For/Against? For.

Even though the opinion polls predicted differently (they were, as it later turned out, unfortunately correct), a positive result of today's referendum on whether to uphold the law legalizing same-sex marriage seemed as a foregone conclusion to me. The latter was, in a large part, due to the heated and highly polarized debate preceding the referendum which led me to assume a massive response in favor of equal rights and against hypocrisy disguised under self-proclaimed care for children.

By using discredited arguments, alleging harmful consequences of same-sex parenting for children in order to reverse marriage equality, a Catholic church-backed group under a deceptive name "Children are at stake" once again managed to mobilize the more conservative part of our electorate body.  As it was very much the case with a similar referendum three years ago, the group managed to draw the main focus of the debate on the welfare of children, who would, should the law be accepted, supposedly be exposed to peer pressure in schools and kinder-gardens (I am perhaps putting things a bit to simply, but the debate was indeed centered on something which was rather a side issue). Needless to say, their concerns were backed-up by personal opinion and emotional stories  of (their) children not wanting to loose their mommies and daddies in case of a positive outcome of the referendum, rather than with actual evidence. The fact that adoption process is actually a lengthy affair, governed by bureaucracy and administered by health and social centers, which makes the "imminent threat" somewhat less "severe" (yes, the quotation mark stand there for a reason, you do get it, I hope) wasn't appropriately dealt with. Other questions, perhaps even more pertinent to the debate, were neglected altogether. 

As I am no law expert, I wouldn't dare to comment on whether the decision of constitutional court to allow a referendum on a question of human rights was anti-constitutional or not, even though I strongly  believe such questions should never be resolved by means of public voting as there is in such cases but a thin line (which was, however melodramatic it may sound, crossed today)  between a public exercise of democracy and an exercise of majority's power over minority. What I would dare to comment and criticize is yet another lukewarm response of the law's supporters. As it was to be expected, the opponents had no trouble gathering the required 344 000 votes against the law while the supporters disappointed with another low turnout. In a country where so many are afraid (or perhaps ashamed) to admit they have voted for the leading party (except for one, but let's not dig into that) as fast as three months after the elections when their predictions have gone awry and where the prime reason for low electoral participation is usually the "it-makes-no-difference" argument, we have missed a chance to actually make a difference. Perhaps we would need a quick course in democracy to remind us is not always about us and them or winning and loosing. Whenever there's discrimination, it's only about loosing.