable in this case. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled in December 2021 that Latvia lacks a civil partnership law and that court rulings could serve as a substitute for the registration of same sex relationships until lawmakers pass a partnership law. It ruled that same sex couples could ask regional courts to recognize their relationship in line with the Law on Registration of Civil Status Acts if the Saeima failed to adopt legislation protecting same sex couples. The court held that, "The obligation to ensure the legal protection of same sex couples also follows from the principle of human dignity, which requires recognizing the inherent dignity and equal value of each human being." The ruling states:

text=Until Parliament has created an appropriate legal framework, a judgment establishing that the relationships of certain persons are to be recognized as family relationships within the meaning of Article 110 of the Constitution will replace the registration of these relationships by the State. [ ] Summarizing the above, it can be concluded that the first sentence of Article 110 of the Constitution, in conjunction with the principle of human dignity, establishes a legal obligation on the State to ensure legal recognition of the family relations of same sex couples. In the absence of a specific legal framework, the law enforcer, including the court, is obliged to ensure the effective implementation of the Constitution and human rights. [ ] Therefore, the judgment of the regional court is annulled.

The 2015 Eurobarometer found that 19% of Latvians supported same sex marriage. In 2019, the Eurobarometer showed that support had increased to 24%, while 70% were opposed. A GLOBSEC survey conducted in March 2023 showed that 40% of Latvians supported same sex marriage, while 46% were opposed and 14% were undecided. The 2023 Eurobarometer found that 36% of Latvians thought same sex marriage should be allowed throughout Europe, while 59% were opposed. The survey also found that 35% of Latvians thought that "there is nothing wrong in a sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex", while 59% disagreed.