Lithuania’s Constitutional Court Rules Seeing Same-Sex Relationships Won’t Turn Kids Gay

On 18 December 2024, the Lithuanian Constitutional Court docket held that the regulation, prohibiting the dissemination of public data depicting same-sex relationships is unconstitutional because it violates the liberty of considered kids and the best to discovered a household beneath the Structure of Lithuania. The choice follows the rationale of the European Court docket of Human Rights (ECtHR) current choice within the case of Macatė v Lithuania (2023), whereby the ECtHR discovered that the prohibition on the publication of kids’s books that includes tales about same-sex romantic relationships beneath the stated Lithuanian regulation, violates Article 10 of the European Conference.  On this contribution, I look at the Constitutional Court docket rationale of the choice and contend that the LCC’s strategy embodies a progressive interpretation of constitutional values by recognizing household as a gender-neutral idea and childhood as a protected constitutional worth. I conclude that whereas the judgment is progressive, it falls quick in addressing the discrimination in opposition to the LGBTQ group.

The Impugned Legislation

On 10 September 2002, the Lithuanian Parliament adopted the Legislation on the Safety of Minors from the Unfavorable Affect of Public Info (Impugned Legislation), which was later amended considerably in 2009. The regulation established standards for public data thought of dangerous to minors’ psychological, bodily, mental, non secular, or ethical growth. Notably, Article 4(2)(16) of the regulation labeled data that “creates a contempt for household values and promotes an idea of marriage and household formation completely different from that established within the Structure and Civil Code” as having a destructive influence on minors. In apply, this provision was interpreted to limit details about any household fashions apart from these primarily based on marriage between a person and a lady, successfully limiting the dissemination of details about same-sex relationships to minors. In February 2023, following the ECtHR judgment in Macate, the Lithuanian Ministry of Justice initiated efforts to amend the regulation. Nonetheless, when the proposed amendments have been offered to the Lithuanian Parliament, they have been rejected. In response to this legislative deadlock, the Ministry of Justice petitioned the Constitutional Court docket to overview the regulation’s constitutionality, particularly searching for readability on how the provisions defining ‘public data detrimental to minors’ align with the constitutional precept.

Constitutional Understanding of ‘Household’ not ‘Marriage’

Lithuania’s Constitutional Court docket, whereas analyzing the constitutionality of Article 4(2)(16) of the Impugned Legislation, held that beneath the constitutional precept of the rule of regulation, authorized rules have to be ‘clear, comprehensible, and constant.’ [¶9]. The Court docket discovered that Article 4(2)(16) was insufficiently clear because it didn’t outline what data ‘disparages household values’ or what constitutes an idea of marriage and household formation ‘completely different from that established within the Structure and Civil Code.’ To deal with the paradox, the Court docket drew a transparent distinction between the constitutional ideas of household and marriage, emphasizing that the constitutional idea of household can’t be derived solely from the establishment of marriage. The Court docket established that the Structure protects ‘all households that correspond to the constitutional idea of household’, which relies on substantive traits relatively than formal constructions. It famous that the defining traits embody ‘everlasting or long-term relationships,’ ‘mutual accountability, understanding, emotional attachment, help and related ties between relations,’ and a ‘voluntary choice to imagine sure rights and obligations.’ Crucially, the Court docket emphasised that ‘the content material of relationships, and the type of expression of those relationships isn’t of basic significance for the constitutional idea of household.’ 

Whereas acknowledging that Article 38(3) defines ‘marriage’ particularly as between a person and lady, the Court docket explicitly acknowledged that ‘not like the constitutional idea of marriage, the constitutional idea of household is, amongst different issues, gender-neutral’ [¶12.1.2]. The Court docket famous that this safety extends to numerous household kinds, not simply these primarily based on marriage, and that ‘the type of expression of those relationships isn’t of basic significance for the constitutional idea of household.’ Thus, the Court docket discovered that limiting details about household fashions not primarily based on marriage between a person and lady was unconstitutional, as such restrictions have been ‘not needed to guard the constitutional values’ and would forestall kids from growing as ‘mature, complete personalities’ [¶18.2]. 

‘Childhood’ as a Constitutional Worth

The Constitutional Court docket held that the Lithuanian Structure establishes childhood as a constitutional worth. Drawing from Article 38(2) and Article 39(3), the Court docket established childhood as a ‘notably protected and fostered’ constitutional worth, recognizing it as a ‘particular interval’ of character formation characterised by bodily, psychological, and social growth. The Court docket considered kids as a ‘socially delicate and notably weak a part of society,’ which justified particular protections, however crucially, it rejected the notion that such protections ought to embody shielding kids from details about numerous household fashions. It emphasised that limiting details about completely different household fashions would ‘hinder the event of minors as mature, complete personalities’ and contradict the state’s constitutional responsibility to make sure ‘harmonious and complete growth of the kid.’  The Court docket held that, by limiting details about household range, Article 4(2)(16) violated kids’s constitutional proper to turn into well-rounded residents able to functioning in a democratic society primarily based on ‘respect for human rights and dignity, in addition to the values of equality, pluralism, and tolerance.’ The Court docket concluded that the interpretation of childhood as a constitutional worth wouldn’t demand censorship however relatively the ‘obligation to disseminate goal data to minors that mirror actual social relations,’ making information of household range a vital part of protected childhood growth. [¶13] 

Constitutional Court docket’s Information to Fashionable Household

The Constitutional Court docket’s interpretation of the household as a ‘gender-neutral’ idea and its extension past conventional marriage-based relationships represents a progressive evolution. First, by explicitly stating that the constitutional idea of household is gender-neutral, not like marriage, the Court docket creates a transformative framework that acknowledges the altering nature of social relationships and household constructions. This interpretation marks a vital departure from conventional, heteronormative understandings of household, recognizing that household bonds can exist independently of gender configurations. The Court docket emphasizes that the essence of household lies within the ‘content material of everlasting or long-term relationships’ characterised by mutual accountability, emotional attachment, and voluntary dedication relatively than in formal constructions or gender mixtures.

