This story was produced in partnership with Reporting Democracy, a cross-border journalism platform run by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network.
When Speaker of Parliament Richard Raši announced the tally – 90 votes out of 99 MPs present – a ripple of disbelief swept through Slovakia’s parliament.
Prime Minister Robert Fico, leader of the populist Smer party, had known his governing coalition lacked the three-fifths supermajority needed to amend the constitution. Yet on that Friday morning, September 26, several opposition MPs crossed the aisle, and the numbers fell into place. Grinning before television cameras, Fico hailed the result as “a huge bulwark against progressivism” and vowed to toast it “with a shot of spirits in the caucus.”
The celebration was more than bravado. It crowned months of culture-war manoeuvring that divided Slovakia’s opposition and set the country on a potential collision course with the European Union. Signed swiftly by President Peter Pellegrini, the constitutional amendment will take effect on November 1, 2025. It defines two biologically based sexes, bans surrogacy, embeds equal pay between men and women, and asserts the state’s sovereignty “particularly in matters of national identity, culture and ethics.”
Critics warn that the measure – a smoke screen meant to deflect attention from the third fiscal consolidation package that will affect both businesses and individuals – could allow politicians to sidestep European legal obligations in the name of tradition. Supporters call it a defence of “normality.”
Either way, the move has reshaped Slovakia’s political landscape and deepened the divide between conservatives and liberals. The change came just two weeks before Slovakia marked the third anniversary of the killing of two queer people outside a gay venue in Bratislava.
A surprise majority
Until the eve of the vote, the government appeared short of the 90 votes required to change the constitution. Fico’s coalition – Smer, Hlas, and the nationalist Slovak National Party (SNS) – held only 78 reliable votes in the 150-member chamber. On September 25, the prime minister even cancelled a proposed secret ballot and insisted this would be “the last time” his MPs supported such a change.
By morning, something had shifted. Two members of the conservative opposition movement Slovensko – Marek Krajčí and Rastislav Krátky – defected, giving Fico the numbers. Their reversal stunned colleagues, especially as both had pledged just the day before to vote against the changes.
“The government’s proposals cut into the human rights agenda, but the main goal is clearly to divide the opposition,” political scientist Juraj Marušiak had warned months earlier, noting Smer’s past success in luring Christian-conservative voters. In 2014, the party had helped enshrine marriage in the constitution as solely a union between a man and a woman.
After the vote, Fico told reporters he had spoken with “influential people” who contacted the two MPs, without elaborating. Both denied pressure from church leaders, though Archbishop Bernard Bober is known to have texted Slovensko leader Igor Matovič in the run-up.
Ultimately, exactly 90 lawmakers backed the amendment: the governing coalition, most of the opposition Christian Democratic Movement (KDH), and three from the joint Slovensko–For the People–Christian Union caucus – the bare minimum needed.
The KDH’s support followed months of negotiation with Smer and the inclusion of some of its own proposals. Slovensko had pledged backing only if the KDH fronted the measure, not Smer.
“Betraying your word so blatantly is beyond me,” said Michal Šimečka, leader of Progressive Slovakia, the largest opposition party. “Our party can no longer trust Slovensko’s lawmakers.”
The defectors justified their decisions as matters of conscience. “I am a man of faith. I try to align my decisions with God’s will,” Krajčí said, citing advice from a theologian and the recent death of US conservative activist Charlie Kirk as influences. “He [the theologian] told me that history offers many examples of God using even bad people to achieve good – that for God, it’s no problem to use Robert Fico to advance good.” Krátky said faith played no role, calling it “a political decision.”
After the vote, Culture Minister Martina Šimkovičová of the SNS called the day “historic.” “Progressivism forced us to define the biological fact that there are two sexes,” she said. Party leader Andrej Danko went further, denouncing same-sex couples as “perverse.”
For Fico, the vote proved that his government could still muster a constitutional majority when the issue appealed to conservative sentiment.
What the amendment does
The constitutional package introduces six key provisions:
Recognition of only two sexes: The constitution now explicitly defines male and female as the only biological sexes.
Ban on surrogacy: Surrogacy is prohibited nationwide.
