Saturday, December 25, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
What Colour Is Cherry Red
Letter (email) to Bersani
I wrote the following letter to Bersani (also sent via email and posted on his Facebook profile)
----- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
Dear Secretary,
the PD before losing pieces of his base, but with the wicked choice to propose alliance (although the reference to the CLN is suggestive and do understand that the reasons may be plausible) with the post-fascist and Vatican-centered, based on the PD may lose all!
Reformism the left, clear ideas, program and defined as Primary, this is our recipe for success; of Vendola not be afraid, because our capabilities are absolutely superior to his, you just put them in the field. We think back
Secretary, because if he wants to lead this party to political suicide, is on the right path.
The changes, please, and fast!
If so it will not, I'll be forced to resign as Secretary of the club and return the card: I was born left, and I will die for no reason at all post-fascist and post (and even so)-Democrat!
Dear Greetings, left!
------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
Secretary
Fabio Lamon 
I wrote the following letter to Bersani (also sent via email and posted on his Facebook profile)
----- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
Dear Secretary,
the PD before losing pieces of his base, but with the wicked choice to propose alliance (although the reference to the CLN is suggestive and do understand that the reasons may be plausible) with the post-fascist and Vatican-centered, based on the PD may lose all!
Reformism the left, clear ideas, program and defined as Primary, this is our recipe for success; of Vendola not be afraid, because our capabilities are absolutely superior to his, you just put them in the field. We think back
Secretary, because if he wants to lead this party to political suicide, is on the right path.
The changes, please, and fast!
If so it will not, I'll be forced to resign as Secretary of the club and return the card: I was born left, and I will die for no reason at all post-fascist and post (and even so)-Democrat!
Dear Greetings, left!
------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
Secretary
Fabio Lamon
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Marshmallow Gun For Sale At Walmart?
Today did not win any
Today, with the House vote showed that all the shame of buying parliamentary campaign, widespread corruption, the total lack of ethics and morals and urban guerrilla warfare in the center of Rome, which showed that the tension caused by non-government and reform wrong that go against the interests of citizens, has not won any, has only lost Italy.
Now we will have a non-government even worse than it was 70 waste votes in the House, paralyzed, unable to address the economic crisis and all emergencies Italian, from before the waste, then the Veneto and even Eagle.
The only positive note today in my opinion was the vote of the unit compact and 206 members of the PD (PD and also that of senators in the Senate), including a pregnant woman about to give birth but it is desired to be there the House, to do his duty.
As friends, the PD in need C'E '
And' the only real alternative, the only real opposition, considering also the fool of IDV, the first party that has given two antiberlusconiano votes of confidence in Berlusconi
Secretary
Fabio Lamon 
Today, with the House vote showed that all the shame of buying parliamentary campaign, widespread corruption, the total lack of ethics and morals and urban guerrilla warfare in the center of Rome, which showed that the tension caused by non-government and reform wrong that go against the interests of citizens, has not won any, has only lost Italy.
Now we will have a non-government even worse than it was 70 waste votes in the House, paralyzed, unable to address the economic crisis and all emergencies Italian, from before the waste, then the Veneto and even Eagle.
The only positive note today in my opinion was the vote of the unit compact and 206 members of the PD (PD and also that of senators in the Senate), including a pregnant woman about to give birth but it is desired to be there the House, to do his duty.
As friends, the PD in need C'E '
And' the only real alternative, the only real opposition, considering also the fool of IDV, the first party that has given two antiberlusconiano votes of confidence in Berlusconi
Secretary
Fabio Lamon
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Ride On Scooter With Sidecar
A breath of democracy The square
Carry this beautiful Curzio Maltese comment on yesterday's demonstration in Rome.
------------------------------------------------ --------------------
A BREATH OF DEMOCRACY
of Curzio Maltese
A breath of democracy the expression of Pd in \u200b\u200bpiazza San Giovanni Rome
To distract from the spectacle of a great country in their hands to vote in the last two turncoats recruited by Di Pietro. It is a relief to meet the faces of an Italy different reality. How many were there? Who knows. If Berlusconi vowed to have exceeded two million last spring, then there should be five or six. Just compare the photos from the Piazza San Giovanni. Out of the accounts of imagination, however, a tide. But most of the numbers has the thrill of seeing the boys pull alongside Aquila insecure entertainers, scientists and migrants, and cassintegrati elementary school teachers from all over Italy, with hundreds of dialects and a million stories.
a great day. As beautiful as probably unnecessary. A policy of this country care little or nothing real. The games are made elsewhere, in the corridors of power Berlusconi. How he's bought? How many will buy in the next 48 hours? In the backstage area of \u200b\u200bPiazza San Giovanni, as he talks Bersani, specialists unsheathe the abacus. Dario Franceschini, that usually guesses ("still more of Peter" is the joke), argues that the opposite of confidence is still above two votes. "If Guzzanti goes there, we're even."
The only certainty is that there will be only one Member, a single representative of the people who change his mind because one, two or five millions of Italians took to the streets. Tend to other things, advice, expiring contracts,
reelection, pensions, loans, mortgages, debt. Yesterday's demonstration will not serve to give a shoulder to Berlusconi government. But it can give a jolt of confidence in the Democratic Party, paralyzed for months a paradox. Berlusconi loses the shots, but the main opposition party does not gain consensus, on the contrary slips in the polls. Why, if it has potential electoral exceeds forty percent? Why, if every call to the square collects millions of signatures, when in all Western democracies half a million people in the parade are a record?
The PD is at a historic crossroads, faced with a difficult decision that deserves respect. Get to grips with a problem much deeper than it appears from the fights between the twenty aspiring secretaries. The PD has to choose whether to become a party like everyone else, or the election committee of a strong and charismatic leader. Or be the last party on the collegiate scene. In his fine speech
Bersani, much more effective in that plaza on television, proudly claimed the diversity of the Democratic Party. "I do not want to create passion for one person, but for the Republic." It is good and right thing to say, noble. You have to see if it is also present. Berlusconizzata in the Italian, but not limited to the parties is the story of a leader. Today the Democratic Party, with all the effort and pain dealt to separate themselves from their roots, the Communist Party and the Christian Democrats, is losing votes against Vendola Casini, respectively, a former communist and a former Democrat, former both equally, the which simply have got two or three more things about how the political communication in modern times. In the Italy of 2010 the Democratic Party is a party that is still the twentieth century, while the rest of the world has entered a long time in the millennium. Or has regressed to the nineteenth century, who knows, but in any case lies elsewhere.
horizon of Pd there is not a charismatic leader. The latest young pretenders have just caught him in secret confabulation Arcore, he argues for the sake of Florence. But even when confronted with Obama himself, the Democratic Party as it is structured would never accept to become the party leader. The only ones who have tried it in recent years, Prodi and Veltroni are finished soon. Even after collecting a lot more recognition of collective leadership. To listen to the people of San Giovanni, the base of the Democratic Party would not have doubts about the choice to be made. There is a risk that half the people took to the streets to call Bersani, in case of major break through to vote Vendola. Maybe tomorrow will change everything, if Berlusconi will fall. But the Berlusconi to end more than a caretaker government, then the revolution would put forward by the great Mario Monicelli.
by Repubblica.it
---------------------------------------- --------------------
I am convinced that the PD should be a college party, standing out from all other parties where if you skip the "head" jumps around.
We want to be the party of the people, the Italian Republic, not the war machine of some populist.
Secretary
Fabio Lamon 
Carry this beautiful Curzio Maltese comment on yesterday's demonstration in Rome.
