Poland’s government will bypass its constitution by using gender-neutral terms to register EU same-sex marriage, sparking political and religious backlash.
Newsroom (21/01/2026 Gaudium Press) The Polish government has announced plans to circumvent constitutional constraints by introducing gender-neutral terminology in official documents, enabling the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other European Union member states—a move that has ignited fierce debate over national sovereignty and EU legal authority.
The decision follows a landmark November ruling by the European Court of Justice that obligated Poland to formally register same-sex unions conducted abroad, despite domestic laws prohibiting such marriages. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s centre-left government revealed on January 16 that it would modify civil registry documents to comply with the verdict, opting for administrative changes rather than pursuing legislation that would face near-certain defeat.
The Catalyst Case
The ECJ ruling concluded a protracted legal battle involving two Polish men who legally married in Berlin in 2018. Upon returning to Poland, the couple encountered a bureaucratic wall when authorities refused to transcribe their German marriage certificate into the Polish civil registry. Polish law explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage recognition, creating an impasse between national legislation and EU freedom of movement principles.
The court’s decision did not mandate that Poland alter its family law or legalize same-sex marriage domestically. Instead, it required Polish authorities to acknowledge the legal validity of marriages performed in other EU member states where such unions are permitted, framing the issue as one of administrative recognition rather than legislative reform.
Administrative Workaround
Deputy Prime Minister and Digital Affairs Minister Krzysztof Gawkowski confirmed that the changes would proceed without parliamentary approval. The Ministry of Digital Affairs explained that current document templates employ the terms “woman” and “man,” rendering accurate registration of same-sex marriages technically impossible under existing formats.
“Today I signed the documents that start the process of changing the templates of civil status records, so that the state operates efficiently and equally towards all citizens,” Gawkowski stated. The modifications will replace gendered language with neutral alternatives: “woman” and “man” become “first spouse” and “second spouse,” while parental designations shift to formulations such as “father of the first spouse” and “mother of the second spouse.”
“The ECJ’s judgment is not a matter of ideology, it is a legal obligation that Poland must comply with,” Gawkowski emphasized, positioning the changes as administrative necessity rather than ideological advancement.
Reports indicate that the interior ministry, overseen by Marcin Kierwiński—a close ally of Tusk—initially favored a legislative approach. However, that path would likely trigger a presidential veto from President Karol Nawrocki, who has consistently opposed legal recognition of same-sex unions. The interior ministry must still authorize the administrative changes despite preferring statutory methods.
Constitutional Collision
Poland’s Constitution explicitly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, creating a legal framework that the government now seeks to navigate through procedural modification rather than constitutional amendment. The Polish Catholic Church, alongside right-wing parties including the Conservatives (PiS) and Confederation, has staunchly opposed any alterations to this constitutional provision.
Nawrocki has characterized proposals for same-sex union recognition as a “stalking horse for same-sex marriage,” viewing administrative accommodations as incremental steps toward broader redefinition of marriage itself. The president’s position reflects broader concerns among conservative constituencies that EU legal requirements threaten Poland’s ability to define its own family structures.
The Polish Right has condemned the ECJ verdict as an encroachment on member state sovereignty, particularly regarding family law—an area traditionally reserved for national jurisdiction. Critics argue that the ruling represents judicial overreach, with the ECJ effectively compelling Poland to recognize legal relationships that violate its constitutional order.
The ECJ maintains that its judgment does not require Poland to modify domestic family legislation. Rather, the court argues that EU free movement guarantees necessitate mutual recognition of legal statuses acquired in other member states. This distinction—between forcing legislative change and requiring administrative recognition—forms the technical basis for the ruling but has done little to mollify critics who view it as distinction without meaningful difference.
Constitutional Primacy Debate
Poland’s constitutional court has repeatedly ruled that when national constitutional provisions conflict with EU legislation, the Polish Constitution takes precedence. These rulings assert a hierarchy of legal authority that places domestic constitutional law above EU directives and court judgments.
Notably, Poland is not alone in asserting constitutional primacy. Germany’s constitutional court has similarly ruled in several cases that the German Constitution represents higher law than EU legislation, establishing that even founding EU members recognize limits to supranational legal authority when fundamental constitutional principles are at stake.
This parallel raises complex questions about the nature of EU legal integration and the boundaries of member state sovereignty. If constitutional courts in multiple countries assert primacy over EU law in certain domains, the principle of uniform EU legal application faces fundamental challenges.
The Polish government’s administrative strategy attempts to thread this legal needle—complying with the ECJ ruling while avoiding the constitutional confrontation that formal legislative change would provoke. Whether this approach satisfies the court’s requirements while respecting constitutional constraints remains uncertain, as does the question of whether opposition parties will mount legal challenges to the administrative changes themselves.
The controversy illustrates enduring tensions within the European Union between harmonization and national autonomy, particularly in areas touching on deeply held cultural and religious values. As Poland implements these document changes in the coming months, the case will likely serve as a precedent for how member states navigate similar conflicts between EU obligations and constitutional commitments.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from Brussels Signal
Related Images:
