Should Switzerland allow marriage for all?

Hosted by:

As a correspondent at the Federal Palace for SWI swissinfo.ch, I report on federal politics for the Swiss Abroad. After studying at the Academy of Journalism and Media at the University of Neuchâtel, my career path initially took me to various regional media, working in the editorial offices of Journal du Jura, Canal 3 and Radio Jura bernois. Since 2015, I have been working in the multilingual editorial department of SWI swissinfo.ch, where I continue to practise my profession with passion.

Deutsch

Soll die Schweiz die Ehe für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare öffnen?
Français

La Suisse doit-elle ouvrir le mariage aux couples homosexuels? Original
Italiano

La Svizzera deve aprire il matrimonio alle coppie omosessuali?
日本語

同性婚、スイスで合法化されるべき？
中文

瑞士应该给予所有人结婚的权利吗？
Русский

Швейцария предоставила однополым парам право заключать браки

Same-sex couples can get married in many European countries, but not in Switzerland. In December parliament passed a bill on marriage for all, but opponents collected the signatures necessary for a referendum. On September 26, Swiss voters will have their say.

From the article Equality versus tradition: Swiss to vote on the future of marriage

Where do you stand on this issue? Let us know in the comments below and remember our guidelines for commenting.

From the article ‘Marriage for all is a huge step on the road to equality’

From the article ‘Marriage for all just creates new kinds of inequality’

You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here . Please join us!

If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.

Sort by

曠野洋一 2022-07-26 01:58

The following contribution has been automatically translated from JA.

Does the law have to allow it?
I think the problem is that the law responds differently depending on whether you are married or not, and there is a difference in welfare.
I think it is up to the individual to decide who to associate with.

法律で認めなければいけないのでしょうか？
結婚しているか、していないかで法律の対応が違い、福祉に差があることが問題のように思います。
誰と付き合うかは個人の自由だと思います。

Fanol_21 2021-11-02 12:17

Sure everyone should be free to marry whoever he/she wants, that's democracy!

Philipp 2021-09-25 11:55

The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

I find today's egalitarianism to k......en. It's diversity that makes life interesting. Period.

Ich finde die heutige Gleichmacherei zum k......en. Es ist die Vielfalt die das Leben interessant macht. Punkt.

vader 2021-09-22 18:59

why is marriage even regulated in any form, period? If anyone has ever researched the actual history of marriage, or the institute thereof, they would immediately realize that it was an intervention of sorts by some Caesar of the old roman days. In other words, the first step to create a super society. Does this ring a bell? Government should stay the hell out of it! Period! And so should any nosey neighbor for that matter!

Reid 2021-09-21 23:03

Life is becoming ridiculous reading the comments on the topic actually I agree with most yes why not let people marry who they want including animals or even inanimate objects or marry groups of persons if it leads to happier societies why bot .However my main issue coming back to single persons is it is absolutely unjust that married persons benefit from tax reductions.maternity and paternity leave benefits ,maternity leave receiving child benefit when they produce children .Yet single persons receive no such benefits working paying their taxes.Also note single persons not producing children also helps the planet as producing endless populations is robbing the planet of resources no wonder there is a climate crisis there are too many people on the planet.

LynxVegas 2021-09-20 16:26

Interesting that so many women commentators here want to live together in a collective, to combine resources. They can already. No need to get married. But, what's stopping them? Religion.

Rafiq Tschannen 2021-09-22 10:32

@LynxVegas

even religion should not stop them. As you say 'what is stopping them'. Go ahead. Just do it.

vader 2021-09-16 19:10

who ever gave anyone the right to impose any regulation on any type of relationship? The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. The damn religious organizations, or let's just call the cults have always tried to control. That's what it really is about!

vader 2021-09-16 19:07

of course!

nayamet787@ppp998.com 2021-09-09 14:04

Bring it and please allow more than 2 women to get married.

I'm a Swiss millennial woman and a single mother of 2 children. I want to get married to my 3 best friends, all women and all single mothers.

We want a marriage of 4 women so we're a legal family. In between us we have 5 children and being a family will make it easier to get insurance and to pay for a single family home.