------------------------------------------------ --------------------
A BREATH OF DEMOCRACY
of Curzio Maltese
A breath of democracy the expression of Pd in \u200b\u200bpiazza San Giovanni Rome
To distract from the spectacle of a great country in their hands to vote in the last two turncoats recruited by Di Pietro. It is a relief to meet the faces of an Italy different reality. How many were there? Who knows. If Berlusconi vowed to have exceeded two million last spring, then there should be five or six. Just compare the photos from the Piazza San Giovanni. Out of the accounts of imagination, however, a tide. But most of the numbers has the thrill of seeing the boys pull alongside Aquila insecure entertainers, scientists and migrants, and cassintegrati elementary school teachers from all over Italy, with hundreds of dialects and a million stories.
a great day. As beautiful as probably unnecessary. A policy of this country care little or nothing real. The games are made elsewhere, in the corridors of power Berlusconi. How he's bought? How many will buy in the next 48 hours? In the backstage area of \u200b\u200bPiazza San Giovanni, as he talks Bersani, specialists unsheathe the abacus. Dario Franceschini, that usually guesses ("still more of Peter" is the joke), argues that the opposite of confidence is still above two votes. "If Guzzanti goes there, we're even."
The only certainty is that there will be only one Member, a single representative of the people who change his mind because one, two or five millions of Italians took to the streets. Tend to other things, advice, expiring contracts,
reelection, pensions, loans, mortgages, debt. Yesterday's demonstration will not serve to give a shoulder to Berlusconi government. But it can give a jolt of confidence in the Democratic Party, paralyzed for months a paradox. Berlusconi loses the shots, but the main opposition party does not gain consensus, on the contrary slips in the polls. Why, if it has potential electoral exceeds forty percent? Why, if every call to the square collects millions of signatures, when in all Western democracies half a million people in the parade are a record?
The PD is at a historic crossroads, faced with a difficult decision that deserves respect. Get to grips with a problem much deeper than it appears from the fights between the twenty aspiring secretaries. The PD has to choose whether to become a party like everyone else, or the election committee of a strong and charismatic leader. Or be the last party on the collegiate scene. In his fine speech
Bersani, much more effective in that plaza on television, proudly claimed the diversity of the Democratic Party. "I do not want to create passion for one person, but for the Republic." It is good and right thing to say, noble. You have to see if it is also present. Berlusconizzata in the Italian, but not limited to the parties is the story of a leader. Today the Democratic Party, with all the effort and pain dealt to separate themselves from their roots, the Communist Party and the Christian Democrats, is losing votes against Vendola Casini, respectively, a former communist and a former Democrat, former both equally, the which simply have got two or three more things about how the political communication in modern times. In the Italy of 2010 the Democratic Party is a party that is still the twentieth century, while the rest of the world has entered a long time in the millennium. Or has regressed to the nineteenth century, who knows, but in any case lies elsewhere.
horizon of Pd there is not a charismatic leader. The latest young pretenders have just caught him in secret confabulation Arcore, he argues for the sake of Florence. But even when confronted with Obama himself, the Democratic Party as it is structured would never accept to become the party leader. The only ones who have tried it in recent years, Prodi and Veltroni are finished soon. Even after collecting a lot more recognition of collective leadership. To listen to the people of San Giovanni, the base of the Democratic Party would not have doubts about the choice to be made. There is a risk that half the people took to the streets to call Bersani, in case of major break through to vote Vendola. Maybe tomorrow will change everything, if Berlusconi will fall. But the Berlusconi to end more than a caretaker government, then the revolution would put forward by the great Mario Monicelli.
by Repubblica.it
---------------------------------------- --------------------
I am convinced that the PD should be a college party, standing out from all other parties where if you skip the "head" jumps around.
We want to be the party of the people, the Italian Republic, not the war machine of some populist.
Secretary
Fabio Lamon
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sultan Sandane Craigslist
Today, December 11, in Rome we saw the square of the future.
The real square, that of honest people, willing, democratic, not those bought by the Knight.
A square real, not one of those virtual from which it is easy to pronounce chair.
Piazza San Giovanni
The Democratic Party is.
roll up our sleeves.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Power Of Attorney For Refinance
In view of the future '
In view of the event Dec. 11 in Rome, I suggest these three links where you can find useful information and materials to spread among your acquaintances.
Civil Appeals for the Awakening of Italy
mobilizing for the December 11
Event 11 December
roll up our sleeves.
Secretary
Fabio Lamon 
In view of the event Dec. 11 in Rome, I suggest these three links where you can find useful information and materials to spread among your acquaintances.
Civil Appeals for the Awakening of Italy
mobilizing for the December 11
Event 11 December
roll up our sleeves.
Secretary
Fabio Lamon
Friday, December 3, 2010
Best Mount & Blade Mods
December 11 December 11 - An alternative to the streets with PD
PD: 11 December 18 special trains, 1,500 coaches and two processions.
GROW THE MEMBERSHIP TO BE ABLE TO SAY ONE TOMORROW: "I WAS THERE"
Accessions still on the rise for the national event that has called for PartitoDemocratico on 11 December in Piazza San Giovanni in Rome persostenere proposals for the alternative developed by the National Democratic Party and launched dalleassemblee Rome and Varese, but also for sending home finalmentea Silvio Berlusconi and Berlusconi.
The number of participants expected at today is such that the Pd indottol'organizzazione to provide no more than one, but two parades, atestimonianza the desire of activists and supporters of PartitoDemocratico, but also of many citizens, to say a Tomorrow: "Ioc'ero.
The two marches will start at 14 Saturday, Dec. 11, from a piazzaEsedra, the other by the square of the Partisans, in front of stazioneOstiense, where will a part of the 18 special trains organized dalpartito for the occasion. The number of coaches vistadell'11 organized in December 1200 has grown from originally planned to attuali1.500.
while spreads on the internet the dissemination of statements in the video, recorded by Youdem TV, the leaders of the Democratic Party who say, "I'll be Romaperché ..." by Veltroni to Errani, clear to read, to Finocchiaro. And moltialtri will be added in the coming days.
All logistical and organizational details of the event, as well alpalinsesto interventions from the stage in Piazza San Giovanni, will be announced during the next week. 
PD: 11 December 18 special trains, 1,500 coaches and two processions.
GROW THE MEMBERSHIP TO BE ABLE TO SAY ONE TOMORROW: "I WAS THERE"
Accessions still on the rise for the national event that has called for PartitoDemocratico on 11 December in Piazza San Giovanni in Rome persostenere proposals for the alternative developed by the National Democratic Party and launched dalleassemblee Rome and Varese, but also for sending home finalmentea Silvio Berlusconi and Berlusconi.
The number of participants expected at today is such that the Pd indottol'organizzazione to provide no more than one, but two parades, atestimonianza the desire of activists and supporters of PartitoDemocratico, but also of many citizens, to say a Tomorrow: "Ioc'ero.
The two marches will start at 14 Saturday, Dec. 11, from a piazzaEsedra, the other by the square of the Partisans, in front of stazioneOstiense, where will a part of the 18 special trains organized dalpartito for the occasion. The number of coaches vistadell'11 organized in December 1200 has grown from originally planned to attuali1.500.
while spreads on the internet the dissemination of statements in the video, recorded by Youdem TV, the leaders of the Democratic Party who say, "I'll be Romaperché ..." by Veltroni to Errani, clear to read, to Finocchiaro. And moltialtri will be added in the coming days.
All logistical and organizational details of the event, as well alpalinsesto interventions from the stage in Piazza San Giovanni, will be announced during the next week.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Can A Camera Be Put Inside Me To See My Womb
Where were we? No
recover from this post ...
" Sunday, July 6, 2008
I would like to tell you a story ...
If one day someone asked me a hypothetical way to tell this story, I would have answered that would begin like a fairy tale, with the words: " Once upon a time ...
