Slovenia Bucks the PC Trend

Slovenia voted today in a referendum on homosexual marriage and related issues. The vote was held to decide whether or not to overturn a law passed by parliament to help Slovenia come into alignment with other more progressive member states of the European Union. The referendum was not expected to pass, due to the stringent conditions imposed upon it.

However, against all the odds, Slovenians turned out in force and voted down the law in numbers sufficient to meet the conditions. Our Slovenian correspondent Andrej Turjaški sends this brief report:

I would like to let you know that God has just granted us a miracle. At today’s referendum (20 Dec 2015) the Slovenian people rejected the law that was proposed by the Parliament majority that would grant marriage equality to homosexuals and allow them to adopt children, teach gender theory at school, etc.

Turnout at the polling stations was just over 36% and 63% of people voted against the proposed law.

We therefore reached and surpassed the number of votes that was needed for the law to be rejected (20% of all registered voters). This was a very harsh limit to reach since the usual turnout for referendums is about 10 %.

Slovenian-language reports:

52 thoughts on “Slovenia Bucks the PC Trend

  1. Well done, Slovenia. People DO care about the PC attacks of traditional morality and culture.

  2. For the record, this reader doesn’t have a problem with gay marriage itself, though if I were running things, I’d remove the state from regulating the marriage business altogether, at most registering “partnerships”.

    I MOST CERTAINLY DO have a problem with the PC crowd that usually supports it, those that make it a political issue, and those that want to shove their “lifestyle” down others’ throats. For that matter, I’m not particularily fond of heteros who want to shove *their* lifestyle down my throat, either.

    The way I look at it is, [enjoy carnal knowledge of] whomever you like, don’t insist that I support it, and I’m not going to bother you about it.

    • The problem is, with the extensive government penetration of our lives, there are always unintended consequences.

      For instance, people depend on social security, particularly at retirement age. Imagine a homosexual, stable couple who lived together for years. Imagining one dying, the state either will or will not grant his partner survivor rights. This is a federal decision, and has nothing to do with the ability to adopt children. It also goes beyond the scope of a private contract between partners, in which they resolve the question of community property, medical power of attorney, right to medical records and so forth.

  3. And this is good news? There is a direct continuim from the Jihadists throwing gays off buildings to their death, and denying equal rights to gays. Congrats GofV for aligning yourselves with the enemies of freedom and equality.

    • Let’s see if I have the calculus right…

      A decision by the government not to give official recognition to marriages of people of the same sex = Murdering homosexuals by throwing them off buildings

      How do you figure that?

    • This is (a) good news for those Slovenians who voted against the law, and (b) bad news for those who believe that all unions are to be considered equal.

      Once we move from the familiar terrain of traditional marriage into the new territory of “unions”, we may find ourselves stuck with situations that become opportunities for much pain and suffering. Traditional marriages are still the norm; the gay lobby is immensely aggressive: it was their pushing of Obama that changed the climate about same sex unions into some kind of permission to bully those who don’t agree and would rather be left out of the equation.

      The long-term consequences of making same sex unions legal, of putting them on a par with traditional heterosexual marriage is uncharted territory. No culture has done that before so we have no way to gauge the ripple effect of changing something so fundamental. The new laws haven’t been in effect long enough for us to know what will transpire now that we’ve put aside thousands of years of human tradition.

      So the rest of the West sails into uncharted territory while one small country refuses to follow us. They can serve as the control group. The fact that you equate two very different laws which have entirely different outcomes is troubling.

      Have we entirely lost the ability to discern differences?

      I suspect, though, that their refusal has much more to do with being bullied by the EU and this chance to say NO to the EU was too tempting to pass up.

      There is no continuum, direct or otherwise, which runs from (a)Jihadists throwing gays off buildings, and (b) a parliamentary law in favor of traditional marriage which does not permit same sex relationships an equal footing.

      Your claim ignores history, tradition and basic biology.

