{"id":184427,"date":"2018-10-06T03:54:15","date_gmt":"2018-10-06T07:54:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=184427"},"modified":"2018-10-06T03:54:15","modified_gmt":"2018-10-06T07:54:15","slug":"romanians-vote-putting-gay-marriage-ban-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/10\/06\/romanians-vote-putting-gay-marriage-ban-constitution\/","title":{"rendered":"Romanians vote on putting gay marriage ban in constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Romanian law already prohibits same-sex marriages. Opponents say the new constitutional language is a mean-spirited attempt to make LGBT people feel more like second-class citizens and also could marginalize households led by single parents or unmarried couples raising children. (Shutterstock)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

BUCHAREST, Romania \u2014 Two days of voting on a constitutional amendment that would make it harder to legalize same-sex marriage have gotten started in Romania.<\/p>\n

A conservative group initiated the referendum being held on Saturday and Sunday, and the influential Romanian Orthodox Church is backing it.<\/p>\n

The proposed amendment would revise the definition of family in the Constitution of Romania to make marriage “a union between a man and a woman” instead of “a union between spouses.”<\/p>\n

Romanian law already prohibits same-sex marriages. Opponents say the new constitutional language is a mean-spirited attempt to make LGBT people feel more like second-class citizens and also could marginalize households led by single parents or unmarried couples raising children.<\/p>\n

The referendum requires a 30 per cent turnout of registered voters to be valid. The proposed change would prevent any attempt to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation.<\/p>\n

The vote came about after the Coalition for Family submitted a petition with 3 million signatures proposing for the constitution to be amended. The group said it was concerned young Romanians were learning about so-called “non-traditional” family arrangements in school.<\/p>\n

Gay rights groups say the constitutional revision could encourage homophobia by further promoting the view that only opposite-sex marriages are legitimate and same-sex relationships are unworthy of recognition or protection.<\/p>\n

At a rally this week in southern Romania, Orthodox Bishop Sebastian Pascanu told believers that homosexuality was an “abnormality that first appeared in Western countries.”<\/p>\n

“This abnormality needs therapy, treatment rather than special laws like the ones that have different sexual orientations would like to have.”<\/p>\n

But others, like Marcel Badea, an electrician who lives in a southern Romanian village on the River Danube, said he’d boycott the vote.<\/p>\n

“I am (already) a husband, a father and grandfather, I have nothing to vote for,” he said. “I don’t need this referendum. Even if I vote ‘no,’ I will help the referendum get the turnout it needs.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BUCHAREST, Romania \u2014 Two days of voting on a constitutional amendment that would make it harder to legalize same-sex marriage …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":156084,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-w","mauthors-alison-mutler","mauthors-the-associated-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184427","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=184427"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184427\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/156084"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}