There was once a princess in search of ... chamomile :):) Oh yes .. . in any self-respecting fairy tale is not a magic potion? Maybe one day I will tell the whole story ... for now I can only tell you that the princess feels that the reality it is colored with pastel tones, and the heart beats ... "
Here's what I told you all about 2 years and half ago ... but what will happen next? Strange eh! Well, after what has happened happens in all fairy tales comes the happy ending .. !!
But there are tales ???... Maybe you are different but from what I read as a child: the principles are actually green ogres imperfect, often awkward and dealing with hordes of orcs who vomit and do the shit ( say that we have not reached that stage !)... And the princesses are no longer Levissima beautiful and pure, but they do karate moves and save them from the sun, even if deep down ... he always likes to be saved:)
recover from this post ...
" Sunday, July 6, 2008
I would like to tell you a story ...
If one day someone asked me a hypothetical way to tell this story, I would have answered that would begin like a fairy tale, with the words: " Once upon a time ...
There was once a princess in search of ... chamomile :):) Oh yes .. . in any self-respecting fairy tale is not a magic potion? Maybe one day I will tell the whole story ... for now I can only tell you that the princess feels that the reality it is colored with pastel tones, and the heart beats ... "
Here's what I told you all about 2 years and half ago ... but what will happen next? Strange eh! Well, after what has happened happens in all fairy tales comes the happy ending .. !!
But there are tales ???... Maybe you are different but from what I read as a child: the principles are actually green ogres imperfect, often awkward and dealing with hordes of orcs who vomit and do the shit ( say that we have not reached that stage !)... And the princesses are no longer Levissima beautiful and pure, but they do karate moves and save them from the sun, even if deep down ... he always likes to be saved:)
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Letter Explaining Private Wedding
Giving a future economy of the Piedmont PD
I inform you about this initiative of the PD and the Regional Advisory Group Regional
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
GIVE A FUTURE ECONOMY OF PIEDMONT
a question National
Monday, December 6, 2010 17:00
Convention Center Meet Torino - Sala Giolitti
Via Nino Costa, 8 - Turin
Introduction:
Gianfranco Morgano, PD Piedmont Regional Secretary
Aldo Reschigna, Parent PD Regional Council
discuss:
Fabrizio Cellini, API President Turin
John CORTESE, UIL Regional Secretary
Cudia Franco, President of CNA Piedmont
Mariella ENOC, President of Confindustria Piemonte
HAPPY George, Regional President Confartigianato
Massimo Giordano, Minister for Industry Piedmont
Fabrizio Gatti, Director of Finpiemonte
SpA Alberto Tomasso, General Secretary of CGIL Piemonte
Giovanni Ventura, Secretary General CISL Piemonte
concludes:
Matthew COLANINNO
PD National Executive - Business Development Manager
---------- -------------------------------------------------- -
The Secretary
Fabio Lamon 
I inform you about this initiative of the PD and the Regional Advisory Group Regional
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
GIVE A FUTURE ECONOMY OF PIEDMONT
a question National
Monday, December 6, 2010 17:00
Convention Center Meet Torino - Sala Giolitti
Via Nino Costa, 8 - Turin
Introduction:
Gianfranco Morgano, PD Piedmont Regional Secretary
Aldo Reschigna, Parent PD Regional Council
discuss:
Fabrizio Cellini, API President Turin
John CORTESE, UIL Regional Secretary
Cudia Franco, President of CNA Piedmont
Mariella ENOC, President of Confindustria Piemonte
HAPPY George, Regional President Confartigianato
Massimo Giordano, Minister for Industry Piedmont
Fabrizio Gatti, Director of Finpiemonte
SpA Alberto Tomasso, General Secretary of CGIL Piemonte
Giovanni Ventura, Secretary General CISL Piemonte
concludes:
Matthew COLANINNO
PD National Executive - Business Development Manager
---------- -------------------------------------------------- -
The Secretary
Fabio Lamon
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Is Homeopathy Treatment Good For Lipoma?
Petition of violence against women
a petition on violence against women was highlighted this morning by the Regional Director of the PD Giuliana Manica, Angela Motta and Gianna Pentenero, Hon. Anna Rossomando and City Councillor Maria Ferland Asti. "Violence is the leading cause of death or permanent disability of women between 14 and 50 years - said Juliana CHANNEL - In Piedmont in the 2005-2007 biennium were presented almost 20 000 complaints of violence, but these represent only the tip of the iceberg of the problem. The previous Government had done much of the center, particularly through the Regional Plan for the Prevention to provide financing for major concrete actions to support anti-violence shelters and centers, toll-free numbers, information campaigns, stop listening and emergency projects in favor of single women with children. In addition, they were set up a solidarity fund to assist women victims of crime, a fund to provide them free legal aid and plans to set up centers with anti-violence shelters. " The Board Cota has cleared all the funds for these initiatives. For this issue in the Petition with the women of the PD ask the national government to ensure adequate resources to fund the program against harassment and violence and to the Board Cota to refinance the actions under the Regional Plan and the various laws. The collection of signatures will begin on the occasion of International Day Against Violence Against Women, November 25, and you can join the petition to a special banquet arranged in the Piedmont region, or by visiting the premises of the PD. Finally, an appeal was launched to male political colleagues, and more generally to all men so that they make their contribution to this important battle.
Torino, 22/11/2010
--------------------- As for the Club of the PD of the case are pending to receive from the provincial forms for the collection of signatures, I will come as soon as they will advise on this blog, via email and if it is also possible via a flyer paper.
UPDATE: The modules have arrived! We will begin collecting signatures as soon as !
Secretary
Fabio Lamon 
a petition on violence against women was highlighted this morning by the Regional Director of the PD Giuliana Manica, Angela Motta and Gianna Pentenero, Hon. Anna Rossomando and City Councillor Maria Ferland Asti. "Violence is the leading cause of death or permanent disability of women between 14 and 50 years - said Juliana CHANNEL - In Piedmont in the 2005-2007 biennium were presented almost 20 000 complaints of violence, but these represent only the tip of the iceberg of the problem. The previous Government had done much of the center, particularly through the Regional Plan for the Prevention to provide financing for major concrete actions to support anti-violence shelters and centers, toll-free numbers, information campaigns, stop listening and emergency projects in favor of single women with children. In addition, they were set up a solidarity fund to assist women victims of crime, a fund to provide them free legal aid and plans to set up centers with anti-violence shelters. " The Board Cota has cleared all the funds for these initiatives. For this issue in the Petition with the women of the PD ask the national government to ensure adequate resources to fund the program against harassment and violence and to the Board Cota to refinance the actions under the Regional Plan and the various laws. The collection of signatures will begin on the occasion of International Day Against Violence Against Women, November 25, and you can join the petition to a special banquet arranged in the Piedmont region, or by visiting the premises of the PD. Finally, an appeal was launched to male political colleagues, and more generally to all men so that they make their contribution to this important battle.
Torino, 22/11/2010
--------------------- As for the Club of the PD of the case are pending to receive from the provincial forms for the collection of signatures, I will come as soon as they will advise on this blog, via email and if it is also possible via a flyer paper.
UPDATE: The modules have arrived! We will begin collecting signatures as soon as !
Secretary
Fabio Lamon
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Least Busy Dmv Culver City
to return to see the stars I
BILL ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND BRIGHT. SUMMARY OF PRESS CONFERENCE
"To go back to see the stars. That is also to get a taste of life, nature and seasons. For better living, saving energy and reducing pollution. I like to tell it the way of this bill. " So Nino Boetie, Regional Council and the petitioner, presented the bill of PD for the prevention and fight against light pollution and energy saving.
