Gay druzenje istra


SUBMITTED BY: Guest

DATE: Dec. 8, 2018, 2:31 p.m.

FORMAT: Text only

SIZE: 13.1 kB

HITS: 266

  1. ❤Gay druzenje istra
  2. ❤ Click here: http://lerhiaturtia.darkandlight.ru/?dt&keyword=gay+druzenje+istra&source=bitbin.it2_dt
  3. Želim upoznati muškarca koji voli malo jače cure i koji ima iskustva. The Rabbinical Centre of Europe issued a statement that it was disturbed by comparisons between the initiative and the Nazi regime and totalitarian fascism, and that such statements were inappropriate and insulting to the memory of millions of their victims.
  4. Ubrzo ćete doživjeti vrhunac! The referendum was approved following a vote in the on 8 November in which 104 of the 151 MPs voted in favor of holding a referendum. The Constitutional Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the referendum because it was not officially requested to do so by the Croatian Parliament.
  5. Pa naravno da ste umorni. The called for Croatian Catholics to vote in favour of the constitutional amendment. Results by municipality, showing the tout with the majority of votes in each For Against After processing all of the ballots, the State Election Commission announced that 65. Imam sve ali sam usamljena a vremena za izlaženje nemam. We respect everyone's opinions, but we want the institution of marriage and family, which is imperiled by social developments today, to be guarded for the future of the Croatian people and a good in all of gay druzenje istra. ZA PRIKAZ CIJELE STRANICE SA SVIM OGLASIMA KLIKNITE Ako želite upoznati neku vruću damu ili možda muškarcastariju ili mlađubilo da je razvedena, udata, sama, u vezi. Najkraći put do gay kontakta u Prime je da ostavite oglas Samo jedan način jamči da ćete dobiti intimni gay kontakt u Puli. The only political party of the ruling coalition that supported the constitutional review was the. The initiative gay druzenje istra supported by conservative political parties, the as well as by several other faith groups. To nam daje bezbroj mogućnosti da naučimo i vidimo nešto novo i unapredimo sebe. Nikad se ne zna šta donosi file, ali članstvo u našoj gej internet zajednici će Vam, sasvim izvesno, doneti sjajnu zabavu i mnoštvo lepih poznanstava. I nemoj ni slučajno pomisliti da sam očajna što ovako tražim nekoga samo sam došla do zaključka da u mom društvu nema ono što želim-hoću i tražim!?.
  6. Sex oglasi Rijeka - Sada učinite i drugi, lagan i jednostavan korak, registrujte se i postanite deo jedne velike gej zajednice. The president furthermore commented that marriage has already been defined in Croatian law as a union of man and woman, but that the referendum question has a strong psychological effect with an underlying discriminatory message.
  7. A constitutional referendum was held in on 1 December 2013. The proposed amendment to the would define marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, which would create a constitutional prohibition against. After processing all of the ballots, the State Election Commission announced that 65. Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013 Are you in favor of the constitution of the Republic of Croatia being amended with a provision stating that marriage is matrimony between a woman and a man? Translation: I vote against! The initiative was supported by conservative political parties, the as well as by several other faith groups. The initiative was a reaction to the proposal to legalize same-sex partnership. The referendum was approved following a vote in the on 8 November in which 104 of the 151 MPs voted in favor of holding a referendum. The group Citizens Voting Against was formed from 88 civil society organizations led , Center for Peace Studies and , supported by numerous public persons, film actors and actresses, academics, activists and politicians, including media such as and and musicians, such as , , , , and others. The Vote Against campaign claimed that the public faces of the initiative Željka Markić, Krešimir Planinić, Krešimir Miletić, Ladislav Ilčić, as well as members of their families, were simultaneously leaders of the referendum effort and candidates of the right wing political party HRAST. Željka Markić was furthermore criticized by opponents for allegedly being a member of the controversial Catholic organization. The political willingness in the to call a referendum was uncertain given that a left-wing coalition which opposed the proposed amendment held a majority of the seats. However, in a session held on 8 November, the Sabor voted to call a national referendum, with 104 votes in favour, 13 against and five abstentions. A former Prime Minister and an independent MP proposed that the request for the review of constitutionality of the referendum be submitted to the Constitutional Court. However, the two largest parties, the HDZ and SDP, did not embrace the proposal and it was rejected by 75 votes against and 39 in favour. The only political party of the ruling coalition that supported the constitutional review was the. After a two-day session, on 14 November the announced that there is no reason to over-rule the parliamentary vote on the referendum. The judges emphasized that the constitutionality of the referendum itself was not considered, because they believed that the Sabor had expressed its legal willingness to deem the referendum question compliant with the Constitution. However, they further emphasized that any possible amendment to the Constitution that defined marriage as a union of man and woman could not affect further development of the legal framework of the institution of extramarital and same-sex unions. The Constitutional Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the referendum because it was not officially requested to do so by the Croatian Parliament. The judges were divided in opinion on whether the Constitutional Court should review the constitutionality of the referendum. Several of them pointed out that the Constitutional Court must give a statement on what the constitutional definition of marriage means for the position of LGBT minorities in Croatia. Others explained that the Constitutional Court did not need to respond to citizen proposals, because only the Sabor had the right to request a review of the constitutionality of the referendum question, but which it has refused to do when making the decision to call a referendum. The Prime Minister told that he would vote against the proposal. President called the referendum unnecessary, without practical political consequences regardless of the outcome, and a waste of taxpayer money. The president