In these times of crisis, when job loss and job insecurity, especially among the young and educated, together with the burden of debts, both public and private, the collapse of the economy and confused public policies erode social moorings, exert pressure on the entire society and plunge many into despair, our fellow citizens are justifiably seeking to safeguard the enduring values of the family and marriage, i.e., reciprocity and humanity. We start from the concept that all people are equal in dignity as children of God, brothers in God’s fatherhood, and we urge mutual respect and understanding.

1. A vote for marriage and the family. This Commission of the Croatian Conference of Bishops, composed of laity and clergy, urges Christian Catholics, Croatian citizens and people of good will to vote on December 1 for the constitutional referendum and declare themselves to be in favor of the definition of marriage as a legally regulated union of a man and woman, without forgetting two simple facts: first, naturally, that each of us has been born to one woman and one man and most of us know very well what it means to grow up in the fullness of a family and the differences between parents, a mother and a father, while those who did not live with both parents know how much they missed; and, second, that the incorporation of this definition into the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia does not change anything in the legal sense but merely confirms the existing definition of marriage as “a legally regulated union of a man and woman” from the provisions of Article 5 of Croatia’s Family Act of 2003.
The incorporation of the institution of marriage into the Constitution, therefore, merely strengthens it, since marriage is a union of a man and woman, which is formally proclaimed by the universal documents on human rights of today’s democracies, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16), the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights (Article 23) of the United Nations and, especially, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 12) of the Council of Europe, which explicitly states: “Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family…” Croatia has adopted the aforementioned Declaration and ratified the two Covenants, so these documents obligate us. Moreover, let us not forget that the latter convention gives states the freedom to define the union known as marriage (verdict in the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, June 24, 2010).

2. Confused policies. We also cannot ignore in these confusing times that in social relations and legal regulations it is necessary to use common and unambiguous words and terms, in their generally accepted linguistic and legal meanings. This also obligates us regarding the concepts of marriage and family, woman and man/bride and groom, mother and father, child and, particularly, the rights of children. That, after all, is the case with the current Croatian laws, especially those that govern family relations (Articles 5, 6, 24 and many others). Therefore, it is inappropriate and also illegal when the Croatian executive authorities assert that the introduction of the already existing law and legal provision, the constitutionality of which no one challenges, regarding the definition of marriage as “a legally regulated union of a man and woman” into the Croatian Constitution would represent a “great affront to Croatian political maturation and a step backward.”
What kind of “maturation” is in question and what does “backward” mean when such a definition already exists, not only in Croatian law but always in the minds of the majority of Croatian citizens? What kind of discrimination is it if in the Constitution the institution of a woman and man as such is already specified in the Croatian Family Act, which is legally binding for all? What do they want to conceal and what is unexpected in such a policy? Perhaps the desire is to invalidate the current legal and tomorrow’s constitutional definition of marriage? To change significant words and legal terms? Why do the current executive authorities not state clearly where this is leading? Why do the executive authorities oppose the strengthening of the institution of marriage, when they state publicly that there is no intention to redefine marriage? Is not the “family,” according to the general understanding of this word and term, a community of parents and children—”under the special protection of the state (Article 62 of the Constitution)? Does this not also include children?

3. The particularities of the institution of marriage. In essence, marriage is not merely a private institution but also public by its nature. According to our laws and those of other democratic and, especially, European legal traditions, marriage is also a legal union that, like many institutions, “discriminates,” because it is not open to all, for example not to close relatives or those who are already married… Moreover, let us not forget that marriage, as generally understood, based upon love, has a particular role in life and society: it is a union of a woman and man open to the transmission of life, the establishment of a family, in which children are raised and socialized, in short, the manner in which adult persons and communities consciously and willingly accept responsibility for the continuation of the human race and society. Is it necessary to prove this to anyone? Should it be specifically mentioned here that marriage for all Christians is still a mysterious bond, the only sacrament that spouses, a man and wife, share with each other in order for them to express their love with God’s blessing (cf. GS, No. 49)?

4. The importance of the referendum. This is the first referendum and civil initiative in the free and independent Republic of Croatia, as a form of direct decision-making. No one’s rights are affected by the referendum. This referendum can prevent capricious changes to the institution of marriage by the eventual arbitrariness of the parliamentary majority, irrespective of the will of the people, as shown by the case in France. The success of this referendum will ensure that the institution of a union of a woman and man, which in itself provides the legal basis for the establishment of a family, will more enduringly respect that union which is the best environment for every child—a responsible loving union of a mother and father.

5. The duty of dialogue and respect for values. Finally, we are concerned that the civil initiative “On Behalf of the Family” for a constitutional definition of marriage, which is not solely of Catholic or Christian provenance but also Islamic, Jewish, Agnostic and Atheistic, has shown that in Croatia there is no dialogue, especially no institutionalized dialogue regarding issues of fundamental importance between the legislative/executive authorities and the religious communities. Therefore, the we propose that for any changes to the Constitution or constitutional law, the Croatian Government and Parliament should follow the example of the European Union, to which the Republic of Croatia now belongs, and introduce “regular, open and transparent dialogue” (Article 17, Treaty of Lisbon) with the Churches and other communities of conviction.

In Zagreb, November 28, 2013

Msgr. Vlado Košić
President of the Justice and Peace Commission
The Croatian Conference of Bishops