A proposal that aims to improve the regional law of 2000, "aligning our region with many others that are more advanced, we are the last places in Italy - said Boetie - This is to reduce the spread of light to the 'high, with no practical difference to the lighting of the streets, then no reduction of the livability and safety, but with significant energy savings. A change it does not cost anything, because it applies only to new facilities, but that would help us live better with less environmental and financial costs. After consideration of the budget, I expect that the Regional Council is concerned with the proposal. "
"It 's a proposal for common sense" to Piero Bianucci, a journalist, an expert in science: "They asked many associations and amateur naturalists, but also groups such as WWF and Pro Natura. The starting point is that in our cities, the sky is no more. Today in Torino can be seen 4 or 5 stars, and if the sky is dark, it can count on average between 500 and 800. In the mountains, then, he reaches to 2000 stars. If we continue at this rate, it is estimated that because of light pollution in 2040 in Turin also disappear from the sky Sirius. "
For this reason, according Bianucci, "the sky is now recovering, saving of resources, as well as natural ones. The energy saved will also mean less pollution because they will work less thermal power stations, natural gas, fuel oil, coal, required to turn all those lights. "
"The technology is already in the direction of energy savings and greater efficiency of the plants," said Eng. Bonata Diego, lighting technician, who recalled how the lighting systems installed for the Olympics in Turin are all inside the new standard in the proposed law: "difficult to quantify the savings, but there are already examples of municipalities in Italy (Piedmont Vignole Bolbera) that have cut electricity to more than 40% in lighting. Change the Piedmont regional legislation, following the example of the majority of Italian regions, also means helping the coffers of the municipalities in times of crisis, local finance as these. "
The law is based on five measures: where light, that steer down the beam, as lighting, lighting that is not to exceed compliance with applicable rules; use efficient sources of new generation facilities to optimize, manage the flows of light to suit the real needs. 
BILL ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND BRIGHT. SUMMARY OF PRESS CONFERENCE
"To go back to see the stars. That is also to get a taste of life, nature and seasons. For better living, saving energy and reducing pollution. I like to tell it the way of this bill. " So Nino Boetie, Regional Council and the petitioner, presented the bill of PD for the prevention and fight against light pollution and energy saving.
A proposal that aims to improve the regional law of 2000, "aligning our region with many others that are more advanced, we are the last places in Italy - said Boetie - This is to reduce the spread of light to the 'high, with no practical difference to the lighting of the streets, then no reduction of the livability and safety, but with significant energy savings. A change it does not cost anything, because it applies only to new facilities, but that would help us live better with less environmental and financial costs. After consideration of the budget, I expect that the Regional Council is concerned with the proposal. "
"It 's a proposal for common sense" to Piero Bianucci, a journalist, an expert in science: "They asked many associations and amateur naturalists, but also groups such as WWF and Pro Natura. The starting point is that in our cities, the sky is no more. Today in Torino can be seen 4 or 5 stars, and if the sky is dark, it can count on average between 500 and 800. In the mountains, then, he reaches to 2000 stars. If we continue at this rate, it is estimated that because of light pollution in 2040 in Turin also disappear from the sky Sirius. "
For this reason, according Bianucci, "the sky is now recovering, saving of resources, as well as natural ones. The energy saved will also mean less pollution because they will work less thermal power stations, natural gas, fuel oil, coal, required to turn all those lights. "
"The technology is already in the direction of energy savings and greater efficiency of the plants," said Eng. Bonata Diego, lighting technician, who recalled how the lighting systems installed for the Olympics in Turin are all inside the new standard in the proposed law: "difficult to quantify the savings, but there are already examples of municipalities in Italy (Piedmont Vignole Bolbera) that have cut electricity to more than 40% in lighting. Change the Piedmont regional legislation, following the example of the majority of Italian regions, also means helping the coffers of the municipalities in times of crisis, local finance as these. "
The law is based on five measures: where light, that steer down the beam, as lighting, lighting that is not to exceed compliance with applicable rules; use efficient sources of new generation facilities to optimize, manage the flows of light to suit the real needs.
Monday, November 15, 2010
How Does A Viganian Look
values \u200b\u200bof the left
The left is the idea that if you look at the world through the eyes of the weak, you can really make a better world for all.
We have the best constitution in the world. The defending itself every day. On 25 April there's a party.
Nobody can stand well on its own. Are you all right even if others are a bit 'well. If you have too few and too many have little economic injustice does not run because it hurts the economy.
It takes a functioning market without monopolies, corporations and dominance. But there are goods that can not be left to the market: health, education, security.
Work is not everything, but who knows the work it does. The work is the dignity of a person. Always. And especially when you're thirty and you're afraid to spend your life on the bench. But flexibility to call a precarious existence is an insult. And then an hour of precarious work can not cost less than an hour of steady employment.
you do not pay taxes puts his hands in the pockets of those who are worse off than him, and € 100 if a worker, a pensioner or a craftsman pay more of € 100 for a speculator, it means that the world is upside down.
front of a serious health problem, there can be neither poor nor rich, nor Calabrian or Lombard or Moroccan.
The teacher chasing a guy to keep him in school is the hero of our times. Weaken the public school means stealing the future of the weakest.
The status of women is the measure of civilization of a country. Trampling life is the humiliation of a country.
We leave the planet better than we found it because we do not have the right to destroy what is not ours. And the energy is saved and renewed clearing the head from fiction nuclear plans.
The son of an immigrant child who is born today is neither immigrant nor Italian. We have to tell him who he is. He is an Italian.
If I die a thousand tubes attached for months, the Parliament can not decide. Because a man is a man with his dignity even in times of suffering and detachment.
there a way to defend the faith of each, to secure the convictions of each, to recognize the condition of each. This mode is called essential secularism.
To drive a car, which is a public, we need a driver's license, which is a private matter. To rule that is a public, must be good people, which is a private matter. Finally
those who consider themselves leftists, who is considered progressive to keep alive the dream of a world at peace, without hate and violence, and must fight against the death penalty, torture, physical abuse or any other moral and any illegal .
In the end, being progressive means to combat the aggressiveness that we live in, that of the strong over the weak, man over woman, who has power over those who do not. And 'take the part of those who have less power and less voice.
Here ends my time, certainly not on my list.
Pierluigi Bersani 
The left is the idea that if you look at the world through the eyes of the weak, you can really make a better world for all.
We have the best constitution in the world. The defending itself every day. On 25 April there's a party.
Nobody can stand well on its own. Are you all right even if others are a bit 'well. If you have too few and too many have little economic injustice does not run because it hurts the economy.
It takes a functioning market without monopolies, corporations and dominance. But there are goods that can not be left to the market: health, education, security.
Work is not everything, but who knows the work it does. The work is the dignity of a person. Always. And especially when you're thirty and you're afraid to spend your life on the bench. But flexibility to call a precarious existence is an insult. And then an hour of precarious work can not cost less than an hour of steady employment.
you do not pay taxes puts his hands in the pockets of those who are worse off than him, and € 100 if a worker, a pensioner or a craftsman pay more of € 100 for a speculator, it means that the world is upside down.
front of a serious health problem, there can be neither poor nor rich, nor Calabrian or Lombard or Moroccan.
The teacher chasing a guy to keep him in school is the hero of our times. Weaken the public school means stealing the future of the weakest.
The status of women is the measure of civilization of a country. Trampling life is the humiliation of a country.
We leave the planet better than we found it because we do not have the right to destroy what is not ours. And the energy is saved and renewed clearing the head from fiction nuclear plans.
The son of an immigrant child who is born today is neither immigrant nor Italian. We have to tell him who he is. He is an Italian.
If I die a thousand tubes attached for months, the Parliament can not decide. Because a man is a man with his dignity even in times of suffering and detachment.
there a way to defend the faith of each, to secure the convictions of each, to recognize the condition of each. This mode is called essential secularism.
To drive a car, which is a public, we need a driver's license, which is a private matter. To rule that is a public, must be good people, which is a private matter. Finally
those who consider themselves leftists, who is considered progressive to keep alive the dream of a world at peace, without hate and violence, and must fight against the death penalty, torture, physical abuse or any other moral and any illegal .
