News Top Stories

Pro-LGBT boycotters foil Romanian referendum on marriage

LGBT advocates demonstrate against a constitutional referendum in Bucharest, Romania, on Sept. 30, 2018. “Because the interests behind this referendum are other than the well-being of the Romanian society and families in their diversity, this campaign has brought forward the ugliest facets of Romanian politics and power-hungry churches," said Victor Ciobotariu, from Accept, a group advocating for LGBT rights in Romania. “The LGBT community became the scapegoat of this campaign that exacerbates collective fears instead of correctly informing the people about the referendum. Divide et impera.” RNS photo by Alexandra Radu

BUCHAREST, Romania (RNS) — Romanians were given the chance over the weekend to change the definition of marriage in the national constitution to read “union between a man and a woman” from the current language, which specifies only a “union between spouses.”

But with less than 21 percent of Romanians voting over the two days of the referendum, the initiative was rendered void, a victory for LGBT rights groups that had urged a boycott of the vote. A 30 percent turnout was needed to validate the referendum measure.

“The LGBT community in Romania boycotted this referendum because we believe human rights should not be the subject of a popular vote,” said Vlad Levente Viski from MozaiQ, a group advocating for LGBT rights in Romania. “Moreover, the boycott was a protest against the Church, against populist politicians, against the wave of hatred directed at us. We were confident Romanians would not be manipulated into validating with their vote this referendum.”

The change was proposed in 2016 by a conservative group called the Coalition for Family and quickly gained support from the Romanian Orthodox Church. The coalition had gathered 3 million signatures on its petition, far more than the required amount to qualify for the ballot.

Human rights and LGBT groups in Romania claimed the definition of family in the measure would increase discrimination  toward not only  same-sex couples but also single parents or children raised by other relatives.

In response, the Coalition for Family took on a campaign focusing on the preservation of the “traditional family” and against LGBT.

Romanian civil law clearly states marriage is the union between “a man and a woman” and the referendum would not have impacted judicial rulings. Representatives of the Coalition for Family were nonetheless concerned. “Laws can be changed overnight without the agreement of the people,” said Pavel Chirila, founding member of the Coalition for Family.

Voters head toward a polling station at a middle school in Bucharest, Romania, on Oct. 7, 2018. Romania is one of the last countries in the EU that does not recognize any form of civil union between same-sex persons. RNS photo by Alexandra Radu

“The people want the notion of marriage between a man and a woman clearly defined in the constitution and nowhere else, because this has been coherent with the moral values of our religion for the last 2,000 years.”

Neither the urging of the Romanian church nor government maneuvering in favor of the referendum — the voting was originally scheduled to last only one day, with a minimum participation rate of 50 percent, before the ruling Social Democrats changed the rules — was enough to overcome the opposition.

About the author

Alexandra Radu

118 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • What Christ teaches they have done to themselves:

    And he cried out in a mighty voice: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a lair of demons. She is a haunt for every unclean spirit, a hideout for every unclean bird, and a hold for every detestable beast. 3All the nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her immorality. The kings of the earth were immoral with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown wealthy through the extravagance of her luxury.” Revelation 18:2

    For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste. Isaiah 60:12
    English Standard Version

    
Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things .Philippians 3;19
    New International Version

  • In other news today, the world is down to 12 years to the tipping point of global warming. Are we ready to meet Jesus?

  • Glad to hear this went down so far. Inside legally-recognized commitment is where LGBT people ought to be, same as everyone else.

  • Evangelicals in America invested heavily in the referendum and came away empty. The Evangelical dream of a worldwide round up and mass extermination of gay people still remains far away. When you can’t even get very conservative Romania to go along, it might be time to reevaluate your goal. What little success American Evangelicals have had on their goal has been in authoritarian and corrupt nations like Russia.

  • Bob, your source showed that of 18,279,011 voters, only 3,857,308 or 21.1% participated. Of those who participated, 3,531,732 voted yes, 249,212 voted no and 76,111 votes were invalid. In other words, 91.55% voted yes, 6.46% voted no and 1.97% votes were invalid. Guessing about how many people would have voted yes or no if more had voted is mere speculation.

  • Perhaps the folks who turned out and voted in favor of the referendum was everyone in Romania who supported it. No one knows. To say otherwise is a guess on evidence nonexistent.

  • “Guessing about how many people would have voted yes or no if more had voted is mere speculation.”

    Exactly.

