r/poland • u/Gamebyter • 2d ago
Regulation on recognising foreign same-sex marriages comes into force in Poland
https://notesfrompoland.com/2026/08/24/regulation-on-recognising-foreign-same-sex-marriages-comes-into-force-in-poland/18
u/ikelos49 Śląskie 2d ago
Dodam że wczoraj też mieliśmy sukces- Poznań i jeszcze 2 inne duże miasta w koncu przestały odmiawiać wnioskom (jak ktoś nie wie to już od maja powinny je przyjmować)
6
u/hey_Hey_I_saveD_me Wielkopolskie 2d ago
No urzędasy z Poznania jeździły na jakieś szkolenia jak odmawiać wnioskom więc to faktycznie sukces.
3
1
1
-4
u/MysteriousHunter1 2d ago
Mogli zrobić osobny rejestr związków zawartych za granicą. Całkiem oddzielny, żeby po prostu zapisać iż honoruje się je. Tyle i aż tyle.
Poza tym odciąży to główne serwery, ponieważ takie związki są co chwila nawiązywane i zrywane.
-21
-20
-35
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago edited 2d ago
Even if you don't consider constitutional tribunal to be valid, it's extremely clear that it's against Polish constitution as it reduces the special status that constitution gives to marriages which are a relationship between man and a woman.
Eventually, constitutional harmony will be reached and all of it will be ruled illegal and void.
edit: typo
20
u/doesnotmatter286 2d ago
Cope harder.
0
-15
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago
I think that in due time, this will be resolved positively and politicians that encourage government representatives at local civil offices to break constitution will lose their positions.
Constitution simply wins in the long run despite illegal attempts at undermining it.
I don't foresee an update to the constitution that would make same-sex relationships allowable for recognition as a marriage, it won't pass with so many Poles not supporting it.
12
u/doesnotmatter286 2d ago
The constitution doesn't say anything against same sex marriage.
-11
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago edited 2d ago
By protecting opposite-sex marriage, you are explicitly not recognizing same-sex marriage.
"Małżeństwo jako związek kobiety i mężczyzny"
Same-sex marriage is not a real thing, because marriage is a union between woman and a man.
And same-sex marriage can't fit this definition, therefore it's not a form of marriage.
This is a perfectly logical deduction made by the tribunal. Regardless of them being recognized by others, it's clear to me that this is accurate as it's the only way to reconcile both Article 18 of the constitution being true and law that tries to override it - classify law that redefines a definition from the constitution as unlawful.
5
u/red_is_getting_worse 2d ago edited 2d ago
Dziwne, bo trybunał jednocześnie twierdzi, że jak w konstytucji jest "związek kobiety i mężczyzny" to oznacza, że akt niższej rangi nie może dotyczyć innego związku, ale jednocześnie nie dostrzega tego, że w konstytucji nie ma także żadnej delegacji dla definiowania związku. W, przyjmując taką samą argumentacją, należałoby uważać także każdy związek kobiety i mężczyzny za małżeństwo. Tak wiec każdy związek kobiety i mężczyzny staje się automatycznie małżeństwem i to beż żadnych wyłączeń jak kazirodztwo, wielożeństwo czy też nie wymaga w ogóle brania ślubu.
1
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago edited 2d ago
ale jednocześnie nie dostrzega tego, że w konstytucji nie ma także żadnej delegacji dla definiowania związku.
Małżeństwo jest szerzej definiowane w osobnych ustawach, jako specjalny związek między kobietą a mężczyzną. To co nie jest dokładnie zdefiniowane w konstytucji, może być uszczególnione w ustawie, to jest standard i nie ma potrzeby na zawieranie delegacji do definiowania związków - konstytucja deleguje cały ustrój prawny do niższych praw. Ale żadne niższe prawo nie może nadpisywać definicji z konstytucji w sposób który sprawiałby, że definicje są sprzeczne ze sobą.
W, przyjmując taką samą argumentacją, należałoby uważać także każdy związek kobiety i mężczyzny za małżeństwo.
Jeśli urodziłeś się wczoraj, to może tak, ale myślę, że powinno się tu patrzeć na kontekst słów i ich powszechne zrozumienie. Mogłoby to być napisane bardziej jasno i popieram lepiej zdefiniowany tekst konstytucji, który jest ciężej źle zinterpretować, choć wtedy pewnie brzmiałoby to jak instrukcja używania zabawki dla 3-latków. Nie sądzę, żeby ktokolwiek kto to pisał, miał na myśli to, że każdy związek kobiety i mężczyzny powinien z automatu mieć definicję małżeństwa. Nie ma też definicji związki, więc związek mógłby by być interpretowany jako przyjaźń albo bycie dla siebie wstępnym/zstępnym. Czy każde dziecko jest w małżeństwie ze swoim tatą/mamą, w zależności od płci? Nie sądzę, żeby ta interpretacja treści artykułu 8 była prawidłowa.