In the end, being progressive means to combat the aggressiveness that we live in, that of the strong over the weak, man over woman, who has power over those who do not. And 'take the part of those who have less power and less voice.
Here ends my time, certainly not on my list.
Pierluigi Bersani
Disney Princess Canopy Bed Canada
Important initiatives on health
I must point out these two important initiatives on health and on the Piedmont of the Valli di Lanzo.
Sorry for the delay on the second initiative, but I have heard today.
The Secretary of the Club
Fabio Lamon 
I must point out these two important initiatives on health and on the Piedmont of the Valli di Lanzo.
Sorry for the delay on the second initiative, but I have heard today.
The Secretary of the Club
Fabio Lamon
Monday, November 8, 2010
Play Simpsons Hit And Run Free
The "Democratic issue" Next Stop Italy 2
I was struck by the last article on Ilvo Diamonds Repubblica.it
I report the steps that I think are simply illuminating and meaningful for discussion of the issue of democracy:
The "issue of democracy", in my opinion, and evokes the first identity. Why the Democratic Party has not yet decided - or clear - who he is and what he wants. The values \u200b\u200band projects-divided. Up to this point has highlighted those "divided." And the divisions seem inspired by personal reasons rather than strategic ... that. [...] Hence the difficulty of proposing, so far, as credible alternatives. Why can not make a clear policy proposal.
Why does a party oligarchy. Impervious to social demands, and - in the words of Pareto - the "circulation of elites" expressed by territory.
only that many voters struggling to identify with a party that does not recognize. Which mobilizes the base but the visit intermittently. Where the choice of candidates and the leader is entrusted with the primary. But the leader is pre-set by the national leadership. That also affects the local appointments. The Democratic Party, therefore, remains an incomplete party. Do not have a recognizable and recognized mission. And why can not establish itself as a real alternative. But no alternative - the Government and Government - is possible without the Democratic Party. Managed to clarify itself, could explain it to others. First, to his constituents. To believers and uncertain, and exiled and disappointed. But it must do so today. Tomorrow is too late.
In a few lines the issue of democracy and pitted, and analyzed the proposal in no uncertain terms, that I can not fully share what Diamond says.
Here the complete article
The Secretary of the Club
Fabio Lamon 
I was struck by the last article on Ilvo Diamonds Repubblica.it
I report the steps that I think are simply illuminating and meaningful for discussion of the issue of democracy:
The "issue of democracy", in my opinion, and evokes the first identity. Why the Democratic Party has not yet decided - or clear - who he is and what he wants. The values \u200b\u200band projects-divided. Up to this point has highlighted those "divided." And the divisions seem inspired by personal reasons rather than strategic ... that. [...] Hence the difficulty of proposing, so far, as credible alternatives. Why can not make a clear policy proposal.
Why does a party oligarchy. Impervious to social demands, and - in the words of Pareto - the "circulation of elites" expressed by territory.
only that many voters struggling to identify with a party that does not recognize. Which mobilizes the base but the visit intermittently. Where the choice of candidates and the leader is entrusted with the primary. But the leader is pre-set by the national leadership. That also affects the local appointments. The Democratic Party, therefore, remains an incomplete party. Do not have a recognizable and recognized mission. And why can not establish itself as a real alternative. But no alternative - the Government and Government - is possible without the Democratic Party. Managed to clarify itself, could explain it to others. First, to his constituents. To believers and uncertain, and exiled and disappointed. But it must do so today. Tomorrow is too late.
In a few lines the issue of democracy and pitted, and analyzed the proposal in no uncertain terms, that I can not fully share what Diamond says.
Here the complete article
The Secretary of the Club
Fabio Lamon
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Implantation Bleeding Multiples
ended today in Florence, the initiative promoted by Matteo Renzi "Next Stop Italy"
Below are the links to the various steps of the initiative and the document "Florence Charter"
Thanks to the past but the future is ours
The Florence Charter
Now a Charter and conventions in other cities
Two wild "dem" boys looking for a new PD
scrap are footing
The PD becomes Wyle Coyote
Good reading
The Secretary of the Club
Fabio Lamon
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Kate's Playground Free Vis
The Constitutional Court ruling opens up new vistas for protection
Di Marco Gattuso (Judge at the Court of Reggio Emilia, interview published on "Politeia, a magazine of ethics and public choices")
The Constitutional Court, despite lights and shadows, represent a historic turning point in several respects. With the exception of the proposition is unconstitutional is produced, first, a true reversal of the current debate: there is no question over whether the Italian Constitution prohibits the recognition of the rights of homosexual couples, but whether and under what circumstances the Constitution imposes such rights. Second, the decision is clear from reading the statement of the constitutional significance of homosexual unions, which in itself constitutes a crucial step for our system [1]. From today it will make more sense to discuss the meaning of "sexual orientation" as unexpectedly made by our Parliament only a few months ago, [2], nor will it be possible to question the need to legislate on the subject, since, as evidenced by Look, the right to recognition of homosexual unions is enshrined in Article. 2 of our Constitution [3]. Moreover, the Court stated that legal recognition "necessarily requires a framework of a general nature, aimed at regulating rights and duties of members of the couple and, therefore, after the ruling will not be sufficient for limited reforms aimed at protecting the rights of individual members of the couple without the legal recognition homosexual union [4].
The claim of constitutional right to free development of individuals even within the same-sex couples also can not fail to have an impact in the evolution of our jurisprudence, for example in returning to those countries preventing that persecute homosexuals openly show affection between two persons of the same sex [5]. The constitutional significance of the homosexual couple also opens up even before any legislative action, new perspectives on the cd. courts for the rights of gay couples, if account is taken of an additional step: waiting for Parliament to adopt an organic framework, the Constitutional Court is committed to ensuring its control from the start every time "in specific situations are identified, need for uniform treatment of the condition of the married couple and that of same-sex couples. " Since, as noted, a judge may bring an issue of unconstitutionality only if the matter can not be resolved through an appropriate interpretation of the rule, the court, first to a couple who ask for protection and that it believes need for a uniform treatment to that of a married couple, will have to directly apply the rules prescribed for the married couple, through a interpretation by analogy, evolutionary, constitutionally normal, and only if that interpretation is not possible to have recourse to the Constitutional Court because it verifies whether the difference in treatment is legitimate. We must determine, firstly whether the same-sex couples exist, and if you have a permanent character similar to a married couple. From this point of view take on renewed importance of the Subscriptions to the same-sex couples as registered family and entered in the records of de facto couples who were already in place in many Italian towns. Verified that a homosexual couple is unmarried and stable, the judge will deny the need for consistent treatment between homosexual unions and married couples on the mere ground that the former is not married, because the Court expressly stated the need to verify that their homogeneity between gay marriage and married couples. Ruling out such a comparison based on the mere absence of marriage would be like denying the root of the assessment required by the Constitutional Court. It will therefore be of great interest to see how the Italian case law will develop in the coming period and develop criteria to establish that of "need for uniform treatment," as in the cases, increasing numbers of gay couples who have children, that in all those situations in which the presence or absence of children does not assume particular importance [ 6].
It should be added in the near-term path toward equality between homosexual couples and heterosexual married couples will be manned not only by our Constitutional Court judges but also by the Luxembourg and Strasbourg. The European framework, in fact, it's definitely changed in recent years until the recent verdict by which the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, would also address for the first time the issue of gay marriage [7], has finally recognized that same-sex couples are families, with a statement that in Italy is even clamorous [8]. This is not surprising, since in Europe the issue of the rights of homosexual unions is seen as a typical topic of civil rights and liberty is traditional, so much so that their public recognition there is now the consensus of the major political forces, both the right and left [9], and that the issue was not addressed by organic law only in Greece and Turkey, as well as in some former communist countries [10], still behind in the path of adjustment to the democratic standards of mold West.