  • The quote from Rev is an angel speaking. In fact, the Latter-day Saints believe that it is the Angel Moroni, bringing the Book of Mormon to their church!

  • Already past the tipping point. As per usual, I will put my money on geoengineering and science to pull us out of the current predicament before I will put a mustard seed worth of it in a magic carpenter, thanks.

  • If your God is as effective at killing all the good people so his grovelling, cowardly followers can inherit the world as he is of protecting the necks of those same followers from ISIS machetes we have little to worry about lol

  • What I wrote was that if sufficient voters to make 30% had voted, and ALL of them had voted “nu”, the vote would have been 64+% “da”.

  • What I wrote was that if sufficient voters to make 30% had voted, and
    ALL of them had voted “nu”, the vote would have been 70% “da”.

    18,279,011 total registered voters.

    5,483,703 = 30% of the registered voters.

    3,531,732 = number of votes for the referendum

    Assuming 1,951,971 additional votes, all opposed, to make the 30%, 5,483,703, the result is 64.4% in favor of the referendum.

  • Quote from the article: Romanian civil law clearly states marriage is the union between “a man and a woman” and the referendum would not have impacted judicial rulings. Representatives of the Coalition for Family were nonetheless concerned. “Laws can be changed overnight without the agreement of the people,” said Pavel Chirila, founding member of the Coalition for Family. “The people want the notion of marriage between a man and a woman clearly defined in the constitution and nowhere else, because this has been coherent with the moral values of our religion for the last 2,000 years.”

    Well, evidently the people do not want what he thinks they want. I find it ironic that the person who wants this change is concerned that “laws can be changed overnight without the agreement of the people” and then thinks a 30% turnout on the vote represents “the agreement of the people.” And “the ruling Social Democrats” could not even get this passed after changing the rules from a 50% vote to a 30% vote and extending the vote from one day to 2 days when it became apparent that they would not reach the 30% minimum.

    This is a democracy????? Or, maybe, it is a theocratic democracy. Is that an oxymoron?

  • This Law is immutable, which means God will allow the earth to burn up if mankind stays on the course they are on. The LGBT and God are in a battle that will destroy the earth. This battle is called Armageddon and the LGBT is no longer on the right course. If they stay the course, everyone will pay the price.

    The earth is a constitutional republic and God’s Law is the Constitution. Everyone has read the Book; the time of reasonable debate has passed. What is written can not be changed and the LGBT knows this all too well. They have decided that we all will die, rather than accept the Truth.

    Personally, I say live and let live; but now the LGBT says everything will be their way or the highway, and God is saying the only road is his highway.

    Life on earth is now in the LGBT’s hands and the rest of us get to see just what kind of people these LGBT are.

    Don’t vote on gay marriage; vote to save the earth.

  • Do you really mean to say that you don’t want jesus to return and prove he is your lord and master?

    Ofcourse you do.

  • What it really shows is that 79% of the voters in romania just didn’t give a small goddam about the issue, instead seeing it for what it was…

    And attempt by their increasingly corrupt and authoritarian government to distract them with an issue that really has nothing to do with them, while cementing its relationship with an equally authoritarian and corrupt Romanian orthodoX church, as Putin has done In Russia,

  • I just love this. Just a few short weeks ago, the anti-gay bigots who infest these pages like maga’ts were salivating at the prospect of yet another “simple“ attack on the rights of gay people and our participation in society. They were positively dripping at the prospect. Brian Brownshirt and known adulteress, fornicator, and non-renderer-unto-Caesar Kim Davis were in Romania, getting their pictures taken with orthodox priests, grifting their grift, indulging their megalomania about being god’s BFFF’s and representatives on earth, persuading Romanians that this was not really about hate but about god, not about hate but about the “true” nature of marriage, something four times married and three times divorced, fornicating, adulterous Davis knows so very much about.

    It should have succeeded easily, but it failed. miserably. Is Brian Brownshirt crying in the gallery, or is he off to his next grift? I wish I could post that photo of him. Whine Bri Bri. Whine. Or just go off to your next grift.

