Lithuanian parliament to debate lawmaker-drafted partnership bills, not ministry’s version
The Lithuanian parliament will consider partnership legislation proposed by lawmakers rather than the Justice Ministry’s draft, Justice Minister Rita Tamašunienė confirmed on Wednesday.
Speaking to reporters in Vilnius, Tamašunienė acknowledged that the Human Rights Committee chair and a group of MPs had submitted a new bill, which lawmakers have pledged to advance during the spring session. “The final outcome depends on a parliamentary vote and approval,” she said, noting at least four separate partnership-related bills are now at various stages in the Seimas.
The minister, representing the Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania–Christian Families Alliance, stressed that the issue was included in the coalition agreement’s supplementary annex. She also highlighted that partnership recognition is part of the Social Democrats’ policy platform. “We agreed that the bill would be tabled in the Seimas,” she said. “This is a programmatic position of the Social Democrats, and we expect partners to discuss it.”
The move follows the Justice Ministry’s decision not to initiate partnership legislation. In November, Human Rights Committee Chair Laurynas Šedvydis, alongside Social Democrat MPs and some liberal and conservative lawmakers, registered amendments to legalise gender-neutral partnerships via the Civil Code. The proposal would establish a registered partnership framework, governing both legal and moral obligations between partners.
Under the draft, partnerships could be formed by adults unrelated by blood, not already married, and bound by a monogamy requirement—mirroring marital rules. The Constitutional Court ruled in April that Lithuania’s failure to legalise same-sex partnerships violates the constitution, striking down Civil Code provisions restricting partnerships to opposite-sex couples. While the code acknowledges cohabitation without marriage, a standalone partnership law—required for over two decades—remains absent, a gap the court deemed “intolerable and discriminatory.”