      • Gays and Lesbians have always existed…and they, like straight people, form partnerships. If the state is to grant rights to one class (straights), then in a sane and fair society, it will grant equal rights to all.

        Those celebrating this are on the same side of history as the jihadists murdering gays.

        To help you understand this, imagine if we were living in a time when women were denied the vote, which was universally the case in the west. If I were to compare that to the subjugation of women under Islam, surely you would claim I was overreaching.

        yet the impulse comes from the same barabric need to control others….and is an anathema to a truly free society that grants all equal rights.

        • A marriage up until recently was between a man and a woman, all over the world. Were all countries such a terrible place? Was the US circa 2000 a terrible place for gays, compared to the “Islamic State” now? That’s what you seem to be implying.

          • Factual correction: A marriage up until recently was *not* between a man and a woman, all over the world.

            –In Islamic countries under Sharia law, a man may marry as many as four wives. It is widely suspected that wealthy men in these countries have more than four wives. (This shortage of marriageable women for young men is a major driver of available young men for martyrdom.)

            –In several dozen societies, polyandry is practiced. However, this isn’t the “Wow, so many men!” party that one might envision. Usually a group of brothers will marry one woman, who then is responsible for taking care of all of them *alone*. She cooks, cleans, does laundry, bears children, etc., for this group of brothers so that their property will remain with their blood line. This kind of polyandry was originally thought to be restricted to peoples on the Tibetan Plateau, but an article in The Atlantic ( discusses at least 53 additional human societies in which polyandry is practiced.

            –Polygyny, not restricted to four wives, was practiced in the Old Testament. Anywhere from two to “over a thousand” women are reported in the OT as being attached to patriarchs and/or rulers of the Israelites. Jacob was married to Leah and Rachel; King Solomon had over 1,000 wives and concubines. This practice was re-established in the 19th century by Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, but renounced when Utah sought State rather than Territorial status. Brigham Young had 28 wives. The Fundamental LDS still practices polygyny, although the marriage of young girls *seems* to have diminished since Warren Jeffs was imprisoned.

            There must be other forms of marriage around that I haven’t included. “Polyamory” is *not* marriage; there is no country on earth that I’m aware of that recognizes this…ah…grouping as legitimate for tax or other purposes. (And the woman I sang with for 20 years and now see only once a year and who is “active” in polyamory–yuck–complains about this lack of legal acceptance Every. Single. Year.)

            Your rhetorical question about whether the US ca. 2000 was a “terrible place” for gays depends entirely on the state and family of origin for the homosexually oriented individual. Teenagers are still disowned by their families for telling their parents that they’re gay. Young men/woman are still attacked, sometimes killed, when found to be gay/lesbian. (More usually gay men, since other men are more likely to resort to violence, either with their hands or a weapon, than women are. The vast majority of women don’t have the physical strength to kill another woman with their bare hands, nor do many women carry weapons.) NOTE: These statements do not apply to trans-sexual people. I simply don’t know enough to discuss this Suddenly Very Visible departure from the norm.

            The answer to your question re. the US ca. 2000 depends entirely on chance, unfortunately.

          • Polyandry was also followed in French Polynesia in Cook’s time. They knew well the dangers of over-population.

            Something present world leaders and ‘elites’ are totally ignorant of.

    • Bill, meet some normal people, get some second opinions, talk things over. Grow up.

      And realize that few widely read websites have done more to expose and oppose Islamic cruelty to homosexuals than Gates of Vienna. I don’t know what is more offensive–your self-righteous stupidity or your ingratitude.

    • If it were about ‘equal rights’ then gays would be happy with ‘civil partnerships’ (which certain jurisdictions in the west have had for some time). That some are not content with civil partnerships indicates that this is not about equal rights — it’s a push to change the meaning of the word ‘marriage.’

