In a move widely seen as a direct challenge to the Constitutional Court and an effort to stall progress on equal rights, several dozen members of the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) have proposed an amendment that would block courts from registering partnerships—including gender-neutral ones—until Parliament passes its own law, which they suggest should not be expected before July 1, 2026.
The amendment, spearheaded by Vytautas Sinica, a member of the far-right National Alliance, is backed by 47 MPs and aims to override the Court’s authority, effectively putting civil rights on hold for political convenience. “This amendment would delay the implementation of the partnership institute until July 2026,” Sinica told BNS, framing the delay as a necessary time buffer—despite the Court already having ruled on the matter.
Obstruction Framed as ‘Order’
The Constitutional Court had ruled in April that the current Civil Code—restricting legal unions to heterosexual couples—is unconstitutional. The Court also invalidated a provision requiring a separate law for partnership recognition, opening the path for same-sex and gender-neutral couples to register partnerships via the courts.
Instead of respecting the Court’s decision, Sinica and his allies claim this legal clarity has created “serious chaos”—ignoring the fact that what they label “chaos” is in fact judicial enforcement of constitutional rights.
The MPs are pushing to retroactively block this judicial pathway until Seimas legislates a detailed regulatory framework, something it has failed to do for years. This would mean LGBTQ+ couples and other unmarried partners remain in legal limbo, despite the Court affirming their constitutional rights.
MPs Attack the Judiciary, Float Constitutional Rewrite
Several politicians behind the amendment have gone further by attacking the Constitutional Court itself. Ligita Girskienė, of the Farmers and Greens Union, accused the Court of being ideologically biased and of interpreting European legal norms selectively to reach a predetermined outcome—essentially implying that judges acted politically rather than legally.
Kazys Starkevičius, a conservative MP, suggested that true resolution may require rewriting the Constitution via a national referendum—a drastic step that critics view as an attempt to bend foundational legal principles to suit the conservative majority’s preferences, rather than uphold minority rights.
Sinica echoed this, portraying the Court’s ruling as political overreach and implying that public opinion—currently divided—should dictate constitutional interpretation. This rhetoric reveals a deeper effort to erode judicial independence in favor of majoritarian control.
Public Opinion Split, But Rights Remain Unfulfilled
A May poll showed that just over half of the public disapproved of the Court’s decision affirming partnership rights for both same- and different-sex couples. However, experts warn that constitutional rights should not be subject to popularity contests, and that the role of the Court is precisely to protect minority rights from political delay or populist backlash.
Attempts to establish a gender-neutral civil union framework have repeatedly failed in the Seimas over the past decade, with conservative MPs blocking or gutting legislation. This latest proposed amendment continues that pattern—aiming to stall progress and undermine judicial authority in the name of political expediency.