Irina-Gakik 2021-09-08 15:44

I want the married tax deductions. Let me marry my 10 best friends. We're all women if that makes a difference and we'd love to live in a subsidized Genosenschaft apartment with 6-7 bedrooms as we have a low income as a family.

Why should only two people benefit from those economic advantages?

Gpwt 2021-09-08 07:43

Facts.....
Homosexuality is not a choice.
Homophobia is.
Is Homosexual orientation acquired or natural?

From the scientific community:
The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
Also, over 450 species have been proven to exhibit homosexuality.
(American Psychological Association 2010).”
Lamanna MA, Riedmann A, Stewart SD (2014). Marriages, Families, and Relationships: Making Choices in a Diverse Society. Cengage Learning. p. 82. ISBN 978-1305176898. Retrieved February 11, 2016.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764

Gomirko 2021-09-07 13:32

The following contribution has been automatically translated from IT.

You can open up for marriage, no child adoption!

Può aprire al matrimonio, no adozione figli!

hilih22243 2021-09-07 13:02

How about marriage between 4 or 5 people as one family? Why discriminate? I would like to marry my 5 best women friends so we can share resources.

LynxVegas 2021-09-06 12:04

I've just voted NO on this issue, as the system of marriage is broken. If it worked, the divorce rate would not be over 55%. But, if marriage is allowed for all, maybe all those who want to get married should have a trial marriage (not actual) and live together for 3 years. Try it and see, with no contract to break later. And make it more difficult to get divorced. Min 10 years married should sort out the serious from the not so serious couples.

jim_knopf 2021-09-17 15:18

@LynxVegas

In my opinion your argument's don't really justify a NO. Your opinion if marriage is a good or a bad concept doesn't really matter in this voting.

The question is, if homosexual couples should get the same rights as heterosexual couples, and not wether or not the concept of marriage is a good one.

A clear YES from me!

Nica 2021-09-18 17:38

@LynxVegas

Das ist sehr Schade, haben sie Nein gestimmt. Es wäre sehr nett, wenn Sie mich meine eigenen Erfahrungen machen liessen und nicht von sich auf andere schliessen. Ich lebe bereits 13 Jahre glücklich in eingetragener Partnerschaft! Also bereits mehr als sie sich wünschen😉 und habe aber immer noch nicht die gleichen Rechte. Was würden Sie machen, wenn man ihnen sagen würde, dass Sie nicht heiraten dürfen? Einfach weil Sie es sind. Nett ist das nicht. Sorry.

ericarubyweiss 2021-09-23 19:56

@LynxVegas

This is unfair to those who cannot live past 3 years (e.g. terminally ill couples who wish to be married).

hilih22243 2021-09-04 18:13

My whole family will vote against it. We are for making all marriage illegal. Let marriage stay in the church and not at city hall.

Gpwt 2021-09-08 07:41

@hilih22243

Fine if you wanna separate church and state, then you get no benefits from the government for your marriage. But the church pay you.

jim_knopf 2021-09-17 15:20

@hilih22243

This question is not a religious one!

The term of Marriage is also used in our law. A yes doesn't mean they'd automatically be allowed in your church.

It is a legal and not a religious matter!

Thank you for your attention.

Nica 2021-09-18 17:40

@hilih22243

Interessant. Also weil sie nicht heiraten wollen solle. Es auch alle anderen nicht können, sie aber gerne wollen? Sie müssen ja nicht heiraten! Aber ich würde sehr gerne. Wäre toll wenn Sie sich das noch mal überlegen und für mich, ein Ja einwerfen🙏

Rita Bodmaier 2021-09-04 13:53

The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

Every human being has a male and a female side in him. Some live more (or only) the female, the other the male. Depending on the non-same-sex or same-sex people attract each other. Why should one be better than the other????

Jeder Mensch hat eine männliche und eine weibliche Seite in sich. Die einen leben mehr (oder nur) die Weibliche, die andern die Männliche. Je nach dem ziehen sich Nichtgleichgeschlechtliche oder Gleichgeschlechtliche Menschen an. Warum sollen die einen besser sein als die andern????