Asked if the interpretation of the Italian Constitution should go so far as to impose even the opening of the institution of marriage to gays, the Court answered - for now - no. This answer is not a surprise, it was probably largely account for those who brought the legal action.
In saying no, the Court suggests that the different modes of protection of homosexual unions shall be referred to the discretion of the Parliament [11]. In Europe the effects are found in different disciplines that can be linked to four different options [12]: 1) marriage between couples of opposite or same gender (Seven countries [13]), 2) registered same-sex unions covered by the rules of marriage (currently the two countries [14]) 3) same-sex unions registered with a specific law (seven countries [15]) 4) Registration both straight and gay couples with rights guaranteed by specific rules (four countries [16]). The Court told us that the Parliament can choose from several options, but after the verdict should be regarded not recognize anything unlawful, and, as mentioned, there will be limited to ensure individual rights to the couple without a legal recognition of 'union.
The Court, however, avoided any reference to the concept of natural law, as had been requested instead of multiple parts and, indeed, used the occasion to say that the concept of family acknowledged and protected by the Constitution, far from being carved once and for all, is constantly evolving. The Court also declined to evoke ontological differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples, merely stating that "homosexual unions can not be considered homogeneous at the wedding" would thus put in a social relationship (same-sex couples) with a legal ( marriage) and not with heterosexual unions, so as to emphasize only the lack of access to the institution of marriage. Can not be considered, in particular, that the Court intended to indicate a difference ontological between homosexual and heterosexual couples where one makes a fleeting reference to "the procreative purpose of marriage since that argument seems only invoked by the Court in order to reconstruct the original intention of the Constituent Assembly [17]. The Court has not touched on the need to defend the traditional family has supported the opening of the gay marriage threatens heterosexual families, thereby avoiding any reference to the many arguments used in the argument against gay rights. The Court is simply to say that the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman and not between persons of the same sex was assumed to date in 1948 when the Constitution was written, and can not be changed by hermeneutics. This is an argument that impresses with its weakness and can not be doubted that much will be discussed. The writer believes that a study showing the same frankly wrong and that over time will be exceeded [18]. From this point of view, the sentence - which, it is worth remembering, is the first on the subject - only marks the beginning of a path.
Some say the Court intended to say that even the Legislature could change the code by opening civil marriage to gays [19]. It is an ongoing debate on that point. For guidance, the Court would be appended to the opinion that sees the word "marriage" a concept unchangeable, even to the popular will. Parliament, therefore, could not redefine the legal institution of civil marriage and the competence of the legislator should be excluded in the future, despite the evolution of social morality and the notion of family, changes in scientific knowledge [20] same evolution of the concept of family in the language of [21] and also in the legal language in the international context [22], the changes have taken place in the law of other countries similar to us [23] and in the same European law [24]. This position seems based on one argument: it must be assumed that the material is removed from the Legislature because the Court notes that the question with respect Articles. 3:29, is unfounded [25]. However, the Court declares in another passage from that article. 2 and art. 117 the issue is unacceptable - that the language used by the Court means that the matter is the responsibility of Parliament - and said expressly that the matter is reserved to the Legislature (as the question whether Article 2. Imposes the "right to marry" for gays is "seeking a ruling additive not constitutionally required"). There is no doubt that the Court was ambiguous. In one passage, considers the question in another unfounded and unacceptable. However, there is a lot more evidence to suggest that the court gave liberty to the Parliament [26]. Throughout the grounds, Indeed, the Court does not introduce any evidence specifically directed at influencing the discretion of the legislator, nor would it be consistent with its previous case law to coerce family, in one way or another, the will of Parliament - the more so by virtue of a purely " originality "of the Constitution. From the reading of the sentence does not appear to support any argument that the opening of marriage violates the rights or interests of third parties and the heterosexual family and therefore is opposed to the spirit of Article warranty. 29. Anchoring the Court suggests the subjective intention of the constituents seems closely related to the interpretations need to prevent "creative" of avoiding that leaps forward in the case law to safeguard the principle of tripartite division of powers, as may already be inferred by the indication that "this meaning of the constitutional precept can not be overcome by hermeneutics." The Court, however, was asked whether Article. 29 requires the recognition of homosexual marriage, but was not asked whether Article. 29 would enable the port. It would be certainly ironic that the refusal to recognize the Court's interpretations of "creative" the court achieves a limitation on the legislature, set ... own through the courts! It should be noted, moreover, as the reading of our Constitution in the sense of a prohibition of the Legislator would be quite unique on the European scene where "no national parliament in order to broaden the content of this institution, has decided to amend the Constitution of duty" [27]. We must consider, again, that the Constitutional Court did not base its decision on the term "natural society", which does not take into account, but only the word "marriage" in our paper makes no reference to man and Women, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights (which says "starting from the minimum age for marriage, man and woman have the right to marry", cf. art. 12) the wording of which has not however, prevented the Strasbourg court to consider newly that this rule refers to the persons entitled to the right to marry (the law, ie, it must be recognized in every man and woman), without necessarily limiting the right to choose its partner [28]. It must be said, finally, that the judges of the Strasbourg Court in their reasoning shows that it can not impose on member countries of the opening of marriage to same-sex couples on the point because the state lacks a "common basis in the laws of the member countries" as is to be understood that such cases could not be excluded for the future. It follows that an unnatural reading of our Constitution, probably against the intention of those performers who today advocate, in the future to expose, risky as baseless, the same conflict with European Bill of Rights.
Notes
[1] It must be recognized that this is an obvious success of the promoters, in particular the campaign designed to promote civil rights lawyer and researcher at the University Private Udine, Francesco Bilotta, and pursued with great determination from the same together with the Association of Advocates Network Lenford radical association and certain rights. For an overview of the legal debate before the decision under review, cf. fundamentals: Love civil law tradition the law of reason, edited by B. De Filippis and F. Bilotta, Udine, Milan, 2010; unions between same sex - Profiles of civil law, common and comparative edited by F. Bilotta Milan-Udine, 2008; M. Bonini Baraldi, New partnerships between foreign and domestic law rules, Milan 2005; M. Bonini Baraldi, the family of gender-sex marriage and constitution, Udine-Milano 2010, the "natural society" and its "enemies." On the paradigm of heterosexual marriage, Turin 2010, Proceedings of the conference held in Ferrara in the imminence of its decision, where are found numerous occasions of great interest; M. Sexual Orientation and deconstructed Montalti constitution. Comparative History of a fundamental right, Bologna 2007; PM Callari same-sex marriage in the United States of America, Padova 2006.
[2] See the preliminary decision of the constitutional question passed by the House October 13, 2009 against the legislation against homophobia where it is argued that sexual orientation "includes any orientation, including incest, pedophilia, bestiality, sadism, necrophilia, masochism and so "incredibly ignorant of the legal concept of sexual orientation already implemented art. 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and universally understood as orientation towards persons of the opposite or of their gender.
[3] The Constitutional Court states that in strength of our Constitution in this community, "it is legal recognition" and therefore identifies a gap in our legislation calling on Parliament to fill it, although "on time, in the manner and within the limits established by law." The reference to "time" is not to suggest that the protection is also in its availability, as well as the discretion is defined as "full" only in order to specify the quomodo ("forms of security and recognition").
[4] In this way they moved, however, the various bills succeeded in recent years (so-called DICO, DIDORE, CUS, etc. ...).
