Constitution of the Russian Federation. Archive photo.

Tatyana Lokshina, deputy head of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) international human rights organization’s organization in Europe and Central Asia, criticized the proposed amendments to the Russian Constitution regarding the notion of marriage – in her opinion, it “discriminates” representatives of non-traditional sexual orientation in the country.

Earlier, State Duma Vice-Speaker Petr Tolstoy stated the need for the constitution to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, which should stop speculation on the issue of granting certain rights to people of non-traditional sexual orientation. According to him, this step ensures that “no international institutions can continue to impose any special rights on the LGBT community in Russia.”

“Homophobia in Russia is strong enough and is even more intensified after the adoption of discriminatory legislation and relevant rhetoric in the media,” she said.

At the same time, in her opinion, Tolstoy’s rhetoric was also directed at the West.

“Perhaps, speaking to a Russian audience, Mr. Tolstoy simultaneously sends a certain signal to Western partners that not only is Russia not going to repeal discriminatory legislation, but on the contrary, he and a number of his colleagues consider it right to enforce discriminatory norms in the constitution,” the representative added HRW.

She explained that she had in mind the so-called law on the prohibition of gay propaganda.

The co-chair of the working group, Pavel Krasheninnikov, stated that the constitutional definition of marriage proposed by Tolstoy was not entirely correct, since there are single-parent families, and the concept of marriage is enshrined in the Family Code.

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a meeting with members of a working group to prepare proposals for amending the Constitution of the Russian Federation, said that while he was president, Russia would not have a parent number one and number two – “there will be a father and mother.” At the same time, the head of state did not specify whether this norm should be prescribed in the main law of the country.