Croatia Vote Against Gay Marriage, Catholic Church Pleased
CROATIA used to market itself as holiday destination under the slogan: “The Mediterranean as it once was.” This was meant to conjure up images of pristine beaches and beautiful and historic towns and sights. It was not meant to give an image of country crustily conservative, socially illiberal and pining for a simpler time when being gay was at best kept in the closet and at worst a crime.
On December 1st a referendum showed that a large minority of Croats do in fact long for the old days. Fully 66% approved the proposition: “Are you in favour of the constitution of the Republic of Croatia being amended with a provision stating that marriage is matrimony between a woman and a man?” The turnout was 38% so the question was approved by a quarter of the electorate.
The referendum was a defeat for the government of Zoran Milanovic, the Social Democratic prime minister who had campaigned hard for a “no” vote. The strange thing about it, however, was that that it came from nowhere. There was no significant debate about gay marriage in Croatia before the campaign. Florian Bieber, a Balkan expert at Graz University, points out here Croatia is rather mainstream, in terms of legislation and outlook about homosexuality, among both central and southern European countries as well as former communist ones.
Before the demise of Yugoslavia, Croatia was one of only two of its six republics, along with Slovenia, to have decriminalised homosexuality. Croats will now make their constitution like that of neighboring Serbia, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. There the church and nationalist groups have used threats of violence against gay pride parades and other gay issues to attack liberal agendas.
The referendum was held after a group called “In the Name of the Family” gathered almost 750,000 signatures asking for one. Their leading light is a Zeljka Markic, a successful businesswoman with close links to the Catholic Church and a far-right party called Hrast. The constitution will be amended, but the referendum’s impact will be more symbolic. Laws on civil partnerships are in the pipeline, which will cover inheritance and other contentious topics, although not adoption.
One result of the referendum is that it has emboldened those fighting against the introduction of Serbian Cyrillic script on road and other signs in the Vukovar area. They say they have now gathered enough signatures to hold a referendum seeking to ban it. Vukovar was virtually leveled during the war in Croatia. But following its peaceful reintegration back into the Croatian state from Serb control after 1995 many Serbs remain there. In the wake of the marriage referendum Mr Milanovic has sworn that there will be no referendum on Cyrillic: “This was the last referendum in which a majority limits the rights of a minority,” he fumed.
Since Cyrillic was not contentious in the Vukovar region until the government decided to introduce it, some have wondered whether the government has caused problems has given right wing populists an opportunity to go on the offensive. Raising the dormant issue of Cyrillic appeared to bolster Mr Milanovic’s liberal credentials after he had appeased right wingers last year by introducing legislation that prevented the extradition of Josip Perkovic, a former secret policeman, to Germany wanted for a murder in 1983 of a Croatian defector who had become involved with nationalist circles.
According to Mr Bieber the referendum “suggests that a conservative social agenda might gather popular support. Such campaigning is likely to be polarising and cannot capture a majority, but can energise the conservative spectrum of the electorate.” Referring to the anti-Cyrillic campaign, he notes the marriage referendum provides an incentive for the opposition to bypass representative democracy and impose a conservative agenda through referenda (or the threat of them).
A joke now making the rounds says: “Marriage is a union between a man and a woman who use Latin letters.” For now the referendum has had no international ramifications. Ines Sabalic, who represents the city of Zagreb in Brussels, says her city remains tolerant and open . But, for many, especially in the north of Europe, it is another worryingly illiberal sign from the European Union’s newest state. Last month Josip Simunic a footballer was fined after rallying supporters in a world cup qualifying match with a cry associated with the country’s Nazi-quisling wartime state. Since then more than 160,000 have come out in support for him on Facebook.
http://www.economist.com
Comments