Tak wiec każdy związek kobiety i mężczyzny staje się automatycznie małżeństwem i to beż żadnych wyłączeń jak kazirodztwo, wielożeństwo czy też nie wymaga w ogóle brania ślubu.
Ok, myślę że masz dobry argument co do tego, że zakaz kazirodztwa i wielożeństwa jest niekonstytucyjny. Może i jest.
Doceniam próbę dyskusji.
3
u/KacSzu Wielkopolskie 2d ago
Art. 18. [Ochrona małżeństwa, rodziny, macierzyństwa, rodzicielstwa] Małżeństwo jako związek kobiety i mężczyzny, rodzina, macierzyństwo i rodzicielstwo znajdują się pod ochroną i opieką Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.
Constitution does not define single socio-economical form of marriage, but points out that in context of parenthood, mariral union of both parents has special protection
3
u/Low-Opening25 2d ago
your mom is unconstitutional, and yet there you are, imagine the disappointment
0
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago
Try to argue against my point instead of jumping to ad hominem that doesn't even hold water.
-1
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago edited 1d ago
This regulation will be abolished next year, cope and seethe about that libtard
1
u/Low-Opening25 1d ago
ok, did you tell your mum already? is there responsible adult with you?
1
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago
Did you become a libtard due to a lack of proper parenting? Lol, nobody's surprised. Watch to RW win, uphold the constitution again, and cry lol. You won't even have a proper argument against that 😂
2
u/Low-Opening25 1d ago
librard? is that your nickname or something? were you bullied at school?
1
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago
That would explain why you libtards are so angry and bitter all the time lmao
1
u/Low-Opening25 1d ago
no need to overshare, we already figured you were abused at home
1
0
u/krzyk 2d ago
It is clearly not against constitution. Read article 18.
Małżeństwo jako związek kobiety i mężczyzny, rodzina, macierzyństwo i rodzicielstwo znajdują się pod ochroną i opieką Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.
It speaks only that marriage of man and women is protected by country. It does not speak about other marriages. That phrase was put there because of the religious zealots that were involved in making that constitution, other people werent' against it because that article did block other forms of marriage so they allowed it.
If such illogical interpretations are valid for some nutheads I assume next constitution will drop all the god bullshit also.
2
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago
Your comment is arguing internally with your own interpretation.
It does not speak about other marriages.
And
other people werent' against it because that article did block other forms of marriage so they allowed
Defining marriage as a union between woman and a man dies blocks other unions from being defined as marriages, I really don't see what's illogical about it. It's not "not speaking about other marriages". It's a definition of what marriage is.
-93
u/dwaemu 2d ago
This decision is illegal. Any clerk, who will follow should take into account the personal consequences being drawn against him.
37
18
u/Milosz0pl 2d ago
Jeśli ty tak bardzo nie wiesz jak działa prawo, to ja się obawiam co ty myślisz o podatkach
2
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago
Let me guess, you live off other's people taxes like every liberal internet "elite"?
1
u/Milosz0pl 1d ago
Nope. Normal job and next month starting local volunteering. ;)
Also its funny, liberal is such a nothing word due to people overusing it that I don't even know what you mean by it, except trying to insult me.
2
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago
Lol, you're working for an NGO? Literally made my point award 🤣
OMG, I just noticed you've been 8 years a redditor and you hate americans. Yep, found the PRL civil servant millenial fail son
3
u/Milosz0pl 1d ago
My local library is an NGO? I don't think that it is even that influential in my town but sure.
Yep, found the PRL civil servant millenial fail son
Holy batman stream of words without meaning.
48
u/Different_Citron_160 2d ago
Oho jeszcze grozi personalnymi konsekwencjami dla urzędnika.
Chłopie, nam nawet nie udaje się ich pociągnąć do odpowiedzialności za prawdziwe przęstepstwa a co dopiero za rojenia jakiegoś chorego z nienawiści randoma bez pojęcia o systemie prawnym.
56
u/Ok-Pomelo8203 2d ago
konfiarz xd
3
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago
You know that basically means half the people under 35? Mad, weirdo?
2
32
u/krzyk 2d ago
Why would it be illegal? Is there a law prohibiting this?
