A marriage referendum is being held in Romania on October 7, which, if successful, will reverse the role we give the constitution. But just holding this referendum, that one possibility voting on the private affairs of individuals is a threat to freedom.
Referendum on marriage
The topic of the referendum is marriage, specifically the anchoring of marriage as a bond men and women in Romanian Constitution. Although Romania already prohibits same-sex marriage by law, constitutional insurance would be almost in the future made it impossible to universalize this volume.
Romania would thus stand next to countries such as Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Croatia, which have already implemented a similar constitutional "insurance policy".
The event is sponsored by Coalition for the familywhich brings together different conservative and religious (orthodox) organizations; it is a result pressure from the conservative-religious lobby.
Marriage as a tool of interest groups
The first problem is at all nationalization of marriage. The state regulates this type of cohabitation, this private relationship, in such a way that it is basically the same as if Andrej Babiš, for example, were guarding your bedroom with us.
Marriage is intimate affairs, a bundle of two adults. Whether this volume guarantees church or exists on any other basis, it is a matter for those who are directly involved in the union. It is a way of living life and setting your own private affairs. There is no place for someone "third".
And yet we allowed the state to regulate and set us up this private bond. A common but dysfunctional argument is "protection of the family", protection of "procreation". By nationalizing this purely private matter we have thus made marriage an object of interest to various interest groupswho want to use the state monopoly of power to enforce their idea of an "ideal marriage" on others.
Marriage has become an instrument of powerwhen a certain group of people think that he knows better than others how to live his life. That they have a greater right to make decisions about the lives of strangers than themselves. With nationalization, marriage has become an instrument of all anti-liberal groups.
Who is guarded by the constitution?
The role of the constitution is to limit governmentso that it cannot terrorize its citizens (far too much). Once the constitution says what marriage is needed or what religion is / is not allowed, it is not a tool for government control, but tool of tyranny by the government, an instrument of dictatorship.
After all, it is not the role of the constitution to regulate private relations between individual citizens!
That the constitutional change will probably be approved by referendum, only amplifies the whole perversion - for the referendum to be valid, at least 500 citizens must participate. Romania has just over 19,5 million inhabitants. Theoretical so 2,5% of the population is enough to change / influence the lives of others forever.
They make similar provisions of institutes tools of oppression against specific groups of the population. Instead of protecting the population from oppression by the government, it becomes its direct tool.
The whole constitutional principle thus puts it upside down.
Freedom begins in private
For a society to be free, every single individual in it must be free. If this is not the case, it is not about freedom, but authorization a certain group of people behave freely.
Taxes, regulations and others are certainly a serious obstacle to freedom; however, freedom begins with each of us, in our privacy. Where else should we be free than in deciding our private, intimate lives?? Where else should we have freedom than in our homes, families?
If a Catholic or Orthodox priest, on the basis of his faith, refuses to marry a same-sex couple - that is his freedom, why not. If this same-sex couple is offered a legal guarantee, a "contractual template," another authority will offer it - yes, that is its freedom.
However, as long as the state and the government usurp the power to determine how we are to live in our private lives, the constitution, guaranteed by the constitution, must be guaranteed by the constitution. Every citizen should have the same weight in the "free state" and so the definition of marriage should be as general as possible so that it is as discriminatory as possible for any citizen.
It is precisely situations such as this that should unite all supporters of freedom - regardless of the narrower framework of opinion. It doesn't matter if you are a minarchist, anarchist, constitutionalist; the state thus harms everyone equally.
At best, however, marriage should not be state at all. Then there would be nothing to solve.