Joanna Ćwiek-Świdecka: You can't turn back the Vistula River with a stick. The president's veto ignored social changes

Joanna Ćwiek-Świdecka critically assesses Polish President Andrzej Duda's veto of the "next of kin" law, arguing that the decision failed to acknowledge evolving societal norms. The law, intended to provide legal status for individuals in close personal relationships outside of formal marriage, was rejected by the president on grounds that it resembled a "quasi-marriage."

“

You can't turn back the Vistula River with a stick.

Ćwiek-Świdecka contends that the president's framing of the law as a threat to the traditional institution of marriage is misplaced. She asserts that the legislation's primary purpose was not to establish an alternative to marriage but to offer practical solutions for people living in committed, non-marital partnerships. The law sought to address concrete issues faced by these individuals, issues that were left unresolved by the veto.

The author points out that President Duda's justification for the veto, rooted in a traditional understanding of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, overlooks the law's actual function. She argues that personal or traditional views of the head of state should not supersede a comprehensive social and legal analysis when deciding on legislation.

“

The presidential veto was supposed to be a defense of marriage. The problem is that the law on the status of the next of kin did not create competition for it, but tried to solve specific problems of people living outside this institution.

This perspective suggests a disconnect between the legal framework and the lived realities of a segment of Polish society. The veto, from this viewpoint, represents a missed opportunity to adapt legal structures to contemporary social dynamics, prioritizing a rigid interpretation of constitutional principles over the practical needs of citizens. The commentary implies that societal changes necessitate legal evolution, a process the president's action has hindered.

“

Of course, the president can have a traditional approach to relationships, he can literally adhere to the constitutional rule that 'marriage is a union of a woman and a man', but it is difficult to see an institution similar to marriage in the vetoed law.