“The change to the templates of civil status records is not a technical correction, but part of a broader process of forcing Poland to recognize same-sex marriages,” warns Nikodem Bernaciak of Ordo Iuris. In social media, he cautions against the consequences of a CJEU ruling, EU centralization, and “ideological judicial activism” that undermines the constitutional definition of marriage.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Affairs Krzysztof Gawkowski announced on Friday that he has signed documents initiating the process of changing the templates of civil status records. As he emphasized, the aim is to align Polish documents with EU standards and to implement a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
“I signed today the documents that launch the process of changing the templates of civil status records, so that the state functions efficiently and equally toward all citizens,”
the minister stated.
According to a communiqué from the Ministry of Digital Affairs, the draft regulation provides, among other things, for replacing the terms “woman” and “man” with the neutral designations “first spouse” and “second spouse.” The changes are also to cover sections concerning parents and issues related to surnames in both full and abridged copies of marriage certificates.
According to the government, this is a technical adjustment necessary to ensure compliance with EU Regulation 2016/1191. In practice, however, it means adapting the Polish legal system to recognize same-sex marriages concluded in other EU member states.
The matter was commented on by attorney and senior analyst at Ordo Iuris, Nikodem Bernaciak, who argues that the decision of Donald Tusk’s government is not a neutral adjustment of documents to EU standards, but a real step toward recognizing so-called “homosexual marriages” in Poland.
Bernaciak points out that the announced regulation removes the terms “woman” and “man” from civil status records, replacing them with the neutral designations “first spouse” and “second spouse.” In his view, this amounts to a de facto adaptation of the Polish legal system to allow the registration of marriages between persons of the same sex concluded abroad.
He also emphasizes that the government’s actions are a direct consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 November 2025 (case C-713/23), issued in a case involving two men who entered into a marriage in Berlin and sought its transcription in Poland. The CJEU ruled that member states are obliged to recognize such unions as “marriages,” even if their constitutions, such as Poland’s, define marriage exclusively as a union between a woman and a man.
In Bernaciak’s assessment, this judgment constitutes a violation of the sovereignty of the member states and an attempt to circumvent the EU treaties. He notes that family law, pursuant to the current Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is subject to the principle of unanimity, which in practice gives member states a right of veto. Meanwhile, as he observes, it has so far not been possible to amend the treaties in this area, prompting the CJEU to resort to “ideological judicial activism” to achieve the same objective by other means.
Bernaciak also recalls Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the intentions of its authors. He cites a statement by Senator Alicja Grześkowiak from 1997, who explicitly indicated that the constitutional definition of marriage as a union between a woman and a man was intended to prevent the introduction of same-sex unions “through a back door” or under a different name but with the same privileges.
In his view, the initiative of the Ministry of Digital Affairs fits into a broader process of centralization within the European Union and pressure on member states in the area of family law. He draws attention to earlier resolutions of the European Parliament concerning treaty changes and warns that in the future, Poland could be outvoted on matters fundamental to its constitutional order.
Finally, Bernaciak points out that if a regulation contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland is adopted, it should be challenged before the Constitutional Tribunal by entities authorized to do so, such as the President, a group of members of parliament or senators, or the First President of the Supreme Court.
As he emphasizes, what is at stake is not merely a change in administrative forms, but the question of the limits of EU law’s interference in the constitutional order of the state and the definition of marriage in force in Poland.