Adoption and family law: Parenthood is defined in biological terms; adoption is limited to “eligible persons” under ordinary law, i.e. only married couples.
Parental rights in education: Parents can decide whether their children take part in lessons about sexuality beyond the national curriculum.
Equal pay clause: A symbolic guarantee of equal pay for equal work between men and women.
Sovereignty clause: Slovakia “retains sovereignty” over national identity, culture, family life and ethics – wording some lawyers say could override EU law in these areas.
Legal experts offered mixed assessments. Vincent Bujňák of Comenius University said it would fall to the Constitutional Court to reconcile the new provisions with Slovakia’s treaty obligations. Marek Káčer of Trnava University warned of “legal uncertainty” that could undermine trust in Slovakia as an international partner. Former Constitutional Court judge Ján Mazák dismissed the text as largely symbolic: “Otherwise we risk sanctions. What was adopted are words without real value or respect for the rule of law.”
A battle months in the making
The amendment’s roots reach back to early 2025, when the Smer-led coalition opened public consultations on a draft linking “traditional values” and “the protection of life and human dignity” to national identity. It also tightened parental rights and reaffirmed marriage as between a man and a woman.
The KDH introduced its own rival draft with additional safeguards, including bans on surrogacy and human cloning and a “conscience clause” for health and education workers. Initially, the KDH vowed to back only its version. But as the coalition’s bill advanced, it negotiated concessions and switched sides.
By June, the two camps had produced a hybrid text combining bans on surrogacy and gender reassignment with parental rights and an equal-pay guarantee. Still, the coalition was unsure it had enough votes. A scheduled June vote was delayed after Hlas MP Ján Ferenčák threatened to abstain unless the threshold for future constitutional amendments was raised from 90 to 100 votes.
The postponement gave civil society time to mobilise. The Slovak Society of International Law warned of “application chaos” if domestic law overrode EU obligations. The Public Defender of Rights raised similar concerns. A network of NGOs called the Human Rights Coalition urged MPs to reject the draft, warning it would “strip the constitution of guarantees that international law takes precedence.”
Warnings from Brussels and beyond
The unease spread to Brussels and Strasbourg. In June, EU Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath cautioned that the proposal risked breaching the supremacy of EU law. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe issued an urgent opinion two days before the vote, praising the equal-pay clause but urging clarity on “national identity” and “ethical matters.”
The commission warned that restrictive language on adoption and gender could place Slovakia at odds with European standards. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights later said the amendment’s provisions – limiting adoption to married heterosexual couples, defining gender strictly as male or female, and requiring parental consent for sex education – risked discrimination and weakened protections for children.
Prime Minister Fico nevertheless claimed the Venice Commission had found the measure “fully in line with international standards.” Legal scholars disagreed. “This is anti-European and hateful,” said international-law expert Metod Špaček. “It targets European values and the LGBT+ minority.”
The true test, they say, will come after the amendment enters force in November 2025.
The church’s visible hand
The Catholic Church, long a potent force in Slovak politics, played an influential role. During the government’s review, the Conference of Bishops of Slovakia (KBS) proposed defining gender biologically and affirming national sovereignty in moral matters. Several of its suggestions were incorporated.
In June, KBS welcomed proposed constitutional changes “affirming the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic in fundamental cultural and ethical matters”, adding that it was praying for lawmakers to act with “wisdom and justice”. The statement drew criticism from conservative MP František Mikloško (KDH), who said the bishops’ support for the amendment was “a fatal mistake”, despite their good intentions.
After the vote, KBS chair Archbishop Bernard Bober thanked lawmakers for “strengthening a society founded on truth, freedom, justice and the dignity of human life.” Bishop of Spiš František Trstenský said it had become “necessary to define gender” because society was “losing sight of male and female.”
Not all clergy agreed. Lutheran pastor Anna Polcková called the amendment “a threat to freedom and an affront to victims of anti-LGBT+ violence.” “I apologise for all Christians who have forgotten that the highest commandment is love for one’s neighbour,” she said.
