The European Union’s highest court has ruled that same-sex marriages performed in one member state must be recognised in all others—a legal watershed that resolves a question of rights whilst leaving untouched the deeper, more unsettling question of what marriage itself has become.
Illustration by GAY45You can simply scroll past—but please don't overlook the importance of an independent queer press. Time is now or never. We are grateful! Can't donate? Sharing our work helps more than you think You can simply scroll past — but please don’t overlook the importance of an independent queer press. You can simply scroll past—but please don't overlook the importance of an independent queer press. Time is now or never.
We are grateful! Can't donate? Sharing our work helps more than you think
Queer voices disappear without independent journalism to amplify them.
We document what others won't touch.
We hold power to account when it threatens our communities.
This work exists only because you choose to fund it directly.
Donate over €25/month and receive our limited-edition tote bag — a badge of resistance, a statement that you stand for fearless journalism.
Queer voices disappear without independent journalism to amplify them.
We document what others won't touch.
We hold power to account when it threatens our communities.
This work exists only because you choose to fund it directly.
Donate over €25/month and receive our limited-edition tote bag — a badge of resistance, a statement that you stand for fearless journalism.
In Luxembourg last month, the European Union’s highest court issued a ruling that seemed, on its surface, straightforward: any same-sex marriage performed in one member state must be recognised in all others. The judges were careful to clarify that no country need legalise such unions domestically—only that a marriage validly contracted abroad must be treated as precisely that, a marriage, with all attendant rights and protections. The decision hinged on EU principles of free movement and the right to private and family life. To deny recognition, the court held, was unlawful.
The case itself was modest in scale but potent in implication. Two Polish men married in Berlin in 2018. Upon returning home, they found Polish authorities unwilling to register their union, citing the country’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The EU judges ruled that this refusal violated European law. Polish officials must now recognise that marriage as they would any other. Whether Poland will in fact respect the ruling remains an open question. A relevant example comes from November 2023, when the European Court of Human Rights ordered Romania to recognise same-sex couples. In response, the then prime minister, Marcel Ciolacu, remarked that the country was “not prepared… neither the first nor the last time when we will ignore an ECHR decision.” Numerous judgments of the ECHR have indeed been ignored, and the European Commission has imposed no sanctions.
Across Poland, reactions cleaved along predictable lines. Jurek, a resident of Wrocław, greeted the news with cautious relief. He could marry abroad and return without his union vanishing at the border—though he conceded, with a weary pragmatism, that “it probably doesn’t change much” in daily life. Alicja, another Polish citizen, was similarly measured. She called the verdict “not a breakthrough” under present politics but insisted rights must expand “gradually”. Many young Poles, she noted, marry abroad out of necessity. She would happily return if her marriage were recognised; Poland remains, in her estimation, “a good, prospering, clean and safe country”.
Conservative voices were less sanguine. Ordo Iuris, a Polish legal institute, denounced the ruling as judicial overreach, insisting that marriage definitions belong to national sovereignty. Slovakia’s government, which has likewise enshrined a ban on same-sex marriage in its constitution, echoed the complaint. Brussels, meanwhile, maintained that such measures conflict with EU law. ILGA Europe, the Continent’s largest LGBT lobbying group, hailed the decision as “a significant step” toward protecting couples in jurisdictions that still offer no recognition.
Yet the ruling, for all its symbolic weight, raises a question it does not answer: what, precisely, is marriage for? The institution is not merely personal but economic and social, a scaffold upon which entire industries are built. The American wedding sector alone is valued at roughly seventy billion dollars. Many rituals we assume to be ancient—tiered cakes, matching bridesmaids, extravagant rings—were in fact invented by twentieth-century advertisers and retailers. Capitalism, it turns out, has always had designs on love.
Scholars offer competing interpretations. Lisa Duggan warns of what she calls “homonormativity”—the risk that marriage equality might simply assimilate LGBT people into a conventional, consumerist model of domesticity rather than challenge its underlying assumptions. Feminist theorists note that marriage has historically enforced gendered labour divisions that served capitalist ends. As Nancy Fraser observes, when women entered the workforce, the ideal merely shifted to a two-earner household, marketed as liberation even as wages stagnated and insecurity deepened.
Queer theorists, meanwhile, caution that privileging marriage risks sidelining alternative kinship structures—polyamorous families, communal households, chosen networks of care. Sociologist Gayle Rubin observed decades ago that Western societies tend to valorise only those gay relationships that are “stable, long-term and monogamous”. The focus on marriage, critics argue, narrows the horizon of LGBT rights to a campaign for assimilation, rendering invisible those who live otherwise.
The Luxembourg ruling resolves one legal dilemma whilst reopening another, more fundamental: marriage is both a protected right and a powerful institution shaped by law, culture and economy. Extending it to all couples is undeniably a victory for equality. But it also invites reflection on how this ancient arrangement might adapt—or resist adaptation—to the complexities of modern Europe. The court has answered a question of law. The question of meaning remains open.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.
* * *
When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know.
* * *
You can listen to our podcast Queer News & Journalism on your favourite platform or go to our YouTube Channel @GAY45mag.
* * *
Let us know what you think at [email protected].
* * *
Submit a letter to the editor at [email protected].
* * *
We appreciate it. Thanks for reading.