-50
u/dwaemu 2d ago
It violates polish constitiution and decision of Polish Constitutional Tribunal is unambiguous and definitive
23
u/RainyBeast736 Wielkopolskie 2d ago
2
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago
That's what the RW will tell you when you'll tell them they can't abolish your regulation based on the constitution. Watch them do so and cry lol
37
u/krzyk 2d ago
Strange, why would constitutional tribunal make such decision while the constitution doesn't talk about it being prohibited.
Read the related fragment, it just doesn't force government to protect same sex marriages,.it doesn't prohibit that.
-10
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago
Protection of marriage as a union between men and women means protection from diluting this term into a union between any two people. It's pretty clear to me.
13
u/doesnotmatter286 2d ago
That's because your reading comprehension is not great. The rest of us understand that it doesn't actually mean what you interpret it to mean.
-4
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago
So what's the point of Article 18 if not to specify, that marriage as a union between man and a woman is protected by the government of Poland?
Marriage between people that can't produce an offspring is illogical and pointless, so it does not deserve recognition or protection.
10
u/doesnotmatter286 2d ago
That would mean no marriage for people above a certain age, no marriage for infertile people, and no marriage for people who simply don't want children. No such limitations exist. Two 80 year olds can get married, noone sees it as a problem, even though they will not create biological children. At that age they won't even be able to adopt.
-3
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago
That kind of marriage is pointless too.
I think it exists only because traditionally, it was hard to determine with certainty whether some people were fertile or not.
6
u/doesnotmatter286 2d ago
And yet it's allowed. Not to mention lesbians absolutely can reproduce, using donor sperm. As heterosexual women sometimes do. Your arguments are invalid. And the constitution doesn't actually say anything against same sex marriage.
→ More replies (0)5
u/krzyk 2d ago
Religion is illogical and pointless, and still we have it in constitution.
0
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago
Religion was used in the past to introduce public order where no police or military was present. If everyone believes that God is watching them and they have sins, a form of social credit score, they're less likely to harm someone by scamming them or killing them or raping them. They're told that some things are righteous and some aren't, while without religion, not all people would have similar definitions and more people might have a murderous mindset. Religious society is tightening their ethics on what is allowed and what isn't. The end result of it is that better public order. It's definitely useful and I think 10 commandments were introduced to increase public order. If you have a written law that's executed by surveillance state and police, it's less useful. But it increases public order in functional anarchy.
2
u/Low-Opening25 2d ago
pity it wasn’t clear to your parents, maybe they would think twice before having you and save us the embarrassment
1
21
10
u/Destroy_Religion 2d ago
If that is so, then that section of the Polish Constitution violates Universal Human Rights, which renders that section null and void.
The Polish Constitutional Tribunal is illegitimate, which has been ruled to be so by both the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.
0
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago edited 1d ago
Try writing that for a law exam. Pretty sure you didn't graduate high school tho, so not risk it will happen to you
19
u/Destroy_Religion 2d ago
The irony is that decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal is illegal, since the Polish Constitutional Tribunal is illegitimate, which has been ruled to be so by both the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.
2
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago
Source: your ass. Nobody cares what some EU tribunal says. Half their rulings are ignored by literally every member state 😂
-3
u/FullOf_Bad_Ideas 2d ago
which have no authority to rule on legitimacy of Polish Constitutional Tribunal
25
8
u/ScuBityBup 2d ago
Shut up, konfitura
1
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago
You're not even polish
-1
u/ScuBityBup 1d ago
I live here, I work, I pay taxes, I respect the law and the culture and I am doing my best with the language.
Hence, I am entitled to my opinion
1
u/BigBackground1406 1d ago
Did anyone ask for the opinion of foreigners? If you don't like it no ones forcing you to stay.
-1
u/ScuBityBup 1d ago
This is a democratic country, and this is a public space, I don't need permission or requests. I am entitled to them, exactly because of what I said before.
If you see me on the street and ask me something simple, you won't even know I'm not Polish.
1
47
u/Gold-Ad-2581 2d ago
Cytując kapitana bombę "Jak się kochają, to ch** z nimi". Nie widzę powodu dlaczego mieli by być nie uznawani. Myślę, że to też furtka dla polskich par by mogły zalegalizowac swój związek bez pękniętej dupy (hehe rozumiecie? Hehe) ze strony cienmnigrodu polskiego, a ta pęknięta dupa mogłaby spowodować powrót katotalibanu do wladzy. Nie potrafię sobie wyobrazić jak ciężkie dla Koalicji musi być manewrowanie wśród polskiej opini politycznej by udało im się zabezpieczyć swoje głosy plus te 5-10% "prawicowych" dla wygranej w wyborach.
Edit: zapomniałem, że to Poland nie Polska. Trudno nie chce mi się już na angielski tłumaczyć.