At that time, the minister herself stated that there is a lack of legal clarity on how to implement those complex decisions. But maybe it’s just a lack of will? Paraphrasing the minister, registering a partnership is “the same lady, just a different dress,” when talking about the concept of family, and it so happened that it appears in the general family registers, but same-sex partnerships – not at all.
Read more This flower conquers gardens: blooms nonstop, heals, and even replaces saffron in the kitchen
For those who don’t know, I explain, and for those who do – I remind that Justice Minister Rita Tamašunienė does not agree that her ministry should implement court decisions already made to register same-sex partnerships, claiming that court practices differ and therefore it is unclear what to do. R. Tamašunienė decided to appeal court decisions to higher courts.
“The minister probably wants to check one thing or another to be sure which direction is better to move in, because even among us here inside the Government there were disputes about which institution should be assigned the registration of partnerships,” Prime Minister Inga Ruginienė said last week to Žinių radijas, as if offering the minister a shield from falling stones of criticism.
In this text, I will try to explain why such reasoning is neither legal nor logical, but based on political ideology directed against the equality of LGBTQ+ persons.
Let’s start with the fact that Lithuania is a country where the Constitutional Court (CC) reminded that same-sex couples cannot be discriminated against, and general jurisdiction courts are already registering partnerships and some decisions have become final.
However, the Ministry of Justice still acts as if it is looking for instructions on how to turn on the light in a room where the bulb is already lit.
Lithuania is a country where the Constitutional Court reminded that same-sex couples cannot be discriminated against.
“The Ministry of Justice examined the legal regulation and evaluated various ways of registering partnerships, prepared relevant draft legal acts and analyzed the financial costs and technical possibilities of creating the functionalities of the relevant registers, and concluded that currently partnership registration is not possible,” the ministry stated this week in a comment to jarmo.net.
For ministry officials, explaining with the political leadership’s instruction that it is “technologically complicated,” “legally unclear,” and “institutions are still consulting,” it is definitely worth looking at the budget lines, because reading such a pitiful ministry comment one might get the impression that the institution is cornered: as if it wants to implement the court decision but has neither technical nor administrative capabilities to do so.
“Justice Minister Rita Tamašunienė has repeatedly emphasized that court decisions must be respected, but in this case there is no clear and, most importantly, consistent judicial practice. The Ministry of Justice cannot act ultra vires while there is no statutory basis,” the ministry’s comment adds.
But the numbers paint a completely different picture. In 2026, this ministry is allocated 165.5 million euros in appropriations – such a budget was approved by the Seimas last December. This means we are not talking about an institution barely making ends meet or lacking resources to implement changes, but about a ministry managing significant public funds and administrative capacities.
Meanwhile, the Registry Center supervised by the ministry plans to receive about 77.2 million euros in sales revenue in 2026, as provided. This is important because this institution manages the main state registers and information systems, which are cited as reasons for the alleged technological complexity.
Therefore, I believe that with such huge funds, we are not talking about a lack of capabilities, because it would be really bad if a state capable of administering million-euro tax systems, real estate registers, European databases, and digital infrastructure could no longer create an IT system for two people and enter them into the partnership register.
So the problem is probably different: the ministry leadership does not want to find ways and does not seek to prepare legal acts or analyze possibilities.
In my opinion, we are talking about a lack of political will to prioritize human rights and allocate part of the available resources to implement the court decision.
Moreover, there has long been enough legal clarity here.
In its April 17, 2025 ruling, the CC said: the state cannot discriminate against same-sex couples (based on Article 29 of the Constitution) and therefore the Civil Code provision that provides for partnership only between a man and a woman contradicts the Constitution.
Before that, the CC stated that the concept of family is gender-neutral (rulings of January 11, 2019, and September 28, 2011), reminding that a family is formed not only by marriage but also on other grounds: “<…> the constitutional concept of family cannot be derived solely from the institution of marriage; <…> the constitutional concept of family is based on mutual responsibility, understanding, emotional attachment, help, and similar bonds among family members and a voluntary decision to assume certain rights and duties, i.e., the content of the relationship, and the form of expression of these relationships is not of essential importance to the constitutional concept of family <…>”.
So the concept of family is no longer a pseudo-philosophical discussion prepared by traditionalists over Sunday coffee. And this is not “maybe we should discuss it.” This concept has been clarified by rulings with high legal force, and state officials must implement court decisions.
After all, Article 6 of the Constitution provides that the main law of the country is a unified and directly applicable act.
And Minister R. Tamašunienė, having placed her hand on the Constitution, swore to “uphold the Constitution and laws.”
