ISTORIJA 2 0 1 1 / 4 L X I V / 8 4 Ineta LIPŠA Restriction of Freedom of Consciousness in Democracy: Catholic Protests against the Law on Registry of Civil Status in Latvia (1921–1928)
Ineta Lipša – dr. hist., researcher, Institute of Latvian History at the University of Latvia; address: Akademijas laukums 1, Riga, LV-1050; e-mail: [email protected]; fields of research – social history, history of sexuality, history of history-writing in the 20th century.
Abstract. The article focuses on the study of the attitude privilege of registration of civil status deeds to the state by residents of Latvia towards civil marriage in the 1920ies and deprived the Church of this privilege. Members of analysing the discussions and deeds of people caused by Parliament wanted to set residents of the new independent adoption of laws on marriage and registration of the civil Latvia free from the old tradition of the former Russian status deeds by the Latvian Constitutional Assembly in Empire and to become a part of the so referred civilised 1921 that privileged the registration of civil status deeds European countries. This norm caused opposition among to the state until 1928. The law was changed due to the many people starting from 1920 when the Constitutional stream of dissatisfaction expressed by members and Assembly and the general public started to discuss the clergy of different confessions, however, the Catholics laws up to 1928 when the dissatisfaction among the were leading. faithful residents resulted in amendments to the laws and Key words: civil marriage, civil registry, free love, the Church was granted equal rights to those of the state church, Catholics, the faithful. in registration of civil status deeds. Requests to achieve adoption of amendments to the law were expressed by Anotacija. Straipsnyje aptariamas Latvijos gyventojų members and clergy of different confessions – Lutherans, požiūrio į civilinę santuoką XX a. 3 deš. tyrimas, kuria- Old-Believers, Jewish, Orthodox Believers, however, the me analizuojamos gyventojų diskusijos ir veiksmai dėl Catholics were leading this stream of dissatisfaction. 1921 m. Latvijos Steigiamojo Seimo priimtų įstatymų The main source of research is transcripts of the dėl santuokos ir civilinės būklės aktų registravimo, kurie Parliament of Latvia and media issues describing views suteikė civilinės būklės aktų registravimo teisę valstybei and activities of representatives of various groups of public iki 1928 m. Įstatymas buvo pakeistas dėl įvairių konfesijų and providing insight in their argumentation in favour of atstovų ir dvasininkijos išreikšto nepasitenkinimo, kuriame either civil or confessional marriage. Until now the Law on svarbiausias vaidmuo teko katalikams. Marriage has been described in the Latvian historiography Prasminiai žodžiai: civilinė santuoka, civilinė registracija, from the perspective of law history [26, 200–201]. laisva meilė, bažnyčia, katalikai, tikintieji. Historian Lidija Jefremova has been studied the family of Latvian peasants in Latgale from 1860 to 1939 from the perspective of the social history, nevertheless she has focused on the analyses of social parameters of marriages, Introduction such as the age, the social status [63, 168–182], not on the attitude. The author of this article has been researched the marriage in the context of demographical problems [32, 55–59; 31, 36–37; 30, 63–72] thus until now the attitude The aim of this article is to describe the attitude by by residents of Latvia towards civil marriage in the 1920ies residents of Latvia towards civil marriage in the 1920ies. has not been the object of historiography. The subject of research is the behaviour and discussions In the beginning of the 1920-ies when the Constitutional of people caused by adoption of laws on marriage Assembly of Latvia was deciding on the principle of and registration of the civil status deeds by the Latvian registration of civil status deeds, at least three approaches Constitutional Assembly in 1921. The laws afforded the existed in European countries. Mandatory registration of
ISSN 1392-0456 75 požiūris
civil status deeds in the registry office, which represented However, the Members of Parliament representing the the so referred mandatory principle, existed in the interests of Latgale (it was the only region dominated by Netherlands and France as from the end of the 18th century. the Catholic faith in multi-confessional Latvia) Catholics During the course of time this approach was adopted also lead by the member of the Union of Latgalian Christian in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. In the Balkan Farmers Priest Francis Trasuns wanted to have the current countries, Poland and Lithuania, however, registration privileges reserved for the Church in the laws [41]. The of civil status deeds in the Church was mandatory. The willingness to grant the rights of registering the civil status Scandinavian countries and Czechoslovakia had adopted deeds exclusively to the Church was described by the the optional principle for registration of civil status deeds, Member of Parliament Social Democrat Ansis Petrevics as according to which individuals were entitled to select typical for Latgale, i. e. religious obscurantism [20, 174]. registration in the registry office or at the clergyman, therefore deeds of registration of civil status made by both the clergyman and registry offices afforded legal consequences. Parliamentary debate on marriage Laws on Marriage and Registration of Civil Status Deeds regulated the private life of individuals and were among the first ones which the Latvian Parliament started to develop. According to the widespread view the First World War Publicists who shaped the public opinion in mass has caused a mess within the moral experience of people, media asserted that the confessional marriage did no that the attempts to eliminate the confessional marriage by longer comply with the spirit of the era, and this was defenders of the Soviet Latvia in 1919 had confused the expressed during the debate on the draft law which the minds of people. It should be taken into account that after Constitutional Assembly started to discuss on December the bourgeois democratic revolution of February 1917 the 10, 1920. The draft law provided for transition from the socialistic views were more widespread than people were confessional marriage to civil marriage. Two opinions prepared to accept later, few years after foundation of dominated in the press and Constitutional Assembly – the the state of Latvia. Then many of public-spirited women religious one that faithful people should not be forced minded lefty but afterwards they participated in the to conclude marriage in registry offices and the secular discussion of law on marriage. Riga Women’s Assembly one that unbelieving persons should not be forced to get was assembled in March of 1917 [49]. The activists of the married in the Church. By above mentioned concept the Latvian bourgeois women’s movement well-known during authors of the law tried to introduce a completely new the interwar period Berta Pīpiņa, Klāra Hibšmane, Emīlija approach by unifying what seems to be impossible to unify, Vitenberga-Trauberga, Emīlija Liepiņa (Vanaga) were i.e. both mandatory and optional principles, however, members of the Latvian Socialistic Women’s Educational the civil status deeds had legal consequences only after Union Board in the summer of 1917 [25]. As from May the registration in the registry office (the mandatory principle), Women’s Political Club under which the Latvian section but it was allowed to get married also in the Church. This was operating was actively holding presentations. In combination was most probably dictated by the doubt July women founded the Latvian Women’s Union [48]. that they would not succeed with including the clear Because of this past the women, by now active in civic mandatory principle of registration of civil status deeds parties, also proposed radical requirements when the Law in the registry office in the law. However the integration on Marriage was discussed in the Constitutional Assembly. of both principles caused also objections. Representatives Popularity of social-democratic views could be certified of faithful people asserted that in the countries where the by the fact that the Latvian Social Democratic Workers’ mandatory registration in registry offices existed still there Party had the largest faction in all the Latvian Parliaments was no norm stipulating that the Church may conclude