furthermore commented that marriage has already been defined in Croatian law as a union of man and woman, but that the referendum question has a strong psychological effect with an underlying discriminatory message. If successful, this will only strengthen the message that we are not willing to accept diversity, that we want to stop throughout the democratic world a clear process of equalization of rights of all people, regardless of their different personal characteristics, in particular their sexual orientation — Ivo Josipović , leader of the conservative said he would vote in favor. Four other parties in the Parliament also supported the referendum; in total 104 of 151 members of the supported it. A similar statement was later made by. The called for Croatian Catholics to vote in favour of the constitutional amendment. Representatives from the Croatian Bishops' Conference, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Reformed Christian Calvinist Church, the Baptist Union of Croatia, the Evangelical Pentecostal Church, the Bet Israel Jewish Community and the Mesihat of Croatia issued a joint statement in support of the referendum on 12 November. However, the Croatian Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Jewish Community of Zagreb opposed the proposed amendment. Cardinal encouraged support for the amendment in a letter that was read in churches where he singled out heterosexual marriage as being the only kind of union that is capable of biologically producing children. If marriage is a union between a woman and a man, then it is not the same as other types of unions. The Church does not promote any kind of discrimination when it backs that definition of marriage. On the contrary, we can say that the danger exists today of marriage itself being discriminated against, by presenting it as something that it cannot be. The Church wants to preserve marriage and wants the definition of it be clearly spelled out, so that the institution of marriage and the institution of family are preserved for future generations. The Church is therefore not against anyone, it is open for dialogue with everyone, but wants to make it clear that some things can not be made equal. We respect everyone's opinions, but we want the institution of marriage and family, which is imperiled by societal developments today, to be guarded for the future of the Croatian people and a good in all of us. He remarked that the referendum was an opportunity for Christians to practically manifest their fate by voting yes, by respecting God's intent and serving the Truth. He echoed his previous statements that marriage and family are not a private affair of the individual which they can shape as they see fit, but are of wider social significance and must not be experimented upon. Media portrayal The initiative and their goals were generally unfavorably reported by the mainstream Croatian media. On the day of the referendum the initiative decided to forbid access to their headquarters to the journalists belonging to a group of selected media whom the initiative accused of bias, unprofessionalism and plagiarism. Among these were the , the public broadcasting company, the most visited Croatian Internet portals , Net. The initiative required of all of the journalists to submit their cell phone numbers, their home addresses, e-mail addresses as well as the name and e-mail address of their editors. This was strongly denounced by the who invited all of the media to boycott the coverage of initiative on the referendum day, and emphasized the potential for the abuse of private information. In the last few weeks we have seen a number of anonymous vulgar letters sent to respected journalists in which they are being insulted and threatened by unknown persons, and obvious semi-fascists, simply because of their position on the issue. A poll conducted in June 2013 revealed that 55. Another poll from November revealed that 54. The same poll revealed that 85. A poll published by two days before the vote showed that 59% of respondents would vote for the proposal, 31% against and 10% did not answer. Results by municipality, showing the option with the majority of votes in each For Against After processing all of the ballots, the State Election Commission announced that 65. The counties most supportive of changes were in the Croatian South: , , , and. This relative polarization of results between Croatian North and South has been interpreted by sociologists as closely connected to economic indicators as well as the extent to which the regions were affected by the in the 1990s. In the capital , 43. Statistical analysis by electoral units has also indicated a strong correlation to political choices, with regions whose citizens voted for right-wing parties generally voting in favor of the referendum, while regions who voted for the left-wing coalition were largely against the referendum - albeit with many exceptions. Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013 Choice Votes % Yes 946,433 65. Milanović pointed out that the referendum was allowed by the constitution, that it is in no way related to the government, and no way does it change the existing definition of marriage according to Croatian laws. He further announced the upcoming enactment of the Law on Partnership, which will enable same-sex persons to form a lifetime partnership union. Such a union will share the same rights as that of marriage proper, apart from the fact that gay couples will not be able to adopt children, though they will be allowed to have custody of them. Pusić contended that the threshold had protected certain groups from discrimination by a minority, but care was not taken to specifically exempt human, civil and minority rights from being the subject of referendum questions. The Rabbinical Centre of Europe issued a statement that it was disturbed by comparisons between the initiative and the Nazi regime and totalitarian fascism, and that such statements were inappropriate and insulting to the memory of millions of their victims. Croatian bishop described the government official's opposition to the referendum as shocking, unacceptable and undemocratic, emphasizing that Croats are Catholic people, cherishing traditions by which they have lived for centuries. He accused the government of the population, being eager to erase their traditional values, and has called for their. Retrieved 2 December 2013. Retrieved 2 December 2012. Željka Markić banned Index and other medias! Retrieved 9 January 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2013.

comments powered by Disqus