Unfortunately, it seems to me that this justice minister does not respect Article 29 of the Constitution, which provides that “all persons are equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions or officials,” because it is none other than she, with her chosen deputy ministers, who is currently standing on the tracks for a very long time, looking at court interpretations and decisions regarding partnerships, and waving her hands hoping the train will stop out of respect for her hostile ideology.
“The current situation is unpleasant for everyone – courts make different decisions with different obligations addressed to the Civil Registry Offices, the Registry Center, the ministry, and the Republic of Lithuania as a whole. There is great inconsistency and this is related to the lack of statutory partnership registration procedures that the Ministry of Justice and other institutions should implement,” the Ministry of Justice said in a comment provided to jarmo.net.
Such a statement contains a huge logical gap. It would be good for the Minister of Justice to understand that the addressees of court decisions differ depending on the nature of the case and procedural situation, so yes, sometimes courts do apply different implementation mechanisms. In the civil law system, this is normal practice and in no way means that decisions cannot be executed.
Moreover, such a ministry argument contains a shifting of institutional responsibility. It is stated that the problem arises because there is no statutory procedure, but here the Constitutional Court has already found that the existing Civil Code provision contradicts the Constitution, which means that the legal gap is not “uncertainty” and the state has a duty to fill it, not to use it as a justification for inaction.
And it is doubtful whether the ministry can use its own inaction as an argument against implementing the decision.
Especially since the Constitutional Court made the decision on partnership last spring, so it remains unclear what the ministry has been doing until now to establish a partnership register if the existing ones are not suitable.
So, translated from bureaucratic language into people’s language, the ministry leadership’s comment means: “We do not have the political will to implement what the courts have said.”
And it is important not to pretend to be surprised by such true motivation.
R. Tamašunienė, who leads the Ministry of Justice, is not a person who woke up one morning and suddenly decided to fight against LGBTQ+ rights.
“We will strive that (same-sex couples) are not equated with the natural family and the rights of the natural family, especially regarding children and so on,” “Will I bring such a Partnership Act as the LGBT community expects? Definitely not,” are just a couple of the minister’s statements in this parliamentary term alone.
In the previous (2020-2024) term, R. Tamašunienė also did not hesitate to add fuel to the fire, trying to deter then-ruling parties from adopting partnership/civil union laws.
“We do not support that idea, we understand that it is the same lady, just a different dress,” she said in 2022, after the Civil Union Act was introduced in the Seimas following an unsuccessful attempt to present the Partnership Act.
So I can confidently state that Social Democrat Prime Minister I. Ruginienė appointed this policy only after she consistently spoke out against partnership (because she sought that same-sex couples would not be equated with families in the laws).
The minister herself confirms this, openly stating last October: “I think Social Democrats should not raise the issue now because from the very beginning, having invited the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union and the Christian Families Alliance faction into the coalition, they knew our position. That is why an annex to the coalition agreement was born, where on value issues our support, voting, and work will not be as Social Democrats would like. Those conditions suited them.”
Therefore, I. Ruginienė’s argument that the minister she appointed is only seeking legal clarity sounds like a person who set fire to a house now explaining that they just wanted to check if the smoke detectors really work.
R. Tamašunienė is right in saying that the prime minister decided to appoint her as justice minister knowing how she imagines justice for part of the Lithuanian people, and understanding that after the initiatives of the minister she appointed against partnership, it will be difficult to call the minister to account and remind her that the Government program’s human rights section (specifically point 464) commits to fighting discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons. After all, when forming the coalition, Social Democrats clearly anticipated exceptions for such and similar points. They agreed not to agree, in other words.
Among other things, R. Tamašunienė appointed Kristina Zamarytė-Sakavičienė (former director of the Free Society Institute) as deputy minister, whose text was recognized by the then Journalists’ Ethics Inspector as violating the law. Let me remind: homosexual people there were compared to cancer patients and alcoholics, with fantasies about hundreds of partners.
To my knowledge, the prime minister did not discuss this with the minister but very nicely took photos with LGBTQ+ activists and human rights organization leaders when she met them in the Government in October 2025.
In this whole context, the prime minister’s attempt to portray this as some kind of neutral institutional dispute looks absurd.
No, this is not a dispute over competencies. In my opinion, the ministry leadership has already clearly declared war on the implementation of LGBTQ+ people’s rights and not seeing this is an ostrich tactic of burying one’s head in the sand hoping the situation will resolve itself.
Or maybe an arsonist appointed as fire chief who then explains that he brought a gasoline can to work only to find out why fires start and why they must be extinguished, is really asking sincerely, right?
If the head of the Government does not understand after my listed arguments that the minister she appointed is fighting against LGBTQ+ people, courts, and the Constitution itself, only two possibilities remain: either she is consciously pretending not to understand, or she catastrophically lacks political insight.
Read more Announcement of the Registry Center Director Competition
In both cases, the situation looks bad.
