Lithuania’s Constitutional Court has ruled the country’s “gay propaganda” law as unconstitutional

Lithuania’s Constitutional Court has found that the country's 2009 “gay propaganda” law contradicts its constitutional principles protecting families, children, and guaranteed respect for human rights, dignity, equality, pluralism, and tolerance.

This ruling partially concerns the censorship of a fairy tale book featuring same-sex romantic stories. It follows a European Court decision in January 2023 against the law. According to ‘LGBTQ Nation’, legal experts have hailed the Lithuanian court’s decision as progressive and anticipate it will boost future court victories for LGBTQ+ rights.

The Lithuanian court issued its ruling on December 18, nullifying a 2009 anti-LGBTQ+ provision added to the 2002 Law on the Protection of Minors Against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information. This provision banned publishing child-oriented materials that supposedly promote contempt for family values and concepts of marriage and family formation different from those established in the Constitution and Civil Code.

The Lithuanian Constitution specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the 2009 law argued that contradicting information harms children.

In December 2012, author Neringa Dangvydė Macatė published ‘Amber Heart’ (Gintarinė širdis), a fairy tale collection with a story about a prince marrying a dark-skinned male tailor and a princess marrying her childhood friend, a shoemaker’s daughter. After a complaint to the government accused the book of encouraging perversions, the Ministry of Culture labeled the book harmful to minors under the law and prohibited its public sale.

In October 2014, Macatė filed a civil lawsuit against the government's actions. The European Court of Human Rights later ruled the law violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by infringing on free expression and the dissemination of culturally valuable information to children.

Following this, the Lithuanian Ministry of Justice requested a legality ruling from the Lithuanian Constitutional Court.

The Lithuanian Court determined that although the Constitution defines marriage strictly as between a man and a woman, the family concept is “gender neutral” and includes various family models. Therefore, stories of same-sex pairs in families do not violate legal standards in Lithuanian law, as per the court.

Moreover, the court indicated that childhood, as defined by the Constitution, is a “particularly protected” “special period” for psychological and cultural development. It rejected the view that protecting childhood equates to hiding children from information about diverse family models. The ruling stated limiting information about “real social relations” would impede minors' growth into well-rounded individuals and oppose the constitutional duty to support the child’s “harmonious and comprehensive development,” as reported in the European Journal of International Law (EJIL).

The EJIL highlighted the court’s ruling as a “progressive evolution” marking a vital move away from conventional, heteronormative family ideas, acknowledging family bonds beyond gender frameworks.

The EJIL also remarked that the ruling “establishes a broader, more inclusive framework for family protection” that acts independently of marital status, focusing on “mutual responsibility, understanding, emotional attachment, and assistance—rather than formal status.”

In doing so, the court developed “a more inclusive framework for family recognition" that promotes constitutional “values of pluralism, equality, and human dignity,” the publication noted.

Though the EJIL observed that the ruling does not directly tackle the law’s inherent bias against LGBTQ+ individuals—choosing instead a “cautious” approach by addressing LGBTQ+ rights within broader constitutional contexts—the Lithuanian Gay League acknowledged the ruling, noting the law’s oppressive impact on the country’s LGBTQ+ community.

“The provision’s existence created a significant chilling effect, leading to self-censorship among LGBTIQ+ individuals, organizations, and media outlets,” the group's statement mentioned. “This contributed to increased minority stress within the community, as individuals and organizations had to constantly evaluate whether their expression, events, or publications might fall foul of the law.”

“The decision upholds the constitutional understanding that family, as a protected institution, can be formed on bases other than marriage, and emphasizes the importance of providing youth with information that reflects real social relationships and promotes respect for human rights and dignity,” the statement concluded.