The veto of love. A fresh look at Article 18 of the Polish Constitution: Protection warrant or ban?
The debate on Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland frequently boils down to emotional slogans. But erstwhile we look at the letter of the law in cool, logical and comparative terms, the image becomes much clearer. Consider 4 key aspects of the matter.
1. Law semantics: Protection asymmetry and negative definition
Many commentators read Article 18 of the Constitution as if it contained the word “only”. Let's remind him:
“Marriage as a union between women and men, family, motherhood and parenthood are protected and cared for by the Republic of Poland.”
From the point of view of logic and linguistics, this provision does not specify matrimony as simply a relation between a female and a man. He simply says that specified a circumstantial relation enjoys peculiar state care.
So what if the ultimate Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court in the rulings of the outgoing era assumed that Article 18 is not only protective but besides defining – that is, it defines matrimony solely as a relation between a female and a man? According to the church's will.
Fortunately, in modern law doctrine, the voice of logic and the perception of the reality around us is getting louder. It is increasingly indicated that this is simply a alleged programme standard (designating the nonsubjective of the State) alternatively than an organization ban. The Constitution orders to defend heterosexual relationships, but does not prohibit the legislator from introducing protection for another forms of consumption and another relationships.
2. rule of equality and distribution of privileges
Moving on: since the Constitution does not prohibit institutions of single-sex marriages or partnerships, what is the issue of privileges, specified as common taxation settlement? The key here is the relation between Article 18 and Article 32 of the Constitution, which mentions the prohibition of discrimination.
However, Article 18 sets a rigid line: these privileges must not be greater than those enjoyed by couples of all sexes. Heterosexual couples are guaranteed a constitutional right to “not be in a worse situation”. simply put: equality is full acceptable, but discrimination reversed no longer.
The legislator may regulate for each kind of relationship, inter alia:
joint taxation settlement,
inheritance and wealth,
access to medical information and decision-making in the event of a partner’s disease,
right to burial,
mutual assistance and maintenance.
3. Partnerships: Autonomy of choice and pragmatism
Apart from the discussion of matrimony itself, partnerships become a key alternative. They decision the debate from symbolic to purely practical.
The most crucial difference between matrimony and partnership is usually the procedure of ending them. Divorce is simply a formal process – frequently long, costly and involving a judicial apparatus. The partnership offers much more flexibility; in many legal systems, a consistent declaration of will is adequate to resolve it before an authoritative or notary.
As a individual shaped by the principles of the old world, I can have natural interior doubts here – today's reality rushes very quickly. However, in order to stay consistent in the defence of freedom, I must admit 1 fundamental truth: In a free society, citizens should have the right to choose which form of work and safety suits them more.
4. Global context and inevitable direction of change
Polish discussion is not in vacuum. The global legal map is changing rapidly. By the beginning of 2026, single-sex marriages are legally concluded and recognized in 39 countries of the world.
The road that the Netherlands started in 2001 became a standard for most Western European countries, both Americas, South Africa and Australia. Importantly, in fresh years (2024-2025), countries with very different cultures and traditions specified as Estonia, Greece, Nepal, Thailand and Liechtenstein have joined the group. This shows that the evolution of household law is simply a global modernisation trend that is hard to escape.
