IMPORTANT NOTE: This article is a 2013 piece I have written while observing Poland’s political fight for civil partnership. At that time I was studying abroad and had only the information shared with me by my colleagues and the media, but felt a great need to put how I feel about the issue into text. Today, more than a year and a half I feel that it is about time to share this little piece with the world, especially that civil partnership in Poland is still out of reach.
Edit: It’s December 18th, 2014 and only a few hours ago, the Polish Parliament decided not to put civil partnerships on its agenda. Again. And not by just striking the proposal down, but by simply deciding not to have any debate on it. Out of 437 Members of Parliament, a simple conversation on this important issue was acceptable to only 185 and absolutely unacceptable to 234 MPs. Out of these 437, 18 decided not to take sides. Sadly enough, more than 50 members of the ruling party were also not willing to push the issue further.
In light of recent changes in Europe in relation to marriage equality, definition (if any) of family and the role of gender in the legal changes which try to grasp today’s fast-paced society, one could pose a quite invested question – is Poland ready to come to terms with social reality? Or rather – are Polish politicians ready to realize that the struggle for civil partnership is not focused on tearing down the very base of humanity? If one is determined to give an existing relationship a legal status – aren’t they confining themselves to all a certain’s culture standards, standards which quite too often are defined as humanity itself?
The question of how culture defines standards and the definition of humanity are not the scope of this article. Neither is the ongoing political discussion, which has crossed the line too often, and therefore has reached the limits of what one would call a “public debate”. There is no debate. What we are seeing is a wave of homophobic and transphobic statements and opinions (labeled as facts) being constantly thrown at the general public. It is quite understandable that the reaction from those who defend the idea of civil partnership is scarce.
Even though homo- and transphobia need to be constantly challenged, reacting to those particular statements gives them a lot more screen time than they actually deserve. In reality we are faced with a difficult dilemma – to react means to give the impression that homo- and transphobic attitudes are a relevant part of a political discussion. To not react poses those who issue the statements in a position that they are righteous, because no one has the will to challenge them.
Those statements however, can be used as an example to show how prejudice and a lack of knowledge of an issue can lead to the worst of political failures. The failure to recognize the needs of those who create the electorate by simply using the very tiresome idea of the Other (sincere apologies to Lacan), acting as if those who support a certain revision of the law are not a part of the wholesome structure that is society.
What is more than interesting is the fact that in the case of civil partnership those who oppose the idea are unable to define who exactly is the Other. In most cases, as one could predict, it is the LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) people who suffer the most ostracism, even though they are not the only target group of civil partnership.
What is civil partnership then? The very concept can be tackled from various points of view. In relation to the needs of those relationships who can be registered as marriages, civil partnership creates an out-of-the-box alternative, a possibility to challenge the heteronormative standard of a union between two persons of different legal genders1. This particular option functions as a doorway for those who want to enjoy some of the privileges created by an institution of a registered union, but at the same time find themselves invested into a fluid, postmodern lifestyle which does not give in to the traditional idea of family stability.
When it comes to two persons of the same legal gender, civil partnership can be defined as “a taste of equality” – a type of consensus between the actual societal needs and the conservative concept of marriage and family. When thinking about political strategies and recent European history, civil partnership is also seen as a first step to further recognition of new forms of unions and families.
Why did Poland decide not to take this important step to change its attitude towards an alternative to marriage? There might be a few reasons – each one of them, however, comes back to the supposed definition of marriage within the Polish Constitution. Article 18, referred to numerous times during the parliamentary debate on civil partnership, but never actually quoted, states that:
Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland.
This particular definition of how the state protects its citizens has become the core of deeming all the three civil partnership proposals “unconstitutional” and has created a general view, shared by a great number of parliamentarians, that creating any form of an alternative to marriage is a devious assault plan on traditional family.
This particular attitude, however, is not only wrong but shortsighted, to say the least.
Firstly, when thinking about various lifestyles and the globally diverse family life, it is quite difficult to define what is traditional or conservative – especially when one considers the fact that the western idea of a nuclear family, forcefully posed on global societies, does not precisely fit into the term “traditional”, as its origins are easily traceable to post World War 2 changes.