    Priests all over the country well telling their parishioners that it was their Christian duty to attack their neighbors. Apparently, the ortho priests don’t have quite the moral or spiritual authority they thought they had. Or perhaps like everywhere else, as the closet fades in effectiveness as a method of social control of gay people, the Romanians knew gay people and knew that this whole save marriage crap was just that—crap. Or perhaps the Romanian people remember the ortho cooperation with Ceausescu. Or perhaps god doesn’t really care about the issue at all, having failed to get 79% of the eligible voters out to vote. Maybe the Romanians that voted Yawohl! were all of the christofascists in Romania. My apologies: I really should not say something like christofascists. It’s not flattering, is it? That is tantamount to calling gay people gay Goliath, child molesters, threats to marriage, and diseased pariahs.

    Maybe all of those prayers to “get the gays” had exactly the opposite effect, or as is far more likely, no effect at all. Maybe gawdamighty is not as incensed about gay people being treated decently as his most fervent admirers are. Maybe there is just no money, power, and dominion in it for god.

  • Bob is never wrong. He is not wrong about this,because he is never wrong, andis absolutely certain that the majority of Christians are just like he is, because bob is never wrong.

    Time to bring up naked leapfrog, right bob?

  • 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
    Galatians 1:8

  • Yeah, Bob. But there were not 70% of voters who cared enough or agreed with the referendum. More, one tactic used by those who did not want this referendum to pass was to encourage people not to vote at all. Very interesting way to defeat it, but obviously effective. It may be that voters who did not agree with the referendum used that method to defeat it. According to one source, the number who voted was only 3,731,704 people, out of a registered voter population of 18,278,496 – that is 20.4%. One way to interpret the vote is to assume that only 20.4% actually care. Romanian law requires at least 30% of registered voters actually vote.

    Another rule regarding voting on constitutional amendments is that at least 25% of eligible voters approve of the amendment. While 94.6% of those who voted approved of the amendment, only 19.3% of all eligible voters approved it. So it is also possible to say that only 19.3% of voters actually approve the amendment.

    I rather like Romania’s way of assuring a referendum on a constitution amendment requires at least 30% of voters actually express an opinion and that at least 25% of all voters actually approve an amendment. I would rather they had not lowered the minimum percent of voters from the original 50% to 30%. It is important that people actually vote so that the government is informed of the will of the people.

    One thing that may have been a negative in voter turnout was dilly-dallying around by the Romanian government on when the vote would actually be held. The date of the vote kept being moved from May, then June, then “late September or early October” of 2018. It wasn’t until 11 Sept that the Romanian Senate actually approved the date for the vote to occur. That approval prompted a number of organizations to file a challenge to any vote on the issue (international orgs). Romania’s court didn’t decide to allow the referendum until 17 September 2018, which was about 3 weeks before actual voting occurred. Busy people may have just stopped trying to figure out when the vote would be and ceased paying attention. It certainly helped the side that tried to persuade people not to vote at all.

  • Vote to protect the human dignity of all of God’s human creation and all of the Earth to which our existence depends. God did not make a mistake in making life in all its variety, including human life. “What! did the hand, then, of the Potter shake?”

    We do need to pay heed to the ruin we are making of the world God gave us. But caring for all life includes caring for the life of gay, straight humans and of bees, whales, and trees.

  • Something must be really bothering you, to write a mile-long complaint on such a simple news item so far away. Your side even WON the battle, and yet you’re still all angry just the same.

    Me, I agree with those who agree with God and God’s Word. As such, I just say, “Just Say No To Gay Marriage, Regardless of Votes Or Courts. Be Kind but Fight Back Already.”

  • Something must really be bothering you to write such a short complaint on such a simple response to a news item THAT YOU FAILED MISERABLY ON. Like that one more time, your god and your bigotry failed to deliver on a promise that you made in his name.

    Damned right I am angry— That one more time, under the cover of “sincere religious belief”, The Religion of LOVELOVELOVE has enough time, energy, and money to attack gay people, but never enough time! Energy, or money to address real problems, of which romania has plenty.

    You lost! you lost! you lost! And you know what it proves? Just what I said. Your God obviously does not care about the issue of gay people as much as you do, and that your kind of hate, that hide so well behind “your religious belief“, is a sham.

  • But they didn’t vote, Bob. And while a majority of those voting did support the referendum, a much larger majority of voters either didn’t see this as important or deliberately didn’t vote to assure the defeat. The opposition to the referendum used the tactic of encouraging people not to vote at all. Maybe that is what worked. Maybe the majority didn’t want the referendum to pass.

    Romanian law requires that at least 25% of all voters approve a referendum and that at least 30% of all voters actually cast a vote. Given the low turnout, even with a majority of those voting approval, they didn’t meet a requirement that at least 25% of all eligible voters approve a referendum.

