The Minister of State, Makis Voridis, spoke about his decision to abstain from voting in the Parliament on the bill for the marriage of same-sex couples on the “Today” program of SKAI.

Mr. Voridis stated that “this particular debate has different opinions and approaches within the ND. It is an important issue and there is a significant divergence on this issue. I have to justify my position because I am a minister of state, without portfolio, i.e. minister to the prime minister, so my relationship with the prime minister is a close political relationship. Therefore, the fact that the Minister of State does not support the government’s decision creates a need for additional justification.”

Subsequently, the Minister of State explained that “the issue has concerned me since my student years and the fact that I am not convinced lies in two points. The first argument says that it defends equality and human rights. Unfortunately or fortunately, the Human Rights court does not say so as on two occasions in 2010 and 2017 it examined appeals against states to grant the right to marry to same-sex couples and answered that this is a matter that lies within the discretion of states to regulate it and if not regulate it there is no violation of human rights”.

“Ethical and legal issues are connected for me. If for example the decision of the Human Rights court was different even if I didn’t like it I would take it seriouslyhe added.

“In our Constitution it says that the family is the foundation of the nation along with motherhood and is under the protection of the state and this is what I invoked in support of my decision. For me there is a question of constitutionality. In order for the law to pass, in my opinion, we need a different definition of family,” Mr. Voridis emphasized.

“In response to emotional arguments, our civil code unlike the US you will see that there are no emotional expressions. The code in the context of marriage determines only the obligations of the spouses.”

Regarding the criticism he receives for not resigning from his duties, he replied that “I said from the beginning that I would not vote for the provision. I have a moral and political obligation by my attitude not to injure the government. The prime minister during his installation did not impose party discipline and said that he considers abstention to be a dignified attitude. This is a strong message from the prime minister because he understands that there are problems with this issue and leaves it on the conscience, but at the same time he makes a recommendation that those who disagree choose to abstain. I cannot but listen to this recommendation both because of the relationship I have and because of my position.”

“It was heard in the public debate that I should resign. However, the prime minister determines the developments and did not raise this specific issue with me.”

Asked if he too took a step back by choosing to abstain, Mr. Voridis answered in the affirmative, clarifying however that he made a moral choice weighing the bill against the overall work of the government.