during the interwar period. the marriage only after receipt of a note from the registry It was the aim of the Social Democrats to use the office, and this requirement was interpreted as interference experience of European countries instead of returning to of the state with the Church affairs because in this way the procedure having existed in the Russian Empire [19, the law as if made clergymen in policemen “who were 638] according to which the entitlement to register civil chasing people to registry offices” [24, 50]. status deeds was granted exclusively to the Church. They The expert on the draft Law on Marriage Alberts Kviesis were strictly opposing the mandatory confessional marriage explained that also the right to demand divorce when and considered that restoration of the old procedure would the marriage had fallen apart to such extent that it was alienate Latvia from the whole civilised Europe. The ones not possible to continue it was a special new provision. with secular attitude defended the idea of separating the “During the current era when we have experienced Church from the state as a principle of democracy and the the years of war, refugee times, when a husband and state as the supreme sovereign power within its territory wife sometimes have been totally separated for a long which should not give up its rights for the benefit of the time and have got alienated from each other to such a Church. The relevant German law [19, 629] was used as degree that no cohabitation is possible.” [55, 1557–1558] the example of a law on registration of civil status deeds. The expert valued also the possibility to divorce with
76 Ineta LI PŠ A ISTORIJA 2 0 1 1 / 4 L X I V / 8 4 no specific reason if both spouses wanted it as a very not love any longer was forced to be married, however, progressive step because other countries did not provide “as the law of nature and love are more powerful than all for such an option. The Member of Parliament from the the Church rules on the whole, the depressed party goes Latvian Social Democratic Workers’ Party, the famous to search for love elsewhere” [56, 1629]. poet Aspazija even considered that by this draft law the The debate focused on the issue whether freedom in male dominance within the marriage would be eliminated love or maintenance of the marriage would be better, because now the wife was fulfilling the role of both the therefore, the Member of Parliament from the right hostess and a woman for delights of the life [55, 1561]. Latvian Farmers’ Union Kārlis Pauļuks reminded that Four of the six female Members of Parliament actively still marriage should not be given up unilaterally with participated in the debate – Aspazija and Klāra Kalniņa no justified reason, as this was a contract between two elected from the Latvian Social Democratic Workers’ parties [56, 1630]. His colleague in the faction Alberts Party, Valerija Seile elected from the Latgale Farmers’ Kviesis disapprovingly concluded that the draft law was Party and Zelma Cēsniece-Freidenfelde from the Group radical already before the request to permit unilateral of Nonparty Members. divorce upon the request by one of the partners, but if The second reading of the draft Law on Marriage took this norm was adopted it would be unprecedented in the place in the Constitutional Assembly on December 14, cultural world [56, 1630–1631]. However, the Members 1920. The Social Democrat Nikolajs Kalniņš unexpectedly of Parliament adopted this supplement to the draft law in proposed to adopt an article on divorce also based upon the second reading with 52 votes in favour and 48 against. the request by one of the spouses without indicating the In the result the faction of the Latvian Farmers’ Union reasons for divorce [56, 1625]. He was explaining that left the room. Due to the lack of quorum the discussion this norm, which was later referred to as Article 51, would of the draft law was suspended to be continued after the provide an opportunity to divorce for sensitive persons, Christmas holiday. thinking about women who did not want to share their The opinion by the Member of Parliament Valerija problems of intimate life at the court. Still, in cases when Seile that “this law brings important changes to our life, the wife did not specify the reasons for divorce she would especially concerning habits, the breaking of which be considered to blame for divorce, which would mean agitates the public most” [54, 1793] was reflected also that she would not be entitled to claim alimony from the in mass media comments. The analyst of the influential, husband. The discussions were exciting. politically right-wing newspaper “Latvijas Sargs” [Guard The conservatives insisted on the marriage until the of Latvia], writer Ivande Kaija stated that the article which death. They compared freedom in love to the poison of would permit divorce upon the request by one of the pornography which damages the people’s strength more parties would not mean introduction of “free love” and than plague. The debate showed that no hope for essential elimination of morals and it would not desecrate the reform was justified. Gustavs Reinhards from the faction sacredness of a woman and would not destroy the state of Christian National Members of Parliament protested as it was claimed by the opponents. Kaija concluded that even against easing the divorce as according to him it this norm was about to be rejected in the last (the third) would promote depravity and would place the marriage reading “because of the males’ fear from the freedom on the foundation of “free love”. The men would divorce of love”, and encouraged Members of Parliament to recklessly (would leave their wives as old slippers behind). finally allow women themselves “to decide the issue He was sure he was defending the women’s interests. on their female sacredness or profanity” in the name of His motivation was based on the concept that it was the supreme humanity and fairness [15] and to vote in easy for a man to get married again while a wife “who favour of this article also during the third reading instead has been once used, raped and left by her husband” has of preserving the form of marriage lagging behind the “lost in the eyes of society” and would be perceived as modern spirit. Also the publicist Tusnelda asserted that a loser also if the new norms were included in the law “a woman is calling for freeing her from the remains of [56, 1627]. However, the female Members of Parliament obsolete traditions” [60]. Searching for a more pragmatic did not support Reinhard. The social democrat Aspazija motivation to her appeal Kaija noted that by making the emphasised that there were no women who would view divorce easier “the Latvian nation would be less threatened the situation “when she would have to give herself to a by extinction” because most marriages were divorced due man against her wish and with disgust” as moral, although to new love, which meant that “more children would be this man was her husband, as love which is not free is born out of more intense love” [14]. The journalist Ernests immoral.[56, 1627–1628] Her faction colleague Klāra Blanks supported the broadening of possibilities of divorce Kalniņa supported Aspazija by saying that “where there calling it the freedom of marriage because “he was for a is no love but the marriage still exists the highest degree man - eagle, whose wings were bound by conquest of a of moral fall takes place”, because a person is forced woman – monogamy” [16]. to maintain the marriage just because the Church rules Still, the Members of the Constitutional Assembly demand it. Kalniņa emphasised that it was not the civil voted in favour of deletion of Article 51 in the draft law marriage, but, on the contrary, the confessional marriage with 67 votes in favour, 55 against and 1 abstention on which promoted prostitution because the partner who did February 1, 1921 during the last reading (there were 100
Restriction of Freedom of Consciousness in Democracy: Catholic Protests against the Law on Registry of Civil Status in Latvia (1921–1928) ISSN 1392-0456 77 požiūris