[5] The SC had considered that there would be no danger of persecutory treatment - and therefore could not expel the ban introduced in art. 19 of the Bossi-Fini ("In no case may disporsi expulsion or refoulement to a state in which the alien may be subject to persecution for reasons of race, sex, language, nationality, religion, political opinion of personal or social conditions ") - if the law of that country is not provided as a crime," the fact itself "of homosexuality, but only" the display of such practices in a manner inconsistent with the public sentiment of that country "( Supreme Court Sec. 1, Decision No. 16417 of 07/25/2007). As if to say that in Italy is protected only if the alien in his country of origin is forbidden to belong to an ethnic minority or jew, or be certain to have political opinions, but not if his country has been prosecuted openly practice the Jewish religion or expression ("show off"?) their thoughts ... The constitutional importance of the relationship of homosexual couples, in which a phenomenon is therefore not necessarily relevant in the inner sphere of the person only has relevance but outside, no doubt implies a guarantee of protection, constitutionally imposed, even for the outward manifestations of affection homosexual.
[6] took over the lease, management of the crisis of the couple, the role of the partner in health care and post-mortem decisions, damages in the event of death ... but the list is endless and the investigation may be of interest to all institutions now reserved for married couples.
[7] Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, June 24, 2010. The ECHR held that the Austrian Civil Code, in so far as no provision for same-sex marriage does not violate the Convention Articles. 8, 12 and 14 because the matter is the responsibility of national parliaments.
[8] Examples are only a few years ago, in 2007, the Italian government (center-left!) Denied to homosexual organizations to participate in the Conference national family on the grounds that gay relationships are not family.
[9] An examination of the political parties' official positions of the four other major European countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom and Spain), it is noted that all parliamentary political forces of both right and left, for sole exception of the French National Front, are in favor of public recognition of homosexual unions today urged by our Court.
[10] But not everyone have a law, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia.
[11] The Court considered the question "inadmissible" as "seeking a decision is not constitutionally required augmentation. "The eventual opening of the marriage in fact implies choices left to the discretion of the legislature, not only because same-sex unions could be protected with other institutions related to marriage, but also because, even in the event of opening marriage, may well be excluded on the operation of certain rules, as has happened in other jurisdictions such as on parent-child relationship, the presumption of paternity and adoption.
[12] Many countries provide more institutions contemplating legislation on partnership recorded together with the protection of marriage and cohabitation. A very detailed reconnaissance in M. Bonini Baraldi, New partnerships cit ..
[13] Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. In Luxembourg, Andorra, Finland and Slovenia, the law was announced by the government or is in the process of being approved in Parliament.
[14] Denmark and Finland, whose laws provide for only a few exceptions to parental rights and adoptions. The other countries that are Parties to this option are passed in the last few years of marriage.
[15] United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Austria, Hungary.
[16] France, Luxembourg, Andorra, Ireland. Croatia has recognized rights to same-sex unmarried couples.
[17] agrees that with the mention of "procreative purposes" the Court intended "simply to rebuild, again, the will of the constituents," Singing From The Constitutional Court and same-sex marriage, in Foro It. 2010, I, 1373. Should be considered, in effect, as the connection between marriage and procreation, although this was at the center of legal debate and the same argument to the judges at issue, was not developed in any way by the Court and argument would appear very fragile when it referred the contemporary social reality and the current regulatory framework.
[18] On this point let me point to M. Gattuso, The Constitutional Court on same-sex marriage in Family Law, 2010, 656. The reasons should lead to the conclusion that the unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage, cf. Constitution and even marriages between homosexuals, Il Mulino, 2007, 452; Notes on natural family and the principle of equality (A question about homosexual) Justice in Question, 2007, 261 (also available in www.personaedanno.it) and the dialogue between the The courts in society and its natural enemies, Torino 2010, p. 159 (also available in www.forumcostituzionale.it).
[19] in Italy would also have an outcome similar to those fifteen countries where the constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and woman by preventing the national parliaments a redefinition of marriage by ordinary law (Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Honduras, Belarus , Ecuador, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine Source: Wikipedia, LGBT rights by country or territory).
[20] Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) and has been called a "variant of human behavior" in 1973.
[21] Both Webster's and Oxford Inglese Dictionary recall the union between two persons of the same sex under the heading "marriage."
[22] It has been said of the spread of consensus among major political forces in the continent. The concept of gender-neutral marriage is supported by several Supreme Court rulings of several U.S. states (Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa) as well as by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Canada, Belgium and Portugal. Recently, U.S. courts (District Court of Massachusetts, July 8, 2010, declaring the illegality of the Defense of Marriage Act and the District Court of Northern California v. Perry Schwarzenegger's August 4, 2010 declaring the illegality Proposition 8) came to open a real conflict, the outcome very uncertain, with the legislature (even when exercised by a popular referendum!) who defined marriage as a union specifically between men and women.
[23] The marriage was redefined inclusive way in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and also in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont Washington (District of Columbia) and Mexico City.
[24] by art. 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European legislator has made a choice history since it used the words "marry" and "family" without specifying precisely in order not to exclude marriage for gay couples. The European Court in Strasbourg, for its part, has changed its interpretation of the concept of marriage by announcing that "the Court will not consider more than the right to marry under Article. 12 in all circumstances be limited to marriage between persons of opposite sex "(Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, cit.).
[25] Dal Canto The Constitutional Court and same-sex marriage, in Foro It. 2010, I, 1373. L. D'Angelo, The Look at the Legislature: the marriage nun must one do, American Lawyer Media, April 19, 2010; G. M. Salerno, the marriage bond is not susceptible to creative interpretation, in Guide to the law, family and children, in May 2010, 46; S. Spinelli, Marriage is not a review of notebooks Constitutional Forum, 2010, www.forumcostituzionale.it; PA Capotosti Marriage between same-sex versus unfounded inadmissible in Case No. 138 of 2010 in Constitutional Papers, 2010, 361.
[26] The landing of a Constitution that prohibits and does not appear to conform to guidance requires that, in historicist perspective, however, sees art. 29 a standard white refers to the legal definition of marriage, what is shown currently in the code civil, on which see. Pignatelli, Doubts of the constitutionality of the marriage, 3, Quaderni Constitutional Forum, 2010, in www.forumcostituzionale.it 14; see also A. Comparative Reflections on Article Schuster. 29 of the Constitution of the Italian unions between same-sex cit., 185.
[27] The point is N. Pignatelli, notions of marriage and the regulation of same-sex couples in Europe, in Foro It., 2005, V, 260 ff.
[28] Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, cit. . The wording of Article. 32 of the English Constitution, which contains a direct reference to men and women (Article 32: "el hombre y la mujer Tienen derecho a contraer marriage plena igualdad jurídica "), did not prevent the Legislature evolutionary interpretation.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Doctors Note From A Walk In Clinic
Welcome To The Hotel California
Press Thursday, August 5, 2010
GAY MARRIAGE. CALIFORNIA, AND BAN 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
INABILITY TO 'POLICY REQUIRES ACTION Judiciary.
Commentary on the California court ruling
who established the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the California with the ruling expressed it yesterday ruled against a ban on marriages gay, as set by the referendum known as Proposition 8. " The referendum was promoted by a coalition of religious denominations. According to the national
Walker, prevent homosexuals to marry is discriminatory . Proposition 8 reads the statement, is "unconstitutional" and does not provide the ban "no rational basis" , but merely states categorically that "heterosexual couples are superior to homosexual couples." "The only moral disapproval is an improper basis for denying rights to gays and lesbians," says the judge, adding: "it is clear that the moral and religious are the only basis for believing that the pairs of the same sex are different from heterosexual ones. "As if to say: a rule of law can not make them his own .
Walker, noting that opposition to gay marriage has a strong religious motivation, said that against 'the interest of a state when put in place a rule by its very nature must be secular " and that" the state has no interest in strengthening the moral or religious beliefs without being accompanied by a secular purpose. "Banning Gay marriage is therefore "an artifact of a time when genres were seen as having different roles in society and in marriage," a time "has passed," said Walker.
