But the European Court of Human Rights will still have jurisdiction over Russia in regards to human rights violations occurred before 15 March 2022. Of course, Russia stopped abiding the Court's rulings long before its withdrawal, but that will become important when post-Putin Russia will be readmitted to the Council, just like Greece was readmitted in 1974 after five years of withdrawal by the military junta.

"However, regardless, the Cuban government seems quite intent on proceeding in this specific direction, as it nicely fits within their long-running narrative of "popular participation.""

But there have been only two referendums in the history of Cuba and both are constitutional ones. So is a referendum on marriage equality _really_ necessary in Cuban political system?

Referendums are not among the best practices for advancing LGBT rights.

The prince stated that he won't oppose SSM bill if it excludes adoption rights.

So can they really do it? I understand that there is a federal Democratic trifecta and that the Senate Democrats can end that silly filibuster thing with a simple majority, but are Republicans going to let two more Democrats sit in the Senate for decades so easily? Or will the DC statehood issue be going to tied to the PR statehood issue to be passed? Of course, we can just sit and wait for the Republicans to start saying aloud that providing Congressional representation for almost a million citizens of their own nation doesn't benefit their party so they oppose it. And make themselves look like total douchebags :D

But why should at least the California Proposition 8 repeal in post-COVID times be expensive (only statutory ban was repealed and replaced with appropriate legislation, not Prop 8 itself)? As far as I know, the Democrat-controlled state legislature can put this question on ballot by its vote, thus avoiding signature collecting. Popular votes are conducted in California regularly. Regarding campaigning I think - this time - our side can simply rely on overwhelmingly positive public opinion, as well as on post-Obergefell legal reality. And regarding the "it's not necessary, we have Obergefell and gender-neutral statutory law" point: hey, even Alabama started getting rid of its racist constitutional clauses after a referendum held last November!

As for Australian vote, it couldn't mean much if it would have negative result with low turnout. But there actually was high turnout and an overwhelmingly positive result reflecting public opinion at that time which Australian politicians already knew about before the "survey". It was yet another needless obstruction.

Most referendums concerning marriage equality have been held over initiatives to ban, not to legalize, it (and mostly to ban it in the constitution, which is not really a feast for democracy, a point expressed by many US judges), and there are not that much referendums over legalization. Excluding Australia (which had a non-binding "postal survey") and Ireland (activists feared that a simple statutory law on marriage equality passed in parliament could be ruled unconstitutional by the courts so the referendum to amend the constitution was deemed necessary), only three occasions from the US remain: a successful 2009 Maine people's veto on the bill passed by the legislature, an unsuccessful 2012 Maryland people's veto on the similar bill and a 2012 Maine referendum which approved a statute brought forward by a popular initiative. In the first two cases the referendums were initiated by the opponents of marriage equality, using the people's veto constitutional option (as is the case in Switzerland) and only in the third case the ME supporters used another constitutional option to put legalization on ballot. With all that in mind I wouldn't say that putting gay couples' marriage rights on ballot really became a common thing to do globally, especially after that era ended in the US in 2012. Almost every time it was used by the conservatives to obstruct legalization efforts, even that Australian "postal survey".

Now the only useful referendum of such a kind that can be held, especially in the US, is to finally get rid of those nasty constitutional amendments, which are still on the books even if struck down by SCOTUS. I wonder why no US state hasn't held such a referendum (except Nevada which did just that last November)? By "no US state" I mean California first of all.

By the way, the Swiss bigots' pointless appeal to the federal constitution that was adopted in 1999, didn't define marriage at all and, according to one interpretation, expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation simply shows how frustrated they are that they weren't sneaky enough to drag that anti-gay definition in the constitution's text 20 years ago. Without it their stance seems to be intellectually bankrupt at this moment.

We can hope that Slovenian parliament will pass same-sex marriage law again and that the conservatives' push for a new referendum won't succeed, maybe with the help of the constitutional court (it didn't really help six years ago).

As a citizen of a Slavic country I am waiting for either Slovenia or Czechia to become the first Slavic country with marriage equality as well. Also the Montenegrin partnership law comes into force this July, so Montenegro will soon become the first Slavic Orthodox-majority country, the first non-EU Slavic country and the first non-EU Orthodox-majority country effectively recognising and protecting same-sex unions.

Switzerland: Anti-marriage equality referendum committee formed

In early December 2020, the Council of States, Switzerland’s upper house voted in favour of same sex marriage, finalising a government decision to change Switzerland’s laws to allow marriage equality for all. Since then those opposed to the idea have been busy.

The proposed referendum is entitled: Yes to marriage and family, no to marriage for everyone. The committee behind it describes themselves as: The non-partisan referendum committee against marriage for everyone and access to sperm donation for lesbian couples, suggesting the vote is focused on a specific element of marriage equality: medically assisted procreation.

The organisers, who describe same sex union as pseudo marriage, believe the planned legal changes required to implement it undermine the constitution. Article 14 of Switzerland’s constitution guarantees a right to marriage and family, and vote organisers argue that this means the natural union of men and women, a definition that excludes same sex marriage.

According to the initiative website, the committee behind the recent initiative includes a number of members of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP/UDC), the Democratic Christian Party (CVP/PDC) and the Federal Democratic Union (EDU/UDF). https://lenews.ch/2021/01/14/swiss-referendum-lau...

Note: I had to rewrite the headline as the original one implied that enough signatures have been already collected for the referendum to be held. Actually, the initiative committee is quite frank about it on its website:
"From December 31, 2020 to April 10, 2021, we need to collect at least 50,000 certified signatures. Unfortunately, corona measures make collecting signatures very difficult."

I hope they won't collect enough signatures. Human rights, especially minorities rights, should not be placed on ballot. Even though referendums are a common practice in Switzerland, if held, such a referendum would set a harmful precedent for other countries.