Though church attendance is declining, the institution remains influential, reinforced by state treaties with the Vatican. Political scientist Pavol Hardoš said the amendment reflects “the growing strength of anti-gender movements across central Europe.”
Civil rights groups sound alarm
Human rights organisations denounced the amendment as “an attack on freedom and democracy.” In a joint statement, more than 50 groups and 300 individuals said the constitution “must never become the property of a political group.”
The LGBT+ organisation Iniciatíva Inakosť reported a surge in calls from transgender and queer people seeking legal advice. “The change creates a dangerous precedent where the state can decide who we are – and who we are not allowed to be,” said its representative Roman Samotný. The organisation is now raising funds for legal aid and strategic litigation in Slovakia and abroad.
The Slovak Chamber of Teachers warned that the new parental-consent rule could create “anarchy” in schools by requiring separate approvals for any lesson touching on sexuality or relationships.
The Education Ministry rejected the criticism, saying consent was already required for non-curricular activities.
Key amendments to Slovakia’s constitution (since 1992)
1998 – Parliament transfers presidential powers to the Speaker when Slovakia has no head of state.
1999 – Introduces direct presidential elections by citizens.
2001 – Opens the way for EU and NATO membership; strengthens the Constitutional Court and ombudsman.
2004 – MPs gain immunity for statements in parliament; they are forbidden from sitting simultaneously in the European Parliament.
2005–06 – The Supreme Audit Office’s powers are expanded, and MPs’ immunity in cases involving alcohol or drugs is limited.
2010 – Allows the confiscation of illegally acquired assets.
2011–12 – Enables caretaker governments and abolishes MPs’ criminal immunity.
2014 – Defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman; judicial oversight is strengthened.
2014 – Exporting water is banned, and natural resources are protected.
2015 – Anti-terrorism measures are adopted.
2017 – Unifies local and regional elections and allows parliament to revoke presidential amnesties.
2019 – Sets the retirement age at 64, with earlier retirement for mothers.
2020 – Major judicial reform; the Supreme Administrative Court is created.
2023 – Allows parliament to shorten its own term with a 90-vote majority.
2023 – Guarantees the right to pay in cash.
Source: TASR
Political fallout
If the government celebrated a symbolic win, the opposition emerged deeply divided. Slovensko expelled Rastislav Krátky but forgave Marek Krajčí after he publicly repented. Leader Igor Matovič condemned the former’s vote as an act of betrayal but excused the latter’s as an act of conscience – a distinction largely lost on voters.
Within the KDH, the tone was triumphant. Leader Milan Majerský called the outcome “one of the greatest successes in our history,” insisting “Smer voted for our proposal.” Deputy chair Viliam Karas compared its significance to Slovakia’s entry into the EU, saying it “strengthens constitutional identity within Europe.”
According to Denník N, the amendment was driven largely by Karas — a former justice minister in Eduard Heger’s government and ex-head of the Slovak Bar Association — along with part of the KDH leadership. Karas reportedly sought support from bishops, hoping they would help sway hesitant or undecided conservative MPs.
Others were less impressed. KDH MPs František Majerský and František Mikloško did not vote for the proposal, but they were not expelled from the party. Former MEP Ivan Štefanec resigned from the KDH, accusing its leadership of “helping Smer divert attention from moral and economic decline.”
Liberal parties Progressive Slovakia and Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) froze cooperation with both the KDH and Slovensko, accusing them of enabling Fico’s culture-war agenda.
Even within the coalition, unity is fragile. Hlas MP Ján Ferenčák, who skipped the vote, warned that “governments with 90 votes use the constitution to push their own programmes. It should be untouchable, changed only through broad consensus.” He now finds himself increasingly isolated.
Unlike President Peter Pellegrini, who signed the amendment on September 30, arguing that it is important to respect the constitutional majority at a time of “deep societal polarisation” and interpreting the vote as a sign of consensus on key issues, former president Zuzana Čaputová said the amendment “will never lose its label of controversy,” calling it “a political calculation disguised as the defence of values and driven by fear.”
“Fear is a bad adviser,” she said. “It has led to unhappiness for many people whose only ‘fault’ is being different. They are not a threat – only our actions can turn us into one.”