parliament members in Latvian parliaments). Aspazija’s at policemen and to achieve that the couples married by forecast that if a woman was surrounded by love no the Priest would not be considered married by the state Church marriage would detain her from belonging to and their children would not be considered legitimate. the beloved one and warning to give “the way to the The Catholic Church considered both laws (on marriage future new woman” [57, 59] remained unheard. Thus, in and registration of civil status deeds) intervention by the the discussion concerning the marriage Members of the secular world in the sacramental affairs, and therefore faction of the Latvian Social Democratic Workers’ party many Latgale people wanted to achieve amendments to and the National Conservatives’ active female members the laws. turned out to have similar views. Also the centric parties They protested against the fact that the law added had voted in favour of the left-wing ideas. still more officials to already high number of them and The law afforded the privilege to the civil marriage that the farmers would have to pay another tax and also allowing also the Church marriage [28]. It means that spend time for going to the registry office in the centre of before getting married in the Church a person had to rural municipality at the same time when the clergyman register in the registry office, the marriage had to be lived not far from them. In the result 18 of 20 parishes pronounced there and then the person was entitled to of Rēzekne district in the summer of 1922 requested the get married in the Church by presenting the registration Constitutional Assembly to repeal the Law on Registration certificate issued by the registry office. Clergymen were of Civil Status Deeds because the people detested it [51]. obliged to notify marriages to the local registry office The Council of Rural municipality of Višķi recommended within seven days. Also for baptising a child in the Church stipulate that the registry offices should be funded only the newborn had to be registered in the registry office [27]. from the funds of those who wanted to have them [62]. The law recognised the marriages concluded during the Members of Parliament from Latgale were requested to reign of “lielinieki” (Latvian translation of Bolsheviks), i. e. achieve amendments to the law. Besides, people expressed Latvian communists as valid and made the procedure of their distrust to the Members of Parliament who voted in divorce considerably easier. favour of this law and Valentīna Seile in particular. “All The faithful people still did not give up. Already during the society of Latgale is against this law, and women the discussions of the laws many clergymen were lobbying of Latgale are most against it. In Latgale the Law on in their parishes and encouraging parish members to Registration of Civil Status Deeds is defended by a very collect signatures and forward them to the Consistory and small number of immoral persons and maybe few “street government asking to provide a possibility to get married beauties” with whom any Latgalian would be ashamed in the Church without going to the registry office for the to go to the Chancel. However, Miss Seile was speaking people who wanted to do it [5]. Most of Catholic people in the Constitutional Assembly and defended the Law on in Latgale viewed the marriage concluded in the registry Registration of Civil Status Deeds, and, as far as it can be office as the same immoral as the so called free love, heard, she has not changed her opinion and devotes all i.e. unregistered partnership. Protesting against the civil her strength for achieving that the law disgustful for the marriage the faithful people were collecting signatures in souls of Latgalians is not repealed” [50]. favour of cancelling the law and even threatened that they Assembly of Rural municipality of Makašāni in which would initiate the referendum on this issue. 1952 citizens with voting rights participated on July 21, 1922 adopted the decision that registration of civil status deeds was not needed for the fourth time. The Council of rural municipality of Asūne decided to request the Protection of the marriage sacrament Constitutional Assembly to repeal this law as not needed and not favourable for the people or to amend it at least [35]. The Priest Trasuns pointed out in 1923 that adoption of the law was promoted not only by the left- In the Constitutional Assembly there were two groups wing parties, but also Baltic (as Latgalians referred to of Members of Parliament which represented the faithful residents of other regions of Latvia) non-socialist parties people of Latgale region. They both and also the Christian (Latvian Farmers’ Union, Democratic Centre, Labour Party, nationalists had voted against the norm which allowed Latgale Farmers’ Party)[59]. According to him Latgale was to get married in the Church only after the marriage was so much disappointed by the law that nominees to the proclaimed in the registry office. In their mass media Constitutional Assembly from the Latgale Farmers’ Party they were lobbying against the law and asserted that did not dare to come to the election meetings in quite a most people of Latgale did not understand what the civil lot places during the election campaign of the 1st Saeima marriage was and disdainfully referred to it as an invention (Parliament) in autumn of 1922, and the government was of the modern times [41]. The newspaper explained that postponing foundation of the registry offices, thus, “the socialists and members of the Latgale Labour Party did not discontent among the people calmed down slightly” [59]. believe in God and Carl Marx’s “Capital” was their Gospel. In 1923 the threats expressed by the Ministry of Justice to They didn’t consider a man to be superior to an animal councils of rural municipalities for not complying with the and therefore they wanted to force people to get married ordinances “forced all the Latgale to stand up again”. The
78 Ineta LI PŠ A ISTORIJA 2 0 1 1 / 4 L X I V / 8 4 necessity of the referendum was discussed. The Deputy were registry offices. The Member of Parliament Pastors Minister of Internal Affairs, member of Union of Latgalian asserted in mass media that many people had been Christian Farmers Antons Dzenis notified the Minister of penalised by fines and that among clergymen there was Justice Vilis Holcmanis in 1923 several times that it was none who would not be accused in at least ten court cases not possible to found the registry offices in Latgale by July some of which have been heard even by the Senate of the 10, 1923 because no funds have been allocated for that Supreme Court [19, 624]. in the budgets of rural municipalities and asked to repeal Clergymen were marrying and baptising according to the relevant ordinance [7]. As the Minister of Justice did their views and were brought to court for this. Besides, not react to this, the Deputy Minister of Justice submitted there were people on whose marriage, baptising, death a proposal to the Cabinet of Ministers on repealing the state did not have any data, which meant that they the ordinance by the Minister of Justice and stipulating were not legally valid, and they could not settle the that it should not be complied with until adoption of heritage and other procedures. In 1925 the Member of amendments to the Law on Registration of Civil Status Parliament of the Catholic and Christian Farmers’ Party, Deeds. The Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and the priest Bernhards Augusts Kublinskis asserted that despite Minister of Justice agreed that the rural municipalities the fact that “quite a lot” clergymen, members of councils which had not established the registry offices because of rural municipalities and individuals had been punished of the lack of funds would not be brought to liability. For for not complying with the law, it has not been possible calming down rural municipalities in Latgale the Minister to implement the law. [24, 55] Until June of 1925 “some of Justice repealed the ordinance based upon the fact that 5 priests” had been punished by a fine or arrest [12]. no funding was allocated for the registry offices in the The Dean of Krāslava parish Priest Vladislavs Zundo was budgets of parishes this year [59]. It was even asserted that sentenced to 10 days of arrest for not registering marriages people had referred such registrations as “dogs’ marriages with the registry office – being a priest he had to serve and dogs’ baptising”, that registration in the registry offices this sentence in Aglona Basilica from May 27 to June 7, was an offence to Catholics because it was equal to saying 1927 [9]. Despite the fact that the Priest was not present “you are an animal” and we are going to enter you as an at the church on May 29 the members of the parish held a animal in our registry logs [6]. It is possible that a part meeting and adopted the