    What you are trying to “prove” is a nice try but doesn’t really mean anything given the tactics used.

  • You are slipping. Be sure to add the momo’s aren’t Christians and are a cult. And then say the same thing about Catholics, as you have done before.

  • Good for these activists. It is clear – one side, the conservative religious folks, adopts a philosophy and plan of action that seeks to harm people simply because they are different. The other side, LGBT activists, espouse a philosophy and plan of action that opens the doors for LGBT people and has not one iota of negative impact on straight people, including the religious right folks. It is amazing how easy the choice is on who to support (if one wants to remain a good human being, which of course is not a universal goal these days).

  • Which God are you talking about? There are many. And why is this God so interested in such a minor portion of the population? You make it sound like the “LGBT” are a mighty and unstoppable army. One would think an almighty, omnipotent God would have more sway in dealing with 5-10% of the population who just want the opportunity to marry the person they love?

  • You also know that the LDS don’t believe that they are teaching “another” Gospel. They believe that they are teaching the same Gospel as the primitive church, so they don’t view Paul’s personal admonition to the churches scattered about Galatia to be speaking of their circumstance.

    What Ben said.

  • “da” I haven’t been disrespectful of you. You tend to stoop to name calling or insults when you are out of explanations.

    Sorry, no one appears to have gotten your interpretation of what you said. There is no “if all of them had voted no” in the sentence, nor an inference to that. You should still have time, go edit the sentence so we understand what you say that you meant.

  • I don’t really care what they think – God’s word is more important, and they’ll learn that.

  • I don’t believe I have said that about the RCC – maybe, but I doubt it. As far as the Mormon, you’ve already said it and it doesn’t bear repeating

  • I’am talking about the One that created evrything, the One that is the written Word, the One you keep on belttling. There is no other god except the ones that are no gods. You know, the ones you make up. In fact, the LGBT is playing the role of a god that is no god.

    In the beginning was the Word. It does not say: in the beginning was the lgbt. The lgbt is chaos. The Hevan and the Earth is order, but then again, we both know this. If the lgbt can fix global warming, they should get to work on it.

    They are a mighty army and will be for the time God has allowed them to be, but of course you know the ending already. The only thing we can change, is time. The lgbt chose the time, maybe they can change the time. This why I’am giving you, the time.

  • He cares about homosexuals enough to warn them consistently, that if they continue in their sin, they will not enter the kingdom of Heaven, and promises to cleanse them of their sin so they can spend eternity with Him – even you Ben.

  • Isn’t it sad that so few people care about homosexuals not spending eternity with Christ?
    Sad really.

  • You’re incapable o giving me anything. I don’t need anything from you. You can’t even spell, so why should anyone take your word on this subject? Besides that, you’re an ignorant bigot. And a particularly stupid one. Most of my LGBT friends are churchgoers. Many LGBT people are fervent believers. They are members of congregations who support them. You don’t speak for all Christians, or Jews, and you sure as hell don’t speak for God. Take your smarmy, self-righteous, ridiculous sanctimony and SHOVE IT. You represent everything that is wrong with this world.

  • If you understood why you consider all of the gods of men to be imaginary you would understand why the rest of humanity thinks yoyr god is too.

  • To be truthful Ben, I have never seen Sandi or Floyd being disrespectful to you. On the other hand, I’am a renegade and not as polished as those two.

    I have a different message than those two, but I’am not mean about it. We have to face the facts that God does exist and the scripture cannot be broken, so according to scripture we can all get along, but there are limits we all must adhere to. Sounds reasonable to me.

    Adhereing to the Law is something you and the lgbt have a problem with, and no matter how much it stinks, we all have our limits, and we all exceed them sometimes, but we don’t do away with the Law and the one you want to change is immutable.

    Here is the big difference between me and Floyd and Sandi: they are here trying to save you, I’am here trying to save my hide. I really don’t care what happens to you and your ilke. Have fun, have a ball, do as you wish with exception of bringing God’s wrath on the world. Obey the Law by not changing the Law, and we will all be fine. You don’t have to be godly, you just can’t make everyone else the same as you, or believe the same. It is not your law to change, or mine. Simple, is it not.

  • If you have never seen them be disrespectful, it’s because you either don’t want to see it, or you agree with them. In any case, being polite isn’t remotely the same as being respectful.

