Jurašs: Saeima should change laws which don't protect all families

Take note – story published 3 years ago

The Constitutional Court's decision on the protection of all families should be taken more broadly, Juris Jurašs, head of the Saeima Legal Affairs Commission said on Latvian Radio November 17.

He said that his represented party New Conservative Party (JKP) has different, extreme positions on the need for the protection of all families. Jurašs believes a solution needs to be found.

"My position is that the time has come to adjust this situation wisely. The fact that change is needed is obvious," Jurašs said.

As reported, Constitutional Court had received an appeal from a mother whose female partner was unable to receive the ten-day leave which, according to Labor Act, is to be granted to the child's father. Constitutional Court, in a judgment read on 1 November, acknowledged that the provision of the Labor Act, in so far as it does not provide protection and support for the mother's partner due to the birth of the child, does not comply with the first sentence of Section 110 of the Constitution. The Court said that the Constitution sets the state's obligation to protect the family of same-sex partners as well.

The politician spoke of the judgment of the Constitutional Court, which states that a family is being formed not only when entering a marriage. It can also be formed for economic, social or other reasons. In such families, the legal relationship is not regulated in any way. It is therefore necessary to carry out an in-depth investigation and assessment of the situation in order to determine the legal framework.

According to Jurašs, the simplest path is not the way to go this time. The most straightforward solution to execute the judgment would be to simply amend the Labor Act, which was the subject of the complaint. He said that he saw a wider solution to this issue.

He said the Saeima should investigate which regulatory enactments should be changed in order to comply with the judgment of the Constitutional Court that the State should protect all families.

At the same time, Jurašs recalled that marriage is still defined in the Constitution as a union between a man and a woman.


Seen a mistake?

Select text and press Ctrl+Enter to send a suggested correction to the editor

Select text and press Report a mistake to send a suggested correction to the editor

Related articles


Most important