resolution “on repeal of this law of Latgale people associated the law with the times of so burdensome for people”. The speeches were followed Bolsheviks, i. e. the Decree of the Soviet Russia which by a demonstration of about two thousand people with Bolsheviks were trying to enforce upon Latgale people banners “the law on the civil marriage must be repealed”, in 1919 when militia men from Daugavpils Tribunal were “Free the Priest Zundo”. The delegation of protesters involved in some executive committees of parishes to submitted the resolution to the State President, Saeima force people to obey. [19, 625] The ones not obeying were and government. On September 22 the Dean of the Līvāni physically influenced and imprisoned. In rural municipality Catholic parish was punished by a fine of 25 Lats and the of Krāslava four people were shut and 16 were shut in rural newspaper “Zemnīka Ziņas” [Farmer’s News] added that municipality of Osūne. clergymen of several other parishes had been accused People who were trying to achieve amendments to the [38]. Latgale Regional Court sentenced 27 members of law escalated the situation. For example, they asserted that the council of Domopole rural municipality to arrest from in summer of 1924 the registry offices were not founded one to two weeks for non-compliance with the Law on in most rural municipalities of Latgale [8]. Actually, they registration of the civil status deeds, despite the fact that were not founded in 18 rural municipalities out of 65 the accused persons explained that Latgalians did not want [18]. At that time there were 526 rural municipalities and to marry and register in registry offices [36]. The Court 457 registry offices in Latvia. Still, Catholic people were Chamber of Supreme Court diminished the fine of 150 lats not “eager” to register civil status deeds in the registry imposed upon the Dean of the Augustova Catholic parish offices [18]. The Member of Parliament of the Catholic and Alviss Kalve-Kovaļevs by Latgale Regional court to 20 Lats Christian Farmers’ Party Alfons Pastors, who was referred or six days of arrest [37]. to as the instigator of mollycoddles (bābas from Russian The expert of the Public Law Committee, Member baba) by his political opponents [13] in 1926 asserted that of Parliament from the Catholic and Christian Farmers’ the registry offices did not exist in rural municipalities of Party Alfons Pastors received many petitions in 1927 and Užvalde, Kalupe, Osūne in Latgale. (In Rudzāti and Kapiņi 1928 not only from people, but “even from all councils of Daugavpils district even in the beginning of 1929 the of rural municipalities of Latgale” with “thousands of registry offices were not founded and therefore the district signatures” with the request to amend the law [22, 590; 21, board notified both councils of rural municipalities that 25]. (Unfortunately, the files of the Public Law Committee they had to comply with law and that they would be available at the Fund of the Constitutional Assembly of the brought to court if they did not [3].) In Piedruja due to this Latvian State Historical Archives does not contain these reason all the members of the council of rural municipality petitions.) Such petitions were received also from Hebrew were under the police supervision which meant that they parishes and clergymen. The Member of Parliament, had to register with the police once a week. Besides, the Old-Believer Pēteris Koreckis asked not to exert influence law was ignored also in rural municipalities where there upon the conscience and belief of Old-Believers already in
Restriction of Freedom of Consciousness in Democracy: Catholic Protests against the Law on Registry of Civil Status in Latvia (1921–1928) ISSN 1392-0456 79 požiūris
1925. He asserted that in villages registration of marriages of preventing attacks against the registry offices once “caused truly violent, difficult conditions” and also that and forever, he recommended the Ministry of Justice to “for the noble maternal disposition it was disgusting to develop an amendment to the law providing for mandatory spoil the most intimate act of the fulfilled love based upon marriage at the registry office exclusively. which a woman lives with the procedure to be carried out In 1924 in Riga 3736 couples had married and only 27 % at the parish” [24, 51]. Already in the autumn of 1926 the of them had concluded their marriage only in the registry Member of Parliament, Old-Believer Meletijs Kaļistratovs office, while the other 73 % had later gone to consecrate informed that Old-Believers had held several meetings their marriage to clergymen [4]. The publicist Hermanis where it was resolved that the law had to be amended [19, Asars commented these data and emphasised that for 636]. The Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of all that in Riga “most of our socialists, communists and Latvia in 1928 established that the registry offices imposed other non-believers lived and married”, but „in smaller additional burden upon people from both monetary and towns and in the countryside there are even less people time perspective, besides abused the religious beliefs of who would not want the Church marriage and baptising, people, therefore it requested the government and Saeima to and in some places there are no such people”. This fact make amendments to the Law on Registration of Civil Status permitted him to claim in 1925 that the Marriage Law did Deeds entitling clergymen to do registration and cancelling not comply with the views of majority of people and that the mandatory character of the registry office [22, 590]. the registry offices were not needed. The clergymen’s Until the mid-1920ies in other regions of Latvia – support to the necessity of amendments to the law had Vidzeme and Zemgale – this norm did not cause do changed the prevailing view in the non-socialist mass strict dissatisfaction among people which would deserve media during a couple of years. When the political lobbies mentioning it in mass media. Still, in Kurzeme it was of the Catholic Church had managed to get the majority recognised that development of civic liberties and similar in Saeima for amending the law in 1925, the publicist of factors have brought about the necessity to create the Law the newspaper „Kurzemes Vārds” [Kurzeme Word] did on Registration of Civil Status Deeds independently from not defend the register offices any more but stated that the Church for the benefit of people with socialistic beliefs, by breaking all the links to the Church the antireligism, however, it was emphasised that it was the smallest part atheism and downgrade of ethic and moral strength of the of the society [39]. At the end of 1922 the nationalistic people would be amplified, therefore the registry offices conservative regional mass media emphasised that “our should be painlessly disposed of. „They are practically priests do not see or do not want to see the true causes” non-functional in Latgale, in other regions of Latvia only behind the fact that people are losing their faith, and 10–15 per cent register civil status deeds exclusively in instead they “are trying to blame the registry offices as the registry offices, and only in Riga this number reaches the ones destroying the faith and bringing all the evil” approximately 25 per cent” [39], the publicist Aleksandrs [34]. At the end of 1923 a similar view was promoted Ozoliņš asserted. The journalist Evelīna Grāmatniece by the politically centric largest daily newspaper of stated in 1926 that the majority of people protested against Latvia. It informed that the clergymen were protesting foundation of the registry offices in Latvia and that they against proclaiming marriages and registration in the had been established based upon the request by a separate registry office and was submitting their protests to the political group, meaning social democrats [11]. She government ministers on behalf of the people. Still, the referred to the registry offices as non-essential, decorations reporter defended the secular law by presenting amazing of the European modernism very costly for the people, arguments – that it was easier for people to learn the having declared war against “old, deeply established surnames of persons intending to get married at the same traditions” [11]. The expert of the Saeima Legal Committee place, i. e. at the registry office instead of being present at Andrejs Krastkalns established in 1928 that based upon all the churches of Riga on three Sundays to hear what the the statistics data “a large part of people approached also Priest was saying [47]. By the way, the necessity to know clergymen besides registration; therefore, citizens had to who was going to marry whom and who had divorced pay twice as much as they would if they got married only at whom was recognised as publicly essential – information the clergymen” [22, 592]. (Unfortunately, in the published on concluded and divorced marriages was published statistics compilations it is not detailed how many of the not only in the regional media but also in some central concluded marriages were concluded only in the Church newspapers in the interwar Latvia. The statement at the and how many in the registry offices.) Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia at the end of 1923 that despite the competition from the registry offices the number of marriages concluded by clergymen had increased was commented by the journalist with Attempts to amend the law a conclusion that the clergymen’s protests against the civil marriage were based upon the hidden intention “to gain the power over people again” [47]. He emphasised that Latvians as free people were protected against the A few municipalities of Latgale had submitted a petition clergymen guardianship by law, still for the purpose to the Saeima concerning amending the Law on Registry
80 Ineta LI PŠ A ISTORIJA 2 0 1 1 / 4 L X I V / 8 4 Offices in the summer of 1923. The issue was discussed at (mazinieki as antonym to lielinieki) Marģers Skujenieks the Public Law Committee which decided to close the issue rejected the argument concerning the distance a farmer by majority of votes [10]. The necessity of amendments had to travel to get to the registry office in the centre of was first noted in the government declaration by the rural municipality by saying that a person had to go there leader of the government formed by the Latvian Farmers’ just a couple of times during one’s life [19, 630]. Besides, Union Zigfrīds Anna Meirovics on June 26, 1923 [61]. he revealed that these were defenders of the opinion of The demand by Latgalians to permit to marry and baptise the Catholic Church who voted against the proposal to children in the Church without preceding registration in cancel the fee for services of the registry offices. the registry office was supported in 1924 not only by the The proposal of the group of Parliament Members to right-wing parties (the Latvian Farmers’ Union, the Latgale the Saeima to ask the relevant committee to rework the Farmers’ Party), some Members of Parliament representing Laws on Marriage and Registration of Civil Status Deeds minorities, but also centric parties (the Democratic Centre according to the optional principle was discussed by the and the Party of Latvian New Farmers) [8]. They attempted Parliament for four times – on April 22, 1925 when the to get the law amendments adopted via the government. Saeima transferred it for discussion to the Public Law During the Christmas holiday of the Saeima the Cabinet Committee [24, 44 and 57]. The proposal was signed also of Ministers lead by the member of the Latvian Farmers’ by Parliament Member from Russian National Democrats’ Union Hugo Celmiņš adopted the amendments to the law Party Aleksandrs Bočagovs. However, the Members of according to the procedure provided by Article 81 of the the Public Law Committee who lobbied the interests of Satversme (Constitution) [44], (which entitled the Cabinet believers voted against it because they wanted to achieve of Ministers to adopt regulations equal to the law in case of total elimination of the registry offices and to have the imminent necessity), however, when the Saeima restarted registration entrusted to clergymen only according to its work on January 23 it cancelled the amendments the “old tradition” [13]. The draft law developed by the (because some Members of Parliament from centric and Committee was rejected by the Saeima for the second right-wing parties were late for the meeting) [23, 44]. The time – on November 19, 1926 with prevalence of one Social Democrat Fēlikss Cielēns stated that adoption of the vote [19, 624 and 638]. This time the proposal was signed amendments according to the procedure of Article 81 was also by the Parliament Member of the Block of Orthodox not justified because none of the factions had proposed Voters and United Russian Organizations Elpidifors amendments or additions to these laws neither in plenary Tichoņickijs. On February 1, 1927 the Saeima for the sessions nor in committees [23, 42]. Therefore in future the third time transferred the running proposal of the group lobbyists of believers were utilising the norm according to of Parliament Members for review to the Public Law and which ten Members of Parliament could submit proposals State Administration Committee on optional basis [20, to Saeima and – it should be noted – there were among 167, 175]. The Committee adopted amendments in the them also the Parliament Members that represented the third reading on April 26, 1926 [29] but finally consensus interests of the Orthodox inhabitants. was not achieved and only on October 7, 1927 the draft The reason of the Church opposition was the willingness proposed by the Committee was presented to the Saeima. to maintain its authority as the supreme power above the Saeima established that the Committee had developed state, however, at the same time their lobbyists used the the law on the basis of the mandatory principle instead facts that because of the law people had to spend money of the optional principle according to the given task, and time for travel and these were the reasons why the therefore the law was transferred for review to the Legal people were against the law as the basis for defending Committee [21, 29]. (No confirmation to the statements their opinions. The believers were paying twice – both in by the Member of Parliament, Priest Alfons Pastors that the registry office and at the Church. The Priest Trasuns the government adopted the amendments according to accused Members of Parliament that they did not want the procedure of Article 81 in 1927 due to the pressure to adopt the law to the people, but were trying to adopt by Christians and the Saeima repealed them has been the people to the law instead [24, 53]. The Member of found [45].) The Saeima started to review the draft law on Parliament, Bishop of the Evangelican Lutheran Church of amendments on February 21, 1928. The Legal Committee Latvia Kārlis Irbe asserted that in the registry offices, at least insisted on the norm that only certificates issued by the in Riga, they were trying to persuade people not to go to registry offices would have civil legal meaning and this was the Church [24, 53]. Social democrats considered that the a compromise and not giving in to the Church, however, parties, which defended the democracy values would have during the third reading the Committee had changed its to defend the state as the supreme sovereign power within opinion and the Saeima adopted the view convenient for its territory, and therefore the Social Democrat Fēlikss the Church with the prevalence of 13 votes. The President Cielēns referred to the preparedness of the Democratic announced amendments to both Laws on March 22. Centre to vote for the contrary view in 1925 as conciliation According to them a clergyman was allowed to solemnize behind the scene [24, 53]. The Social Democrat Nikolajs marriages of inhabitants without proclamations at the Kalniņš emphasised that clergymen were financially registry office by notifying the concluded marriage to the interested and recommended to force them to comply registry office within 14 days [43]. Registration of the death, with the law [24, 48]. The Social Democrat-mazinieks birth and marriage with a clergyman notifying it within
Restriction of Freedom of Consciousness in Democracy: Catholic Protests against the Law on Registry of Civil Status in Latvia (1921–1928) ISSN 1392-0456 81 požiūris
