Croatia’s marriage referendum threatens more than gays

(The Croatian version of this article ran in today's Jutarnji List, Croatia's largest daily newspaper.)

An Expat in Zagreb

By Roger Malone

The marriage referendum set for Dec. 1 offers Croatia another chance to shoot itself in the foot.

Granted, it’s not surprising that some people feel somehow threatened by the overt proximity of different individual identities. More than 700,000 people have signed a petition to force a referendum on whether to include a conservative definition of marriage in the country’s constitution, effectively banning gay marriages. Armchair psychologists might theorize this implies a lack of confidence in the institution of heterosexual marriage, since it suggests that acknowledging alternatives could lead to nothing but irresistible temptation.

Personally, I’m close friends with several gay couples and even attended the wedding of one pair without any jolts to my sexuality or values. This is just anecdotal evidence, of course, and could be the exception to the rule. Perhaps I’m just strong willed.

What is surprising, though, is how easy the Croatian Constitution can be changed, opening the door for single-issue juggernauts like the conservative In The Name of the Family group that’s pushing its definition of marriage. A constitutional referendum in Croatia must be called if about 450,000 people sign a petition. That’s a significant threshold, but well within reach for hot-button issues backed by an organization like the Catholic Church. The referendum itself needs just a simple majority of participating voters to pass. If turnout is low, a small fraction of Croatian voters can change the constitution.

(Some friends have suggested they might boycott the referendum in protest. Such a strategy just makes it easier for the anti-gay bloc to win: the lower the turnout, the fewer votes they need to win a simple majority.)

In the US, as a counter example, a constitutional change requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and approval by three-quarters of the states. It’s a complicated process, and it didn’t prevent Prohibition, a disastrous decision to ban alcohol in 1919 until it was repealed in 1933. On the other hand, it proved insurmountable for sensible efforts like the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have put men and women on an unquestionable equal standing before the law. But, by and large, it has served the country well.

National constitutions should essentially be statements of basic rights and an outline of the organization and operations of government. The Croatian Constitution throws in a brief history lesson, but generally follows this pattern. It includes many declarations of rights that seem to contradict a narrow definition of marriage that would exclude a segment of the population. Human rights groups have already said they would try to block the referendum in the constitutional court.

If constitutional change in Croatia is indeed up for grabs, issues trivial and profound could be put on the table. Anyone for a referendum making wine chateau the national dessert? Or one that taxes dog ownership? How about one barring ethnic minorities or some other group from public office or public jobs? The potential for abuse is troublesome.

The particular question facing Croatia Dec. 1 is both homophobic and ridiculous in that it’s based on an imaginary threat. It should be defeated purely on the grounds of human rights and equality. But beyond the obvious moral considerations, economics also speak against approving the change.

The Gay European Tourism Association estimates that European gays spend 50 billion euros on tourism in Europe each year, and gay Americans traveling to Europe add billions more. Assuming gay travel parallels travel trends generally, such levels likely represent about a billion euros in tourism receipts for Croatia. Can a country that depends so heavily on tourism afford to alienate such a large market segment? Notice that with the 2014 Winter Olympics around the corner, Russia is facing a public relations nightmare after it enacted anti-gay laws this past summer.

Croatian President Ivo Josipovic has asked, “The question is: Do we need this kind of a referendum? I think that determining marriage between a man and a woman does not belong in the constitution. A nation is judged by its attitude toward minorities.”

With untold billions of kunas being stolen from Croatia through corruption and tax avoidance, a public debt burden that is growing and could become unbearable within a year, and youth unemployment rates that are scary, worrying about whether what Ivan and Josip have going can be called a marriage should be low of the list of national priorities. Even in good times, it shouldn’t even make the list.

Within hours of the Sabor vote, headlines about the referendum circled the globe from Washington to Singapore. The last time Croatia got this kind of international attention outside sports was when it battled Brussels over the European Arrest Warrant. It would be great if the next time the world’s attention turned to Croatia it would be to report that the country reaffirmed its commitment to human rights for everyone.

[Follow Roger Malone on twitter at @ExpatinZagreb or at http://expatinzagreb.blogspot.com/]