    You believe what you believe. It’s not a fact. 2/3 of the world disagrees, as do half of Christians everywhere

    I have no problem adhering to the law— civil law. Or, for that matter, the golden rule. Your religion is no more my “law” than is Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion. You are entitled to believe otherwise. You are not entitled to insist that I believe what you believe. Nor are you entitled to hurt me if I don’t. If that’s your agenda, expect a fight.

    You’re last paragraph is key. The wrath of god is something you should be looking forward to, since it will bring your silly idea of god’s wrath, the return of Jesus, the final judgment, and the sheep and the goats to fruition. And since you are such a goddam good Christian, you’ll be one of the sheep, right? (You are, but that’s another issue). All that your last paragraph tells me is that you don’t really believe the religious stuff you claim to believe.

    Not by a long shot.

  • It makes complete sense currently.

    I also corrected a math error based on using preliminary numbers.

    No name calling or insults were involved.

  • Slovenia, Slovakia, and Romania among other eastern European countries have experienced low turnout on referenda.

    So, encouraging people not to vote and then taking credit for the low turnout is a bridge too far.

    The bogey for this referendum was a 30% turnout and a simple majority in favor.

    I simply pointed out that (a) the low turnout could not be directly attributed to a boycott and (b) had the requisite 30% voted, and each and every of the 1,951,971 additional votes additional votes to reach the 5,483,703 needed been negative, the referendum would still have passed with 64.4% in favor.

  • I just love this.

    Just a few short weeks ago, the anti-religion bigots were yelling about “christofascists in Romania”, and nothing came of it.

    But now the main one is back yapping it up about “get the gays” and “gawdamighty”.

  • He has been rather over-the-top recently.

    My impression is that he has intuited that Obergefell v Hodges was the peak, and it’s all downhill from there.

  • “What it really shows is that 79% of the voters in romania just didn’t give a small goddam about the issue, instead seeing it for what it was…”

    No, it does not.

    But your post shows the sort of wishful (and hateful) thinking you engage in.

  • Ben is pretty old and he has been under a lot of stress today, I think we should let him rest.

  • As there was a campaign to boycott the referendum we can’t be certain that people who didn’t vote couldn’t care less.

  • Would people telling you not to vote be sufficient to convince you not to vote on an issue which was important to You?

  • Great news today— about 90% great.

    The government of Romania has decided to introduce civil unions legislation.

    Not marriage, but marriage lite. Almost as good.

    Chew on that, my dear, dear, Dear bigots.

  • You can hope, but again, you’d be mistaken. If God is calling someone, nothing, except their own pride will stop them. We just direct the way. Wrong again, Ben.

  • As I understand it, the law requires that both at least 30% vote and that 25% of all voters approve the measure. Not sure, but here are what those numbers look like in a voting population of 18,278,496. To reach the 30% threshold, 5,483,549 people needed to vote. To reach the 25% threshold, 4,569,624 needed to approve the amendment. So if only the 30% limit is reached, 83.33% of those voting would need to approve the amendment. That was obviously exceeded among those who actually voted. Looks like turnout was a huge factor.

    According to Wiki: “Previous referendums in Romania failed due to a requirement for a 50% turnout in order for the results to be valid.[20][21] This rule was changed in 2014 and the turnout threshold was lowered, to require only 30% of registered voters to participate in the referendum and 25% of voters to cast a valid (yes/no) vote for the result to be validated.” Source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_constitutional_referendum,_2018

    The reference you provided does not include mention of either the 30% minimum who must vote or the 25% who must approve. However, I do note that some sources say the amendment would have passed if a simply majority of those voting had approved – for example, the Washington Post.

    Regardless of this confusion on the rules, the constitutional amendment did not pass. And, since you seem to follow what I comment about, you will know that I think the result is the right result for democracy and human rights.

  • Yes, low turnout has been a problem. That is why the Romanian law was changed from requiring a 50% turnout to only requiring a 30% turnout. But see my other comment re a minimum number of all voters who must approve. Don’t know if this is right – but doesn’t really matter since it didn’t pass anyway.

  • See this again:

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/pro_lgbt_boycotters_foil_romanian_referendum_on_same_sex_marriage/#comment-4137519775

    correcting your misimpression that “at least 25% of all voters actually approve an amendment””.

    The Romanian Constitution itself says the amendment would have passed if a simply majority of those voting had approved.