14 days was declared to be legal [42]. The amendments in 1932 the Lithuanian State Council was working on also provided for termination of litigation cases initiated developing the law. „Until the issue is pending the public against clergymen if they notified not reported civil status is trying to express its opinion. In Lithuanian mass media registration deeds to the registry office within three months there is often polemics between the Christians and the following entry into force of the amendments [46]. left-wing, and broad meetings have been devoted to this Following adoption of amendments to the laws the issue lately”, the journalist J. Paleckis wrote [40]. One of number of marriages concluded at clergymen increased such meetings was organised by a group of women of the – in February of 1928 in Riga 68.6 % (205 out of 299) Social Democratic Party because only the civil marriage marriages were concluded at clergymen, 32.4 % (94) would make divorce, which was not possible in Lithuania, were concluded at the registry offices [52]. It was added easier. Change of one’s confession was the only solution. that in the rural districts nobody wanted to hear of the Although this has not been simple, it was practised a registry offices any longer and they would soon be left lot among the Lithuanian intelligence according to the without any job. 67 couples were married at Saldus Ev. journalist. „Priests have been lobbying during last Seima Lutheran parish and just one in the registry office in 1928 election that the civil metrication meant the situation when [53]. Unpopularity of the registry offices among Latgalians a man could live for a couple of months with one woman is certified by the fact that even from 1936 to 1938 in and go to another when the first one was pregnant, then Latgale in rural municipality of Kaplava 32 marriages were follow to the third one, and so on. Common people still concluded of which only 2 (or 6.2 %) were concluded in have this opinion. Therefore tautininki started to work on the registry office, in rural municipality of Skaista these this law with some doubt as it would serve as a powerful figures were 187 and 6 (3.2 %) and in rural municipality tool of lobby for the clergy. The reform experienced of Indra – 168 and 8 (4.8 %) accordingly [63]. difficulties caused by the Concordat paragraph according However, Latvian intelligentsia were proud of the norm to which the clergy was entrusted with maintenance of of the civil marriage. The journalist J. Paleckis informed civil registry records. Therefore there was a draft according readers of the newspaper “Jaunākās Ziņas” [Recent to which the optional metrication, i. e. the Church marriage News] of the discussion of the issue of the civil marriage deeds would be made by clergymen and for those who in Lithuania in 1932 with a sense that Latvia has achieved wanted to have the civil marriage the document would be something that Lithuania still has not. „In all modern made by the registry office. However, this situation could countries where the article of the State Constitution on the cause a lot of inconvenience and inclarity, at divorce in freedom of conscience of citizens is not just empty words particular, because the Church also maintained its current the state is in charge of the registry issues. In Lithuania the legal status. Therefore the radical society of Lithuania Church keeps them in its hands and every attempt to carry demanded unified and mandatory civil metrication. This out this reform at the Seima [Parliament] – to make the civil resolution was passed by the above meeting,” J. Paleckis marriage, civil baptising and burial in graveyards of free wrote. However, the entitlement of the Latvian people to believers – has been met with forceful objections by the conclude the civil marriage was not repealed even during clergy” [40]. The Lithuanian female Catholics supported the authoritarian regime of Kārlis Ulmanis (1934–1940) the Church in its fight against the civil marriage which the politics of which strived to attain women not to have social democrats wanted to introduce [17]. The female salaried work but to manage households of families [33, Catholics were afraid that the divorce could hurt females 84–99]. Divorcing marriages in such families women left more than males because women could be left alone with almost no possibilities to receive job and they could not children. The Roma Catholic priests were strictly opposing provide nor themselves, nor their children. Therefore the the government attempts to implement registration of civil appeal, signed by “unfortunate mothers and wives”, was status deeds in Lithuania. In 1937 a special prayer against made to Prime Minister Kārlis Ulmanis to modify the Law the registry office and for protection of the family against on Marriage to prohibit divorce of marriages where there godlessness was introduced in the Church service. In 1939 were children [2]. Such an initiative came up to the rhetoric prayers for the family and Catholicism were held turning of the authoritarian regime nevertheless it did not gain the against the norm providing for securing a permit from the support in legislation thus giving evidence that the image of registry office. Thus, in Lithuania confessional marriage modern state was essential also for creators of regime. was mandatory until 1940 according to the adopted law of the Russian Empire which was taken over and the civil marriage was an option [58, 88–89]. The journalist Paleckis informed the Latvian readers that Klaipėda region Conclusions where the German law was in force and the registry offices existed was the only place where the civil marriage could be concluded in Lithuania. People who wanted to marry went to Klaipėda region, lived there for a certain period of Adoption of the norm that privileged civil status deeds time and then concluded the marriage contract, however, concluded in registry offices was possible thanks to the there were very few such enthusiasts. The question of popularity of socialistic views within the post-war society. metrication was often discussed also in Lithuania, besides, In the discussion on marriage it turned out that members of
82 Ineta LI PŠ A ISTORIJA 2 0 1 1 / 4 L X I V / 8 4 the Latvian Social Democratic Workers’ Party and national registration of civil status deeds in Latvia and by this the conservative active women, as well as the centric parties state granted clearly equal rights to both believers and had similar democratic views. It could be said that the most non-believers. of public-spirited persons who got involved in politics were tolerant to or had secular world outlook. Besides, their influence in the politics of the early 1920ies was strong enough to expose them on the otherwise-minded. Sources and Literature The situation started to change in 1923 when the centric parties changed their views and admitted that the Church should be granted equal rights to those of the state concerning registration of the civil status deeds because 1. 1928 01 15 Latvijas Sieviešu organizāciju padomes it represented the believers which formed a considerable apspriedes protokols [The Record of the Meeting of part of voters. The voting of centrists on behalf of right- the Council of Latvian Women Organizations]. LA- wing side become critical point in Latvian politics and TVIJAS VALSTS VĒSTURES ARHĪVS [LATVIAN STATE from 1924 to 1928 resulted in quite paternalistic politics as HISTORICAL ARCHIVES] (further – LVVA), fund 2412, regards to social issues. It was evident in the prohibition of digest 2, file 3, p. 6. gambling, casino and betting in race course, the adopting 2. 1934 05 29 Anonīms lūgums (ar parakstu „nelaimīgās of very severe law fighting the boozing and also in adopting mātes un sievas”) Ministru prezidentam Kārlim Ul- the rules to protect the youth against the so called trash manim [Authorless Petition, signed by “Unfortunate and smut literature. Mothers and Wives”, to Prime Minister Karlis Ulma- People’s attempts to achieve adoption of amendments nis]. LVVA, f. 1536, d. 36, f. 78, p. 1. to the law on registration of civil status deeds lasted for 3. Arī Rudzātos un Kapiņos nav dzimtsarakstu nodaļu eight years with more or less intensity (from 1921 to 1928). [There are no Registry Offices also in Rudzati and Requests to achieve adoption of amendments to the Kapini]. Iekšlietu Ministrijas Vēstnesis, 1929, January law were expressed by members and clergy of different 8, nr. 266, p. 2. confessions – Lutherans, Old-Believers, Jewish, Orthodox 4. ASARS, Hermanis. Akls naids [Blind Hatred]. Latvis, Believers, however, the Catholics were leading this stream 1925, May 7, nr. 1081, p. 1. of dissatisfaction. This insistence allows assume that the 5. ASARS, Hermanis. Laulības reforma [Marriage Re- Christian marriage was considered ideal in Latvia not form]. Latvijas Sargs, 1920, December 12, nr. 284, only by a part of rural residents, but also town residents, p. [1.] especially from the circles that had politically right- 6. AUDZEKNIS. Myusu ļauds nagrib un nawar iwest wing opinions. In the meeting of the Latvian Women’s ciwil-registracijas [Our People woun’t and can’t to Organisation temporary board in the beginning of establish Civil Registrations]. Latgolas Wōrds, 1923, 1928 a certain Zeltiņa even asserted that “rural women June 13, nr. 24, p. 2. are certainly against the city women”, because „in 7. Ciwilaktu nudaliu litā [In the Case of the Offices of the Constitutional Assembly a woman defended the Civil Registration Records]. Latgolas Wōrds, 1923, Au- free love” [1]. By free love she had meant the fact that gust 1, nr. 31, p. 4. female Members of Parliament had voted in favour of 8. ČIRPS. Kodeļ nateik atcaltas dzimts sarokstu nudaļas simplification of the divorce procedure some time ago. Still [Why do not the Registry Offices call off]. Latgolas the support to the Church marriage could be based not Vōrds, 1924, August 20, nr. 34, p. 1. only upon Christian beliefs, but just pragmatic approach. 