Second, the Court docket’s interpretation establishes a multi-layered understanding of constitutional safety for households. Whereas sustaining the constitutional definition of marriage as between a person and a lady beneath Article 38(3), the Court docket creates a broader, extra inclusive framework for household safety that operates independently of marital standing. This refined strategy permits the Court docket to respect conventional constitutional provisions whereas concurrently increasing protections to numerous household kinds. Third, the Court docket’s emphasis on substantive relationships over formal constructions advances constitutional ideas of equality and human dignity. By specializing in the standard of relationships – mutual accountability, understanding, emotional attachment, and help – relatively than their formal standing, the Court docket creates a extra inclusive framework for household recognition. This interpretation aligns with ECtHR jurisprudence and trendy constitutionalism values of pluralism, equality, and human dignity. [See Puppinck here]

The Court docket’s interpretation strengthens anti-discrimination ideas in household regulation by explicitly stating that authorized regulation should not create stipulations for discrimination in opposition to varied household relationships. This interpretation expands constitutionalism by requiring the state to actively defend and help numerous household kinds. This interpretation opens quite a few avenues for future constitutional litigation. In instances, regarding social advantages, housing rights, inheritance legal guidelines, or immigration insurance policies, the Courts may apply this framework to problem rules that discriminate primarily based on conventional household constructions over different household kinds. The interpretation may help claims for equal remedy in areas corresponding to adoption rights, healthcare decision-making, and social safety advantages for non-traditional households. The emphasis on substantive relationships over formal constructions might be notably related in instances involving de facto households, corresponding to long-term cohabiting companions or non-biological dad and mom who’ve established real household bonds.

Increasing Constitutional Values

The Constitutional Court docket’s recognition of ‘childhood’ as a constitutional worth additionally represents an growth of constitutional interpretation and safety for kids. By establishing childhood as a distinctly protected constitutional worth beneath Article 38(2), the Court docket created a sturdy framework that goes past primary authorized protections to acknowledge the distinctive developmental nature of childhood itself. This interpretation acknowledges that childhood isn’t merely a chronological stage however a important interval of character formation encompassing bodily, psychological, and social maturation. Secondly, the Court docket strengthened this safety by explicitly connecting Article 38(2) with Article 39(3), making a complete constitutional protect that mandates each States to take proactive measures in creating an surroundings beneficial to childhood growth, relatively than merely offering reactive protections.

The Court docket’s reasoning can also be notably vital because it strikes past viewing kids merely as objects of safety to recognizing them as rights-bearing topics whose pursuits have to be ‘taken under consideration first’ in all related decision-making processes. This shift in perspective might be instrumental in future instances the place kids’s participatory rights are at concern, corresponding to in instances involving their proper to be heard in selections affecting them or their proper to take part in public life acceptable to their age and maturity. This interpretation might be notably related in future instances together with household regulation instances, whereby ‘childhood’ as a constitutional worth may affect selections about custody preparations, adoption insurance policies, and baby welfare interventions. In instances involving juvenile justice, this constitutional framework may help extra rehabilitative relatively than punitive approaches, given the Court docket’s emphasis on growing ‘trustworthy individuals and dependable residents.’

Leaving the LGBTQ+ Rights within the Closet?

Whereas the ruling displays progressive interpretation in increasing each household rights and baby safety, it notably falls quick in addressing the inherent discrimination in opposition to the LGBTQ+ group embedded in Article 4(2)(16). The Constitutional Court docket acknowledged that limiting details about completely different household fashions would hinder the event of minors as mature, complete personalities, however it fastidiously prevented explicitly stating that the regulation was discriminatory in opposition to LGBTQ+ people and households. The Court docket maintained a extra conservative judicial strategy that, whereas reaching a optimistic end result for LGBTQ+ rights, didn’t immediately problem the underlying discriminatory attitudes and practices that gave rise to the regulation within the first place.

This cautious strategy displays a broader sample in European jurisprudence the place courts typically choose to handle LGBTQ+ rights by way of the lens of broader constitutional ideas relatively than direct anti-discrimination reasoning. [See the Concurring Opinion in Macatė] [Also, See Fedele]  The Constitutional Court docket may have used this case as a possibility to explicitly acknowledge that legal guidelines limiting details about same-sex relationships represent discrimination primarily based on ‘sexual orientation’, just like the rationale of the ECtHR in Macatė whereby the ECtHR held that the restriction beneath Article 4(2)(16) was solely primarily based on ‘sexual orientation’. [See Milkaitė here] This missed alternative is important given the rising jurisprudence of those restrictive legal guidelines in different European nations, together with Bulgaria, Hungary and Russia, and the requisite for judicial precedents immediately addressing such discrimination in opposition to LGBTQ people and group members.