    Your opinion that ” the result is the right result for democracy and human rights” is consistent with your gloss on most items, but it is irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

  • Ben, the answer to your question is YES.

    Here is why. To win that referendum, each contender would need to fulfil two requirements:

    1 Win a majority of the votes cast.
    2 Persuade more than 30% of the electorate to cast a ballot.

    The LGBT lobby had two choices: to try to win the popular vote, or to persuade people to boycott the poll. They chose the second option, and it’s easy to see why.

    If more than 30% of the people had voted, the result would have been valid. This means that if just over 30% had voted, a valid result could have been achieved by a little over 15% of the electorate if they outvoted a slightly smaller number of people who voted the other way.

    The conservative forces could be pretty sure that they would get at least 15% of the voters, while those who supported same sex marriage could not be sure that they could outvote them. Therefore they campaigned for a voter boycott.

    The alternative, of trying to win the referendum, would have required a NO vote of more than 3,531, 732 to outpoll the conservatives. To win by ONE vote this would mean that at least 7,063,465, or close to 39% of the electorate would have to cast a valid vote and a majority of them would have had to vote NO.

    The forces for same sex marriage therefore went for a boycott. This proved successful for them. Only 21.1% voted and only 19.32% voted yes. Therefore the vote was invalid, because fewer than 30% of the voters cast a ballot.

    To overcome the boycott, the YES campaign would have had to persuade 30% of the electorate to vote either YES OR NO and to get a majority of those votes. This they failed to do.

    If the people who wanted to vote NO were persuaded to vote, but their number had fallen short of the YES vote, all they would have achieved would be to validate the votes of the YES voters. obviously, the NO campaign was not prepared to take that risk.

    As it turned out, the boycott campaign was successful and the result was invalid. In retrospect we will never know if the NO vote had the numbers to outvote the YES vote. However, we do know that the total vote fell far short of the 30% required to defeat the boycott.

  • We’ll never know, but I’m not so sure about this. When Congress was debating getting rid of don’t ask don’t tell for the military, one of the many dodges they exercised was to do a survey of the eintire armed services. It dutifully went out to everybody in the military. They expected that the people in the military would overwhelmingly vote no against gay people serving openly.

    They got something like a 30% response, if I recall. And of that response, the majority said it was no problem. Something like 70% either said yes to open service, or simply didn’t think the issue was worth bothering with.

  • Bob, where does it say a constitutional amendment would pass if a “simply majority of those voting had approved?”

    The link you provide takes one to a page designated as a website of the “Chamber of Deputies” and “Constitution of Romania” and specifically “Title VII: Revision of the Constitution”. There are three sections to title VII:
    *Article 150 outlines a procedure for how a constitutional revision may be initiated. (how many citizens must petition, voting on it by Deputies and Senators)
    *Article 151 Procedure of Revision has to do with approval of the wording by the Chamber of Deputies and Senators (how many have to approve) and also provides that “The revision shall be final after the approval by a referendum held within 30 days of the date of passing the draft or proposal of revision.”
    *Article 152 limits what can be changed in the Constitution and limits making changes during a “state of seige” or during war, etc.

    No where in the reference you provided does it mention a minimum number/percent of citizen/eligible voters who must vote or a minimum number/percent of those who must approve. Nowhere in that section does it say a Constitutional Amendment would pass “if a simply majority of those voting had approved.” It doesn’t even include language regarding the 30% minimum.

    Is there another reference here that I am missing?

  • As indicated in another response I gave to you on this subject, that reference you provide does not include language regarding the minimum number of must approve. It does not say anything about a minimum number who must vote or a minimum number who must approve. Do you have a reference that actually says a Constitutional Amendment could pass if a simply majority approve????????

  • Of course, one difference between the survey of the US military and the Romanian referendum was the provision of voiding the vote in Romania if the number of votes was below 30%. This could partly explain the tactics of those pushing for a NO vote to go for a boycott rather than fighting to win the referendum.

    In the case of the survey of the US Military, my guess would be that only those interested in the question would bother to respond, whether positively or negatively. So it was quite a different situation than that in Romania.

  • No, it is assumed a simple majority is sufficient to pass a referendum, and the Romanian sources all indicate that.

    The 30% is not a constitutional requirement. The language in the referendum approved by the Chamber of Deputies and Senators is the number, which on this was 30%.

  • “It is assumed…” You don’t really know, do you? I get it that many news sources have focused on the failure of the referendum due to the low voter turnout. But I do still wonder if a a simple majority is all that is needed to pass. That means that a constitutional amendment could occur if 15.0001% approve it. Scary thought.