Secondly, what seems to be the biggest issue, Polish politics have been experiencing a rather curious turn in relation to how politicians (especially parliamentarians) constitute their legislative role. Instead of being the force working towards bettering the situation of their citizens, the Parliament has taken a different turn – it started seeing itself as a collective protector of public morals and values. The collectiveness of those morals and values, however, seems to be trapped in an idea of a stable society defined by firmly established morals and practices, instead focusing on observation how relationships and unions change in relation to current economic and societal processes. In other words, a failure to recognize the need to introduce civil partnership is a failure to understand the everyday reality of Polish citizens and residents.
This lack of knowledge can be especially identified when thinking about the needs of different groups described by the LGBTI acronym. From the conservative side, civil partnership has been seen as an element of the “gay agenda” and what the political discussion has been focusing on was the “classic” threatening image of two men not only being able to marry (even though neither of the proposals tackled the question of marriage) but also adopt children (also not added to any of the proposals).
The patriarchal approach to relationships has once again almost fully invisibilized the position of lesbian women and, as usual, did not look into any problems of the bisexual population, not to mention transgender or intersex citizens. Male-centered binary attitudes have defined civil partnership as a heterosexual (“a man and a woman”) vs. Homosexual (“a man and a man”) dichotomy, even though the concept itself has been presented for different types of unions, those of the same legal gender and those of a different status. Civil partnership proposals have also raised the hopes of the transgender and intersex community, especially – but not only – in relation to the gender recognition process.
When one thinks about the complexity of issues which might rise up due to the specific expectations of marriage as a heteronormative phenomenon – it is quite understandable to see the need of creating a civil partnership alternative for those citizens or residents who do not comply to everyday standards of binary gender expression.
Even though two persons might be of different legal genders, this does not automatically implicate that they are not seen by society as being of the same gender. They are legally able to enter into marriage, but might not feel comfortable to agree to every heteronormative aspect of it. Hence, they would choose civil partnership as an alternative.
Civil partnership was also seen as a chance for those unions who continue their common lives even though one of the partners has decided to go through the gender recognition process and change their legal gender status. Current gender recognition procedures force an individual to divorce their spouse since marriage is available to those who are of two different legal gender statuses. In other words, and in great opposition to what has been raised from the conservative side, civil partnership might have had a positive impact on family lives. The law would no longer force families to fall apart.
Hence, by rejecting all civil partnership proposals, the parliament has clearly indicated that not all Polish families are equal.
In light of all the issues and over the top political reactions, one should also ask – what was the Polish parliament so afraid of?
On January 25th 2013, three proposals have been presented, each one of them being slightly different (drafted by various entities as well), all of them – however – accessible to two persons of either genders and none touching the subject of adoption. What might be especially interesting is the fact that the proposal presented by the leading party, Civil Platform, has been judged by the community as the rawest and not at all relevant to what were the actual needs of those citizens and residents who might have been interested in registering their union.
It did not create a possibility to form a partnership with a non-Polish citizen and had also denied most of the financial benefits to which married couples are entitled. Still, even this particular proposal could not pass the parliamentary vote after which a special commission would have taken the lead and worked on developing the text. Even though this particular proposal did not pass by a tiny margin, the results of the vote clearly indicate that both the supposed definition of marriage in the Constitution and an illusive idea of what exactly is family have clearly overwhelmed the Sejm that day.
And how did the community and civil society react? Individuals and whole groups were furious, tired and very disappointed. Thinking back to where it all began – commenting on drafts, discussing whether the proposals (at least those open to discussion) should be all-inclusive or rather for those couples who are of the same gender status, arguing on various details… And then keeping track of what has been happening inside the Parliament, demonstrating, protesting, spending hours in front of the Parliament desperately trying to get the message across… From a personal experience, it has been a significant learning process and any knowledge acquired throughout this journey would be of great use for the future. And not just for this particular proposal, but others which certainly will follow. However, judging by what the former Polish Minister of Justice, Jarosław Gowin, said once in an interview:
[…] I am opposed to granting unjustified privileges for those who do not want to enter into marital relationships.
There might still be a long way to go.
I refuse to acknowledge the “same-sex” discourse in relation to marriage and family equality, due to the fact that it invisibilizes the issues faced by both the transgender and intersex community. The issue of marriage is, in fact, the question of legal status, not body characteristics, therefore I find it very important to underline the legal aspect of the topic.
Leave a Reply