Starkfyre 2021-09-04 10:17

Assuming that less than 5% of the population identify as LGBTQ+ (a statistic from several studies) then I don't understand why so many people are so strong in their denial, quoting such rubbish as it being a risk to the viability of our species. Funny that the same people who are predominantly anti-science have to resort to science in an attempt to back their claims. Love is love, don't let the narrow mindedness of one minority group impact the lives of another.

ProperD 2021-08-25 15:10

Actually, why should same-sex partners want to indulge in an institution designed for opposite-sex partners? I mean, why not create their own institution and bring their idea before the courts? A man and woman can create children. A same-sex couple cannot produce children unless they go outside of their relationship. There's no other way for them to have children. Sure, there are some opposite-sex couples who can't reproduce but that's due to some underlying condition. Same-sex couples can never reproduce by default. What I'm getting at is why do same-sex couples want to imitate opposite-sex couples so badly? The couples are not the same and different rules apply.

There's nothing "man can do" to make them "equal" either. It's much like taking a pineapple and saying "now we're going to call it an apple." But it's not an apple and you can't use the two in the same way. The only similarity is that "they are both fruit." Same-sex couples and hetero couples are both humans...but they're not the same as a couple when it comes to nature. One couple is naturally designed to sustain life the other isn't. And no this has nothing to do with "being modern." It's the same movie...different actors.

When it's all said-and-done, we cannot alter the course of nature no more than we can make giraffes give birth to crocodiles. The universe is designed to run on a certain course and any deviation from that course always results in depression, loss, and confusion in society. No matter what mankind does...they can never make same-sex couples feel equal because it's not designed in the blueprint of nature for it to be so....and love has nothing to do with it.

Isabelle Bannerman SWI SWISSINFO.CH 2021-08-30 12:47

@ProperD

Hello, thank you for your contribution. How could a newly created institution look like?

ProperD 2021-08-31 17:57

@Isabelle Bannerman

@ISABELLE BANNERMAN....I think you should ask same-sex couples your question. However, IMHO....I don't think nature needs humankind to try and improve upon its structure. Our rights are innate and every person in a same-sex relationship has the "innate right" to participate in an opposite-sex relationship and benefit from that union in society. When a same-sex couple decides to create a union, they automatically forfeit the rights to those benefits.

Isabelle Bannerman SWI SWISSINFO.CH 2021-09-08 09:51

@ProperD

Excluding people from societal practices and structures amounts to discrimination. I would be curious to hear how same-sex couples would design a unique institution and whether it would be desirable for them.

ProperD 2021-09-08 19:48

@Isabelle Bannerman

@ISABELLE BANNERMAN...Going by your logic, we should modify laws to satisfy anyone's "feelings" because it's wrong to "leave them out" as if there's no definitive structure to the universe. For example, why not allow people to marry their pets, their cars, a tree, themselves! I mean it's all about love right...??? And to leave these people out excludes them from "societal practices and structures" according to you.

Skrul 2021-08-25 15:05

The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

Marriage yes should be allowed, raising children no, because the children have to pay for most of the teasing then not the adults.
And if who now comes with the statement, you can talk about it in school, which shows how little he has a clue about children's education and school.

Heiraten ja sollte erlaubt werden, Kinder gross ziehen nein, denn die Kinder müssen das meiste an Hänseleien dann ausbaden nicht die Erwachsenen.
Und wenn wer jetzt mit der Aussage kommt, man könne ja in der Schule darüber reden, der zeigt wie wenig er von Kinder Erziehung und Schule eine Ahnung hat.

jim_knopf 2021-09-17 15:22

The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

@Skrul

Is that fact or conjecture?

Ist das eine Tatsache oder eine Vermutung?

Skrul 2021-09-17 18:35

The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

@jim_knopf

Fact

Tatsache

Frank-11 2021-08-25 12:44

No. Why?

Over millions of years of evolution Mother Nature has improved the human species and allowed it grow to become the dominant group on Earth. In recent decades we've disconnected from nature, damaged it, warped it, and the planet is dying.

Similarly, marriage is a union of biological XX and XY for the key purpose of procreation to continue our species.

Two XX can live together. Two XY can live together, but providing them with the same status as an XX XY union risks this natural process and may impact upon our long term viability as a species.