  • Where I come from unless otherwise specified a majority wins, be it an election, a referendum, or other contest.

    In reading the Romanian Constitution I find nothing requiring a supermajority of any kind in any contested matter, but if you do find an actual reference, please do pass it on.

  • In reading the Romanian Constitution, you will also find nothing referencing a requirement that a minimum of 30% of qualified voters actually vote. You keep talking about and referencing the Romanian Constitution when it is not the source of the answer.

    I don’t know the definitive source – but my point is neither do you. Stop acting as if you knew. You don’t. I have one source – Wikipedia – for what I wrote on both the 30% minimum who must vote and the 25% who must approve. Many newspaper sources cite the 30% minimum.

    But you do not have a definitive source; it is not in the document you repeatedly reference. If you find a real source for what you claim, please pass it on.

  • The Romanian Constitution, like the American Constitution, is the ONLY source of an answer to the question of how to amend itself.

    You just happen not to like the answer.

  • You don’t have an answer to the issue of the 30% minimum voting or if there is also a rule that 25% of the electorate must approve a constitutional amendment. You don’t have a source that specifies either one of those or that specifies that a simple majority of the 30% is needed. For all you know, Bob, wherever the 30% minimum law may be found it may also be found that there is some other rule.

    You may be right, Bob. But you do not have a source that tells you that. You have a guess, a surmise. Stop pretending that you have found “the answer” because you absolutely have not.

  • I provided the answer to the issue of the 30% minimum voting and the question as to whether there is also a rule that 25% of the electorate must approve a constitutional amendment.

    You just happen not to like it.

    In addition you’d have to wade your way through all the sections dealing with amendments, and research is clearly not your forté.

    The Constitution of the United States does not specifically state that a majority of electoral votes wins in the Electoral College. It is the assumption unless something else is specified, as for example in Article V dealing with amending the Constitution.

  • We are already past the tipping points and out of options. The most recent reports of the climate change to the UN has been dire. If we go green tomorrow we are still seeing major coastal countries underwater in a hundred years and heat waves that kill millions every year. The worst case scenario involves feedback loops and 80% extinction rates on land, including ours, and 99% in the ocean once the PH rates decrease due to a repeat of the Permian Extinction event.

    I don’t like geoengineering but the alternative is extinction.

  • https://i.gyazo.com/0c8135cf923d54b4746595f3a2f245ad.png

    https://i.gyazo.com/c94c42e9c67fef46f6b0681a49c70986.png

    A couple of milder pics from my personal collection. The 21 men in the latter get their heads hacked off by the men standing behind them. Have you ever seen someone get their head cut off on Live Leak? There are plenty of good ISIS videos on there. It isn’t like the movies. It isn’t clean. It takes several whacks and the victims are alive through most of it. I have seen a few videos. The Coptic idiots cry to God and praying aloud, often until the blades bite into their esophagus/windpipe and put an end to their ignorant, worthless lives forever.

    I never see a miracle save them, though. In much the same way your God never takes action against me or my LGBT brethren, despite the laughable promises of his followers. Indeed, the richest and most comfortable nations to live in are the best for the LGBT while it is the religious nations that suffer. Kind of amusing, right? I don’t like ISIS, mind you. To me it is just two sets of vermin, ridding the world of each other so us humans can live better lives.

  • No…………………..not ‘geoengineering’ to FIX the problem. The problem IS “GEOENGINEERING”.

    Just listen to the latest audio broadcast by Dane Wiggington. If we want to blame someone……………..we should figure out WHO is behind “Geoengineering”.

  • God doesn’t take action against you because He is giving you every minute to repent before you die, Proud. The choice that you have made requires God to protect you – as with any sinner.

  • Then he is a fool. I will live every moment he supposedly gives to spite him and his nasty followers, till the very final second of my life. I will never repent. Even if he wanted to “save” me I would never allow him to because I hate him and his followers. But I doubt you are right. Look at the most secular countries and compare the standard of life in them to the most religious. It is really no contest. You and your Muslim brothers follow a failed God and the sooner it is struck from human memory along with your kind, the better off the world will be.

    Your threats don’t work on me. Your God has no power to change me. Even if you are right, I won’t go to the darkness alone – I will be leading many there behind me, in defiance of your evil god.

ADVERTISEMENTs