  4. And seriously, are you that ignorant to the oppression that gays and lesbians have faced in the West, the elimination of which is arguably one of its greatest achievements? And the continuation of which, in a very diminished form, is expressed by your posts here.

    Which basically confirms the assertion that freedom, is only one generation away from being extinguished. Sad.

    • At least you admit it’s a”very diminished form”. Although to me even that seems “very diminished” form of hyperbole.

      Why do you think that marriage was in most societies between a man and a woman? (ok, in Islamic and some African societies, between a man and multiple women).

      Societies have a way in which to raise their young, which in the West involved the biological parents being in an everlasting unit raising the children. After 1968 that started to change but that’s how it was.

      Now we have an age where one-parent families are commonplace, as are divorces, as are foster parents. many such families don’t have the time to raise their young, meaning that effectively TV, school, and maybe gangs fulfil that role.

      If you think that’s a good model for the West to raise a strong and responsible next generation, then you’re welcome to think so, although I rather suspect that the Saudis, Emiratis and others are very happy at gay marriage and the other PC trends taking the West by storm. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were helping to fund such developments through lobbying.

    • “Freedom” is when the government leaves you alone. That’s the kind of freedom I long for. Freedom does not mean that the government must recognize, or register, or celebrate the marriage of a man to another man.

      For a few brief years back in the ’70s and ’80s, the ideal form of freedom existed vis-a-vis homosexuality. Anti-sodomy laws were repealed, and the right of consenting adults to do what they wished with one another in private was accepted in the common culture and affirmed by law.

      Then everything changed. The right to be left alone was replaced by a demand for special treatment, public affirmation and celebration, and all the other features of the progressive grievance industry. And yes, it is demanding special treatment to insist that the state must overturn thousands of years of cultural norms and recognize the union of two people of the same sex as “marriage”.

      The state should leave people alone to pursue happiness in their own way, as long as that pursuit does not harm others. It is not obliged to do anything else to gratify individual desires. And it is especially not obliged to enact policies which tend to destroy the culture that sustains it and all its citizens.

      • Well said Baron! Makes sense to me.
        That homosexuals have existed since day one, I have no argument with.
        What I DO have an argument with is thousands of halfwits clogging roads and celebrating having an imbalance of chromosomes–that is disgustingly stupid. Redolent of thousands of muslims clogging roads with their backsides in the air–that is also disgustingly stupid. They should do that in their armouries, er, mosques, or in their homes.

      • “The right to be left alone was replaced by a demand for special treatment”

        In much the same way the right to equal opportunity was replaced by a demand for equal outcome. Socialists, progressives, liberals, whatever you may call them, their game is to constantly chip away.

  5. And I wonder…if Saudi Arabia, which has lately been toying with elections, even granting women the right to vote on a tiny scale…..were to vote to confirm that women are not allowed to drive, will GofV post an article saying “Saudi Arabia Bucks the PC trend”?

    Been a big fan of this site until now….as the Arab/Muslim world shows us, hatred is a very slippery slope indeed.

    • Another categorical error combined with hyperbole. This has deteriorated to the “do you still beat your wife” level.

      There is no hatred in the report from Slovenia…they are traditionalists and voted for their culture.

      But the heart has its reasons that Reason knows not of. I’m not willing to devote any more of my limited energy to this.


    • Don’t give up on sites like this, Bill. While most liberals still sidle to PC and seem to believe that islam is just another cute multiculti option, people like you and I are out there: liberal and _thus_ opposed to islam. We can still get interesting information here and make our contributions.

  6. Slovenia must be one of the few remaining countries in Europe where sane people are still the majority. I wonder if the country remains to stay normal for a long time. Probably, it will be suppressed and repressed by the EU heavyweights and forced to drown in the swamp of subhuman mores which is the modern post-Christian West.

    • Switzerland (not a member of the EU, but “in Europe”) showed electoral sanity a few years ago when a federal referendum prohibiting minarets from being built was voted UP. More information at,_2009 .