9. Demonstracija pret civiļlaulibom [The Demonstrati- In particular women wanted to conclude marriage in an on against Civil Marriages]. Latgolas Vōrds, 1927, June institution which would provide more guarantee that it 15, nr. 24, p. 4. would not be easy to divorce this marriage, and this was 10. Dzymtsarokstu nudaļas [Registry Offices]. Latgalīts, what the Church promised. This was important in the 1923, August 1, nr. 21, p. 3–4. situation when women were financially dependant upon 11. E. Gr. [GRĀVE, Evelīna]. Dzimtsarakstu nodaļas un men, their chances to settle their life and the life of their viņu uzdevums [Registry Offices and their Task]. Kur- children after losing the source of income were very small. zemes Vārds, 1926, January 20, nr. 15, p. [3]. Families were poorest in Latgale where support to the 12. Jukas ar dzimts sarokstu nūdaļom [Confusion with Christian marriage was highest. I suppose that pragmatic Registry Offices].Latgalīts , 1925, June 27, nr. 17 (205), approach could be strong in all regions of Latvia excepting p. 1. Latgale due to initially seemingly neutral attitude to civil 13. Kai „kristigi“ bremzej dzymtsarokstu lykuma lobo- marriage that changed in the course of campaign realized šonu [How do “the Christians” impede the Change by the clergy and its political lobbies thus representing of the Law on Civil Registry]. Jaunō Straume, 1926, the interest of the faithful. November 25, nr. 13 (154), p. 1. Conclusion of marriage in the registry office was mostly 14. KAIJA, Ivande. Divi lēģeri [Two Camps]. Latvijas recognised by left-wing people and/ or non-believers. Sargs, 1920, December 23, nr. 293, p. [1.] Thus, from year 1928 the optional principle existed in the
Restriction of Freedom of Consciousness in Democracy: Catholic Protests against the Law on Registry of Civil Status in Latvia (1921–1928) ISSN 1392-0456 83 požiūris
15. KAIJA, Ivande. Laulības likums Satversmes sapulcē 26. Latvijas tiesību vēsture (1914 – 2000). Mācību grāmata [Law on Marriage in the Constitutional Assembly]. juridiskajām augstskolām un fakultātēm [Latvian Legal Latvijas Sargs, 1920, December 17, nr. 288, p. [1.] History (1914–2000). Textbook for the Institutions of 16. KAIJA, Ivande. Mana dienasgrāmata: 1918. 23.VII – Higher Education and Faculties of Law]. Ed. D. A. Lē- 1921. 5.IV [My Diary: 1918. 23.VII – 1921. 5.IV]. bers. Rīga: Fonds Latvijas Vēsture, 2000. 528 p. In: Ivandes Kaijas kopoti raksti. 10. sēj., Rīga: Zelta 27. Likums par civilstāvokļu aktu reģistrāciju [The Law Grauds, 1931. 176 lpp. on Civil Registration Records]. In: Likumu un Ministru 17. KARČIAUSKAITĖ, Indrė. The Catholic women’s mo- kabineta noteikumu krājums, 1921. gads [Collection vement in Lithuania (1907–1940). Summary of Docto- of Laws and Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers, ral Dissertation. Kaunas, 2007. 31 p. 1921] (further: LMKNK). Rīga: Tieslietu ministrijas Ko- 18. KŪLIS, P. Ko devušas dzimtsarakstu nodaļas [What difikācijas departaments, 1922, p. 100–1006. have the Registry Offices bestowed]. Jaunākās Ziņas, 28. Likums par laulību [The Law on Marriage]. In: LM- 1924, July 4, nr.147, p. 1. KNK, 1921, p. 91–96. 19. Latvijas Republikas II. Saeimas IV. sesijas 13. sēde 29. Likumu par dzimtsarakstu nodaļām [The Law on Re- 1926. gada 19. novembrī [The 13th Meeting of the gister Offices].Latvijas Kareivis, 1927, April 27, nr. 92, 4th Session of the 2nd Saeima of the Republic of La- p. 1. tvia on November 19, 1926]. In: Latvijas Republikas II. 30. LIPŠA, Ineta. Sabiedriskā tikumība Latvijā demogrā- Saeimas IV. sesija [Shorthand Records of the 2nd Sa- fisko problēmu aspektā, 1918–1940 [Public Morality eima of the Republic of Latvia, the 4th Session]. Rīga: in Latvia in the Facet of Problems of Demography, Latvijas Republikas Saeima, 1926, column 615–650. 1918–1940]. Latvijas Vēstures Institūta Žurnāls, 2009, 20. Latvijas Republikas II. Saeimas V. sesijas 5. sēde 1927. nr. 1, p. 53–80. gada 1. februārī [The 5th Meeting of the 5th Session 31. LIPŠA, Ineta. Sabiedriskā tikumība Latvijā, 1918–1940. of the 2nd Saeima of the Republic of Latvia on Fe- gads. Promocijas darba kopsavilkums. Public Morality bruary 1, 1927]. In: Latvijas Republikas II. Saeimas V. in Latvia, 1918–1940. Summary of the Promotion Pa- sesija [Shorthand Records of the 2nd Saeima of the per. Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte, 2009. 53 p. Republic of Latvia, the 5th Session]. Rīga: Latvijas Re- 32. LIPŠA, Ineta. Sabiedriskā tikumība Latvijā, 1918–1940. publikas Saeima, 1928, column 165–194. gads: promocijas darbs [Public Morality in Latvia, 21. Latvijas Republikas II. Saeimas VII. sesijas 1. sēde 1918–1940: Doctoral Thesis]. Rīga: Latvijas Universi- 1927. gada 7. oktobrī [The 1st Meeting of the 7th Ses- tāte, 2009. 296 p. sion of the 2nd Saeima of the Republic of Latvia on 33. LIPŠA, Ineta. Sievietes tēla veidošana Kārļa Ulmaņa October 7, 1927]. In: Latvijas Republikas II. Saeimas autoritārajā režīmā (1934–1940): ideoloģija un īs- VII. sesija [Shorthand Records of the 2nd Saeima of tenība [Formation of the Image of Woman in the the Republic of Latvia, the 7th Session]. Rīga: Latvijas Authoritarian Regime of Karlis Ulmanis (1934–1940): Republikas Saeima, 1928, column 5–36. Ideology and Reality]. In: Sieviete Latvijas vēsturē. 22. Latvijas Republikas II. Saeimas VIII. sesijas 15. sēde Compailor K. Zellis. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 1928. gada 21. februārī [The 15th Meeting of the 8th 2007, p. 80–99. Session of the 2nd Saeima of the Republic of Latvia on 34. L-KIS. Baznīca un tauta [The Church and the Nation]. February 1, 1928]. In: Latvijas Republikas II. Saeimas Kurzemes Vārds, 1922, December 9, nr. 279, p. 1. VIII. sesija [Shorthand Records of the 2nd Saeima of 35. Makašanu pogostā [In the Rural Municipality of Ma- the Republic of Latvia, the 8th Session]. Rīga: Latvijas kasani]. Latgolas Wōrds, 1922, August 3, nr. 31, p. 4. Republikas Saeima, 1928, column 565–600. 36. Nūtisoti 27 pogosta padūmes lūcekli [27 members of 23. Latvijas Republikas Saeimas VII. sesijas 2. sēde 1925. the Council of the Rural Municipality have been sen- gada 23. janvārī [The 2nd Meeting of the 7th Session tenced]. Zemnīka Ziņas, 1927, December 1, nr. 31, p. of the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia on January 1. 23, 1925]. In: Latvijas Republikas Saeimas VII. sesija 37. Nūtīsots dekāns [The Sentenced Dean]. Jaunō Strau- [Shorthand Records of the Saeima of the Republic of me, 1927, December 15, nr. 48 (206), p. 4. Latvia, the 7th Session]. Rīga: Latvijas Republikas Sa- 38. NUVĀROTOJS. Goridznīku tisošonas [Judicatures of eima, 1925, column 41–84. the Clergymen]. Zemnīka Ziņas, 1927, November 3, 24. Latvijas Republikas Saeimas VIII. sesijas 2. sēde 1925. nr. 29, p. 3. gada 22. aprīlī [The 2nd Meeting of the 8th Session 39. OZOLIŅŠ, Al[eksandrs]. Dzimtsarakstu nodaļas of the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia on April 22, [Register Offices]. Kurzemes Vārds, 1925, May 30, 1925]. In: Latvijas Republikas Saeimas VIII. sesija nr. 119, p. 1-2. [Shorthand Records of the Saeima of the Republic of 40. PAĻECKIS, J. Ko savienojis altārs – to atraisīs tikai Latvia, the 8th Session]. Rīga: Latvijas Republikas Sa- kaps [Who has been joined by the Altar – that will be eima, 1925, column 44–80. unchained only by the Grave]. Jaunākās Ziņas, 1932, 25. Latvijas soc. sieviešu Izglītības biedrības padome [The June 6, p. 6. Council of Educational Society of the Latvian Socialist 41. Par ciwillauleibu [About the Civil Marriage]. Latgolas Women]. Jaunākās Ziņas, 1917, August 16, nr. 198, p. 2. Vōrds, 1920, december 29, nr. 67, p. 2.
