The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Gay Adoption Confirmed Marriage Law Risks

Decision 392/2026 of the Plenary Session of the Council of State^[1], published on March 20, 2026, left no room for misinterpretation: adoption by same-sex couples is constitutionally permissible and, as explicitly stated in the reasoning, constitutes a “natural consequence” of marriage. In other words, the country’s highest administrative court did not introduce a new reality; it confirmed that this reality already existed, fully incorporated in Law 5089/2024.^[2]

This development follows directly from the Council of State’s Plenary decision in May 2025, which ruled the same-sex marriage law constitutional. At that time, the court had already accepted the overall institutional framework introduced by the government. Today, with decision 392/2026, it makes absolutely clear what many chose to ignore: that marriage was not an isolated provision but a complete package of equalization, which from the outset included adoption.

• Written by Panagiotis Doumas

And here lies the real political issue. Because if the judiciary today confirms that adoption was a “spontaneous consequence” of the law, then the question is not for the judges but for those who voted. What exactly did the members of parliament know when they were called to take a position? What assurances were they given in the so-called “tutorial sessions”? And why was Greek society informed only partially about such a profound upheaval of the family institution?

Because there is now no doubt: what was presented as “marriage” was from the start something much more. And this is not revealed by the opposition. It is confirmed by the Council of State itself.

What is even more revealing is that this development did not come as a surprise to everyone. During the bill’s discussion in Parliament on February 14 and 15, 2024, the parliamentary spokesperson of NIKI, Spyridon Tsironis, explicitly warned that the provision was not limited to marriage but “opened the way” for full equalization of family rights, including adoption. At a time when the government was trying to present the bill as a limited intervention, this warning was almost dismissed as an exaggeration. Today, however, after the Council of State’s decision 392/2026, which confirms that adoption is a natural consequence of the law, that warning is vindicated and highlights even more strongly the question of what exactly those who were called to vote knew—or chose to ignore—when they ultimately voted in favor of the law.

The history of a political deception

The passage of the same-sex marriage law on February 15, 2024, was not simply an institutional milestone. It was the culmination of a process of political management based on half-truths, internal party pressure, and a systematic effort to present a “profound change” as something limited and “harmless.”

That day is recorded as the day the Hellenic Parliament voted for the complete overhaul of family law with the same-sex marriage law. It was passed with 175 “yes” votes in a process that was not merely political. It was methodical, behind-the-scenes, and insidious.

In the months leading up to it, from December 2023, there was intense turmoil within New Democracy. MPs expressed reservations, others open opposition. A large group of “blue” MPs, mainly from the party’s more conservative wing, often referred to as the “Samaras faction,” declared, sometimes publicly and sometimes not, that they would vote against the bill.

That is when the so-called “tutorial sessions” began. Closed briefings, meetings with government officials, legal “clarifications.” However, the goal was not free consultation but discipline.

According to journalistic reports from the period (Kathimerini, Estia, Proto Thema), the main line in these meetings was that the law primarily concerned marriage and the recognition of already existing family situations. It was not presented as a complete restructuring of the adoption framework.

Kyriakos Mitsotakis himself, in an interview in January 2024, stated that “the provision comes to solve real problems of children already growing up in such families” and that “it does not radically change the core of the family.” A formulation that, in hindsight, seems at least… misguided.

At the same time, then New Democracy vice president Adonis Georgiadis publicly warned in January 2024 that “there is a serious issue of social acceptance.” A few weeks later, as New Democracy vice president, he not only supported the bill but actively participated in the internal party processes to persuade MPs. In simple terms: from cautious, he became a proponent. And this is not a minor detail. It is an indication of the pressure exerted.

However, the government had begun revealing its hidden strategy much earlier. In July 2023, just weeks after New Democracy’s electoral victory, Kyriakos Mitsotakis declared that “marriage between same-sex couples… is part of our strategy.”^[3] This timing is not a detail; it is the origin of the problem. Because such a profound institutional change had not been part of any pre-election commitment, nor had it been clearly presented to the electorate before the June 2023 elections. On the contrary, it appeared as a government “strategy” after the popular mandate had already been given, which reasonably raises the question of whether society was called to consent to a choice that was never fully presented to it. When, however, this same society, which had given Kyriakos a comfortable majority and 42% of the vote, was called to renew its trust in the 2024 European elections, just months after the controversial bill, his support plummeted to 28%. He lost one-third of his votes!!!

No one cared or cares about every child’s right to a mother and father

In any case, along with this bill, something that was avoided being clearly stated also passed: that marriage is not simply a symbolic institution. It creates full family rights, including adoption.

And here lies the point of political deception. Because if this had been presented from the start with full honesty, the discussion would have been completely different. And above all, the stance of many MPs would have been different.

According to data from the “anynet” information system and reports from the Ministry of Labor (2022–2023), the number of children in child protection facilities ranges roughly between 1,400 and 1,600. Of these, fewer than 300 are legally available for adoption. Active adoption applications exceed 2,500, with waiting times reaching 3 to 5 years.

In simple terms: the children available for adoption are very few, while the couples waiting number in the thousands.

And within this reality, the state decided to expand the framework without having solved the fundamental problem.

The scientific discussion was used selectively. There are certainly studies that do not find significant differences in child development. However, there are also scientific studies and statistical data that indicate the opposite and express serious warnings that the data are limited and that long-term research with larger and more representative samples is required.

In other words, there is no definitive scientific consensus. There is a trend. And a trend is not conclusive proof. Does this remind you of anything? Perhaps the way the government handled the coronavirus and the scientific reservations regarding the new vaccines and restrictive measures?

In exactly the same way, based on similar uncertainty, the government made a decision concerning the core of child development.

And here arises the most critical question, which some persist in avoiding:

When there is no clear and definitive scientific consensus, by what right does the state experiment with the environment in which a child grows up?

Because the focus is not on the rights of adults. At the moment when some decided that the trivialization of the religious sacrament of marriage is a “right” for every homosexual, how is it possible to blatantly ignore every child’s right to have a mother and a father? Not “parent 1” and “parent 2.” Not a construct arising from legal rephrasing, but from the natural and social reality we knew until today.

And amid all this, there is yet another dimension that the government chose to completely ignore: Greece is not a neutral, colorless state. The Constitution recognizes the prevailing religion, the Orthodox Church, which holds a clear and categorical position against same-sex marriages. The Church of Greece reacted, warned, and took a stand.

And it was ignored!

The guilty silence of New Democracy MPs over their deception by their own party

All this, however, pales in comparison to questions that can no longer remain unanswered:

Where are the New Democracy MPs today? Where are those who participated in the “tutorial sessions”? Where are those who received assurances that “the core does not change”? Where are those who voted based on a presentation that proves to be incomplete?

Because if it is true that the full extension of family rights was not clearly presented, then we do not simply have a political disagreement. We have deception. And if there is deception, then silence is not neutrality. It is complicity.

In a normal democracy, this would already have caused fractures. Public dissent. Political cost. Here, silence prevails.

And this silence says more than any statement.