      Minarets in Berne, the capitol of Switzerland???

      “Nein, danke” was the reply.

      Prohibit building any more than the four already in-country?

      “Ja, bitte” was the decision.

      There’s a map at the Wiki site showing the breakout of votes. I think it’s interesting that the French-speaking cantons had the lowest % of support for this federal referendum, meaning that more people in these cantons *wanted minarets to be built* than those in German-, Italian-, or Romansch-speaking cantons. *sigh* Even border control doesn’t stop the self-defeating pro-Islam feelings of Francophones in Europe….

      Let’s hope the Swiss and the Slovenes attract some allies in this fight.

  7. Any bets on whether a certain “rainmaker” and “front man” for certain groups starts spreading the money he is handed free on a silver platter via bogus set up trades in the markets around in Slovenia next?
    Last stop Poland next stop Slovenia?

  8. Anyone who has been to Slovenia would realise that the proposed legislation is completely irrelevant. Trying to give a right to the people of a nation where there is no issue or groups being persecuted.

    • So everybody in Western Civilization was full of hate until now?

      Can you give me a complete list of all the things I’ll be expected to agree to (or be called a “hater”), or are you just making it up as you go along?

      The reason I ask, is because not even gay people wanted gay marriage until very recently.

      • People can be indoctrinated into ‘hating’ or ‘loving’ anything. Sometimes even contradictory things at the same time. It’s because we no longer understand what love is or even its varieties – something the Greeks knew very well.

    • Bill, denying equal rights has been a theme all through history.
      Would you grant islam equal rights with Christianity, Judaism? I certainly wouldn’t, and don’t see how any sane person could. What’s that? No, I’m a lifelong atheist.

      Are all men born equal? No, never have been, never will be. Are you no better than some hate-filled muslim lunatic who has just hacked the head off some Yazidi kid? I would like to think you ARE better, but if you don’t think so ….
      You’re just one of those ‘moral equivalent’ [epithets]

    • And enforcing equal rights is fanaticism, of the worst kind. To understand what it leads to, I recommend a perusal of Animal Farm, by Mr. George Orwell.

  9. I believe that gay couples should have civil unions. But all children deserve a mother and father whenever possible.

    • I know several very caring, long-term gay couples who would have made _far_ better parents than many of the terrible, broken, unhealthy homes some children have to grow up in.

      I agree that ideally every child should have healthy, committed birth parents looking after it. But we know that’s not how it works out for many people.

  10. “Traditional” marriage may have developed from several concerns including:

    1. It’s your kid, man, so by law you hunt down the rabbits to feed it
    2. Protection from sexually transmitted diseases
    3. A desire to insure that one is not alone in this world (perhaps especially by loving parents of girls)
    4. A near to ultimate alliance of tribes
    5. The mystery of the source of life

    These are primitive reasons and apart from #5 which is still a “maybe” there are other ways to achieve the same goals.

    There are examples in nature where “mating” is not needed for reproduction, which suggests that fundamentally there is some error in the notion that humans are “incomplete” without a mate. Both male and female are complete in themselves. And, the Biblical reference is that at first God only made “Adam.”

    People hanging onto bad marriages for social or religious reasons would naturally be opposed to anything but permanent one-man-one-woman unions.

    There might be more in the voting than “traditional values.”

  11. Go ahead, let them get married, they should have the right to be just as miserable as everyone else.
    Judging by my observations – this area has one of the highest percentages of same-sex households in North America – the Queer Nation dating market is even more vicious and nasty than the heterosexual one and often produces some very odd couples. I often wonder how in the heck those two ever even met, never mind hooked up.
    If this translates into married life in a similar way it would among ‘breeders’, their marriages must be an even bigger artificially maintained nightmare than ours.

    • “Go ahead, let them get married, they should have the right to be just as miserable as everyone else.”