84 Ineta LI PŠ A ISTORIJA 2 0 1 1 / 4 L X I V / 8 4 42. Pārgrozījumi un papildinājumi likumā par civils- of Latvia, the 2nd Session]. Rīga: Latvijas Republikas tāvokļa aktu reģistrāciju [Amendments to the Law on Satversmes sapulce, 1921, p. 1587–1633. Civil Registration Records]. In: LMKNK, 1928. gads. 57. Satversmes Sapulces III. sesijas 4. sēde 1. februārī Rīga: Tieslietu ministrijas Kodifikācijas departaments, 1921. gadā [The 4th Meeting of the 3rd Session of 1929, p. 62–63. the Constitutional Assembly on February 1, 1921]. In: 43. Pārgrozījumi un papildinājumi likumā par laulību Latvijas Satversmes sapulces stenogrammas, 3. sesija [Amendments to the Law on Marriage]. In: LMKNK, [Shorthand Records of the Constitutional Assembly 1928. gads, p. 62. of Latvia, the 3rd Session]. Rīga: Latvijas Republikas 44. Pārgrozījumi un papildinājumi likumā par laulību un Satversmes sapulce, 1921, p. 37–78. civilstāvokļa aktu reģistrāciju [Amendments to the 58. ŠIDIŠKIENĖ, Irma. Institucinės santuokos apeigos: Law on Marriage and Civil Registration Records]. Val- socialinės tvarkos įteisinimas Lietuvoje XIX a. II pu- dības Vēstnesis, 1925, January 19, nr. 14, p. 2. sėje – XXI a. pradžioje [Institutional Marriage Ritu- 45. PASTORS, A[lfons]. Dzimtsarokstu nudaļas [Register als: Legitimation of Social Order in Lithuania from Offices]. Latgolas Vōrds, 1928, July 18, nr. 29, p. 1–2. the 2nd Half of the 19th Century to the Beginning 46. PASTORS, A[lfons]. Lykums par laulibu un civiļsto- of the 21st Century]. Lituanistica, 2006, t. 68, nr. 4, vukļa aktu registraciju [The Law on Marriage and p. 84–89. Available also at:
Restriction of Freedom of Consciousness in Democracy: Catholic Protests against the Law on Registry of Civil Status in Latvia (1921–1928) ISSN 1392-0456 85 požiūris
Tikėtina, kad nuostatos, kuri suteikė viršenybę civilinės civilinės būklės aktus. Prašymus priimti įstatymo pakei- metrikacijos skyriuose sudarytiems civilinės būklės ak- timus pateikė įvairių konfesijų atstovai ir dvasininkija tams, priėmimą nulėmė socialistinių pažiūrų populiarumas – liuteronai, sentikiai, žydai, stačiatikiai. Visgi katalikai pokarinėje visuomenėje. Diskusijos santuokos klausimu buvo pačioje nepasitenkinimo bangos viršūnėje. Toks atskleidė panašias Latvijos socialdemokratinės darbininkų atkaklumas leidžia teigti, kad krikščionišką santuoką La- partijos narių, nacionalinės konservatorių partijos aktyvis- tvijoje idealu laikė ne tik dalis kaimo gyventojų, bet taip čių bei centro partijų demokratines pažiūras. Galima teigti, pat ir miestiečiai, ypač priklausiusieji dešiniųjų politinių kad dauguma į politiką įsitraukusių visuomeniškai nusitei- pažiūrų grupei. kusių asmenų buvo tolerantiški arba išreiškė pasaulietišką Visgi bažnytinės santuokos propagavimas gali būti grin- požiūrį. Be to, jų politinė įtaka XX a. 3 deš. pradžioje buvo džiamas ne tik krikščionišku tikėjimu, bet ir pragmatiniu pakankama, kad paveiktų ir kitaminčius. požiūriu. Moterys ypač troško sudaryti santuoką institu- Nuostata, kuri suteikė išskirtinę teisę valstybei registruoti cijoje, kuri teikė daugiau garantijų, kad tokią santuoką civilinės būklės aktus, sukėlė daugelio žmonių pasiprieši- nutraukti būtų sunku, o tai Bažnyčia ir žadėjo. Tai buvo nimą dar 1920 m., kai Steigiamasis Seimas ir visuomenė svarbu dėl to, kad moterys finansiškai priklausė nuo vyrų; pradėjo diskutuoti šių įstatymų klausimais. Situacija ėmė jų galimybės susitvarkyti savo ir savo vaikų gyvenimą pra- keistis 1923 m., kai centro partijų požiūris pasikeitė ir radus pragyvenimo šaltinį buvo labai menkos. Latgala, kur jos pripažino, kad Bažnyčiai turi būti suteiktos vienodos gyveno daugiausiai nepasiturinčių šeimų, labiausiai rėmė teisės kaip ir valstybei registruojant civilinės būklės aktus, krikščionišką santuoką. Manau, kad pragmatinis požiūris nes ji atstovavo tikintiesiems, kurie sudarė nemažą dalį galėjo būti stiprus visuose Latvijos regionuose, išskyrus rinkėjų. Dešiniuosius palaikantis centristų balsavimas buvo Latgalą, dėl pradžioje atrodžiusio neutralaus požiūrio į pagrindinis Latvijos politikos lūžio taškas, nulėmęs gana civilinę santuoką, kuris pasikeitė dėl dvasininkijos ir jos paternalistinę socialinę politiką nuo 1924 m. iki 1928 m. politinių lobistų, atstovaujančių tikinčiųjų interesams Tai akivaizdžiai atsiskleidė uždraudžiant lošimus, kazino įgyvendintos kampanijos. ir lažybas lenktynėse, priimant itin griežtą su girtavimu Santuokos sudarymą civilinės metrikacijos biure labiau- kovojantį įstatymą bei taisykles, saugančias jaunimą nuo siai palaikė kairieji ir/arba netikintieji. Taigi nuo 1928 m. La- nepadorios literatūros. 1928 m. tikinčiųjų gyventojų ne- tvijoje įsigaliojo laisvo pasirinkimo principas registruojant pasitenkinimas nulėmė įstatymų pakeitimus, ir bažnyčiai civilinės būklės aktus, ir tuo valstybė suteikė akivaizdžiai buvo suteiktos lygios teisės kaip ir valstybei registruojant lygias teises tiek tikintiesiems, tiek ir netikintiesiems.
86 Ineta LI PŠ A