      Exactly–and they’ll have to go through legal divorce to split up! Many gay friends of mine are intellectually pleased that they *could be* legal if they wanted to be, but the divorce factor stays their hands. They feel that the simply act of continuing to be there for one another, day after day, speaks more strongly than the ceremony.

      • Very true here in NZ too, Cynthia. There is much less uptake on gay marriage than expected. I guess many gay couples feel like my (hetero) partner and I do: “They feel that the simply act of continuing to be there for one another, day after day, speaks more strongly than the ceremony.”

  12. One calculation seems to be missing. The present majority socialist government was voted in–much to the surprise of many–ending a long line of conservative regimes. The idea, apparently, was to join with the rest of “progressive, forward-looking” Western European countries. What are the odds that this vote is a massive negative reaction to the government many of them did not vote for (or against)? Donald Trump, anyone?

  13. Eh, I don’t think governments should be discriminating in any way. So, marriage for all if for any.

    But people, as non-governmental actors, should discriminate as they see fit. No more “public accomodations” nonsense. No more forced cake baking. This change would bypass much friction and stop a citizen’s resources being used against him by his government.

  14. Just for the record: I support gay marriage too. I’ve seen enough very long-term, loyal, loving gay relationships to support that gay/lesbian people have the same right to marriage if they want. Also, these people would have been wonderful, loving parents and good role models had they been allowed to adopt.

    I visit this site because I oppose islam. I oppose islam because it is anti-gay and misogynist etc.

    I’m putting this here for any other basically liberal people reading this site. There are more of us out there.

    • If the people of any given political entity want to implement gay marriage via their elected political representatives, that is their decision, and their right.

      What I object to is the fact that this is not the way gay marriage has been established in the vast majority of places where it is now legally recognized. In almost every case it was imposed from above by judicial fiat, against the will of the populace.

      This is unjust, immoral, and undemocratic.

      Open borders are being imposed in a similar manner.

      The New World Order has an idea of what it wants its new world to look like, and we will have it thrust upon us, whether we like it or not. Everything has been decided for us.

      • True Confessions time, Sir Baron: Until I started reading GoV (right after Charlie Hebdo, when GoV posted on the WashPo), I really poo-poo’d the idea that there was a wished-for New World Order among the political classes.

        But this year, 2015, when the Islamic masses began trampling down Europe by the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, blew their cover wide open. It’s difficult to hide that many people demanding entry to “Germany” only. These aren’t asylum seekers from war-torn countries: these are would-be sponges seeking to destroy Western economies by parasitizing us.

        And who has enabled this?

        The political class. To my mind, these are the same people who brought us the 2008 economic collapse and then got their friends bailed out by the American taxpayer. I don’t know if my opinion is shared among other, more conservative readers of GoV, but simply looking at what happened from 2008 through approx. 2011 with the manipulation of house inventories was astonishing.

        “Someone” or many “Someones” with high authority was calling the shots on when foreclosed houses could be put up for sale. These delays, as probably intended, made a horrible situation even worse: houses which could have been sold to new homeowners were held off the market to avoid driving their prices down (“Supply and demand” not being allowed to balance each other), and those long-term vacant houses were ransacked by vandals for their copper pipes, metal in general, and other potential “scrap,” and many, at least in the S.F. Bay Area, became meth labs or indescribably filthy, unlive-able structures with homeless encampments in them. No water, no electrical, no natural gas service.

        Because the banks (I guess it was the banks) wanted to meter out the supply of houses available for sale.

        This is one example of how I watched and reflected back over the past few years, once I was convinced of your and Dymphna’s sincerity and deep background on the CJ movement. If you were so correct on the CJ, how could you be completely out to lunch on the rest of your information?

        Occam’s Razor states that the simplest answer is also most likely the correct one: that the two of you were *not* out to lunch.

        So I came to accept that the political class in most of the West do in fact have more in common with one another than they do with us, and that they DO want to shove us around.

        My slim rays of hope lie in the following:

        Even Mme. Merkel is finding that there’s a point at which the common Mensch is unwilling to accept any more guff from her and her ilk. I’d say that point has been reached, and it may be that a New “New World Order” is, painfully and slowly, being birthed.

      • Yes, I see your point. I read a lot of German sites and this is how many EU citizens feel about many issues.

    • Yes, there *are* other “basically liberal” people reading–and commenting–at this site. 😉

      I didn’t learn that I was a Classic Liberal until I read an appreciation of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan a few months ago in the Washington Post. Struck by the consonance of his views with many of mine (well, mine with his, actually), I looked further into Classic Liberal thought and…Whaddya know! I is one! At least, I’m pretty sure I am.

      One of my posts on this site around that time (and, sorry, I’ve never figured out how to search for my own posts here, or I’d tell you where to find that post) took a fellow GoV reader to task for tarring “liberals and leftists” with the same brush. I said, quite clearly, that although I was a liberal–and I gave some instances of my agreement with politically liberal stances–I was and am *not* a leftist or “progressive” as currently understood. And gave instances of my strong DISagreement with said leftists/progressives.

      Two quick examples: I would support O’Malley (Dem) as a candidate for Prez; I would also support Kasich (Rep) as a candidate for Prez. Both of these men seem to be center-oriented, hands-on executives with experience. No leftist or “progressive” would support either of these potential candidates! 🙂

      Don’t feel that you’re the only liberal-oriented reader of this site. It’s just that GoV is maintained by two very dedicated Counter-Jihad warriors, and it is *not* my place or anyone else’s place to trumpet our different political views on their CJ site.

      I post where and when I can agree with a news item, where/when I can add information to a discussion, or where/when I can provide background or personal information on a news item, as I did today under the Slovenian topic and yesterday under the Virginia “Islamophobia” school topics.

      I do *not* post randomly about topics guaranteed to offend the owners of the site or what I perceive as the sensibilities of many GoV followers. When I want to carry on about legalizing *some* drugs or my opinions about vaccinations for children and/or adults, for example, I go elsewhere. This is not the place for those discussions.

      And, BTW, I use a different log-on when I’m on the Washington Post. 😉 “Cynthia in California” doesn’t post on the Post, tee hee.

        • Agreed: for adults 21 years of age or older. If someone tries to market even marijuana to kids, I say fall on ’em like a sack of bricks.

      • I cannot tell a lie, Cynthia dear–twas I. And I have not made the same mistake again; you’re a Liberal, not a leftist!

        • Thx, Peter35. I’ve had to explain to a few of my friends (including one sister) WHY I do *not* support Bernie Sanders for President. They know better than to ask me about Hillary Clinton; that much I’ll give them. 😉

          Also: by not making that mistake a second time, you’ve shown more understanding about the gradations of American political orientation than most “professional” politicians possess. 🙂

          This is the most honest political site I’ve found, even if my ability to participate is a little bit restricted. I still value GoV quite highly, since the truth about the terrorism in our country and everywhere in the world is succinctly described here. It’s my understanding that most people who come to and remain active on GoV also value the truth, and that “simple” fact–we value the truth–unites us in a way that mere “political interest” as parsed by potential candidates never will.

  15. God bless the people of Slovenia!

    Jihad is motivated by devotion, namely that against Christ and His Church, just like the agenda of the Gay Mafia is devoted against Christ and His Church.

    Only a devotion founded on religious fervor will defeat either jihad or sodomy.

    We need the Faith to stop jihad, and we need it to save the family.

    • One of the gay men I know in a stable, loving relationship has spent years teaching the choir and playing organ for a catholic church. Creating the beautiful music that is, in my opinion, the most spiritual and uplifting part of churchgoing.

      I used to ask him how he could thus devote his time to a church that hated him for being gay, but he was somehow able to keep the two things separate. Truly a forgiving, Christian attitude!

Comments are closed.