Once again - as in Italy with the recent ruling 138/2010 - the inability of politics of legislating for equality secularly of all citizens and all citizens before the law, as enshrined in our Constitution, has forced the judiciary to intervene .
The success of the LGBT movement in California is a news that warms the hearts of hope and desire to do hands , because the battle for equal rights where he was started again with enthusiasm. And 'the case to exclaim the famous verse of the song by the Eagles: "Welcome To The Hotel California" . 
Press Thursday, August 5, 2010
GAY MARRIAGE. CALIFORNIA, AND BAN 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
INABILITY TO 'POLICY REQUIRES ACTION Judiciary.
Commentary on the California court ruling
who established the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the California with the ruling expressed it yesterday ruled against a ban on marriages gay, as set by the referendum known as Proposition 8. " The referendum was promoted by a coalition of religious denominations. According to the national
Walker, prevent homosexuals to marry is discriminatory . Proposition 8 reads the statement, is "unconstitutional" and does not provide the ban "no rational basis" , but merely states categorically that "heterosexual couples are superior to homosexual couples." "The only moral disapproval is an improper basis for denying rights to gays and lesbians," says the judge, adding: "it is clear that the moral and religious are the only basis for believing that the pairs of the same sex are different from heterosexual ones. "As if to say: a rule of law can not make them his own .
Walker, noting that opposition to gay marriage has a strong religious motivation, said that against 'the interest of a state when put in place a rule by its very nature must be secular " and that" the state has no interest in strengthening the moral or religious beliefs without being accompanied by a secular purpose. "Banning Gay marriage is therefore "an artifact of a time when genres were seen as having different roles in society and in marriage," a time "has passed," said Walker.
Once again - as in Italy with the recent ruling 138/2010 - the inability of politics of legislating for equality secularly of all citizens and all citizens before the law, as enshrined in our Constitution, has forced the judiciary to intervene .
The success of the LGBT movement in California is a news that warms the hearts of hope and desire to do hands , because the battle for equal rights where he was started again with enthusiasm. And 'the case to exclaim the famous verse of the song by the Eagles: "Welcome To The Hotel California" .
Monday, August 2, 2010
Forumophilia Milena D
THE MAGAZINE AND FAMILY LAW "ON THE GAY MARRIAGE
GAY MARRIAGE. COMMENTARY PUBLISHED
THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHECK:
IS NOT REQUIRED CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
The most prestigious Italian magazine industry, "Family Law", in the current issue 07/2010
a public comment on the decision 138/2010
The comment of the magazine "Family Law", the most prestigious sector of the Italian edition, signed by Mark Gattuso, judge, takes stock of the situation on the issue of civil marriage for gay people, after the ruling of the Court constitutional.
The basic steps are that much of the commentary crucial to the fight to equality.
Thus we read that "the Court takes a step forward, identifying the" gay marriage, understood as a stable coexistence between two persons of the same sex ", a" social formation "as protected by Article. 2 of the Constitution. It thus constitutes the fundamental right to personal development even within the homosexual couple. " The Court has "a special constitutional importance attaches to the same legal concept of sexual orientation, universally understood as orientation towards persons of the opposite gender or of its already implemented and in that sense art. 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. "
The Court accepts the contents of this fundamental right noting that "this union is not for just the right" to live freely in a state of torque "but also" the legal status with the associated rights and obligations. " We have here a shift of historic proportions, which marks the overcoming of any idea when the call to consume liberal Italian legal system in the mere respect for private life. "
stating that "under the Constitution to that community" it is a legal recognition "and" necessarily "requires discipline, the fact Consult identifies a gap in our legislation and calls the legislature to fill it. " "The eventual opening of marriage involves choices left to the discretion of the legislature, so therefore it is full of possibilities for action.
"In all the motivation, the Court does not introduce any evidence specifically directed at influencing the discretion of the legislator, nor would it be consistent with its previous case law to coerce family, one way or another, the parliamentary will."
"Since the verdict is not clear, however, no argument to support the opening of marriage violates the rights or interests of third parties and the heterosexual family and therefore is opposed to ratio of the standard warranty. It follows that if the legislator is precluded by Article. 29 of the Constitution a law that limits the rights of the family should not be regarded as foreclosed, however, by legislative redefinition of the concept of "marriage" in a non-exhaustive, but rather inclusive. "
The Court also stated that "remains" reserved to the Constitutional Court the power to intervene in the interests of specific situations "where" is determined to need a level playing field between the condition of the married couple and that of same-sex couples, that this treatment Court can offer complete control of reasonableness. " The statement the existence of a fundamental right, therefore, leads to ensure legal protection whenever it is found the need for equal protection. "
This Court's statement "is of particular significance, since in the light of this information, you should assume that all courts are required to establish from time to time whether in the given situation" is determined to need a level playing field " and check in advance if the device supports the married couple can also be applied to homosexual couples. "
The Court's ruling, therefore, opens the door to the judicial process for obtaining a full equality, a fact that the more important as the property remains the Italian political landscape.
"is also significant that the Court announces the intention to compare the homosexual couple and the couple" married ". The notation seems of particular importance, since it is then merely a statement of principle to deny a right granted to married couples on the sole ground of lack of marriage, venendosi to deny in its root that occurs in practice required by the Court. "
"It is in this respect of some interest that the reading of the sentence, except the lack of access to the institution of marriage, the Court did not set out any ontological heterogeneity between heterosexual and homosexual affection ".
COMMITTEE "YES, I WANT IT!"
for the recognition of the right to civil marriage to gay people
Press Thursday, July 30, 2010 
GAY MARRIAGE. COMMENTARY PUBLISHED
THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHECK:
IS NOT REQUIRED CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
The most prestigious Italian magazine industry, "Family Law", in the current issue 07/2010
a public comment on the decision 138/2010
The comment of the magazine "Family Law", the most prestigious sector of the Italian edition, signed by Mark Gattuso, judge, takes stock of the situation on the issue of civil marriage for gay people, after the ruling of the Court constitutional.
The basic steps are that much of the commentary crucial to the fight to equality.
Thus we read that "the Court takes a step forward, identifying the" gay marriage, understood as a stable coexistence between two persons of the same sex ", a" social formation "as protected by Article. 2 of the Constitution. It thus constitutes the fundamental right to personal development even within the homosexual couple. " The Court has "a special constitutional importance attaches to the same legal concept of sexual orientation, universally understood as orientation towards persons of the opposite gender or of its already implemented and in that sense art. 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. "
The Court accepts the contents of this fundamental right noting that "this union is not for just the right" to live freely in a state of torque "but also" the legal status with the associated rights and obligations. " We have here a shift of historic proportions, which marks the overcoming of any idea when the call to consume liberal Italian legal system in the mere respect for private life. "
stating that "under the Constitution to that community" it is a legal recognition "and" necessarily "requires discipline, the fact Consult identifies a gap in our legislation and calls the legislature to fill it. " "The eventual opening of marriage involves choices left to the discretion of the legislature, so therefore it is full of possibilities for action.
"In all the motivation, the Court does not introduce any evidence specifically directed at influencing the discretion of the legislator, nor would it be consistent with its previous case law to coerce family, one way or another, the parliamentary will."
"Since the verdict is not clear, however, no argument to support the opening of marriage violates the rights or interests of third parties and the heterosexual family and therefore is opposed to ratio of the standard warranty. It follows that if the legislator is precluded by Article. 29 of the Constitution a law that limits the rights of the family should not be regarded as foreclosed, however, by legislative redefinition of the concept of "marriage" in a non-exhaustive, but rather inclusive. "
The Court also stated that "remains" reserved to the Constitutional Court the power to intervene in the interests of specific situations "where" is determined to need a level playing field between the condition of the married couple and that of same-sex couples, that this treatment Court can offer complete control of reasonableness. " The statement the existence of a fundamental right, therefore, leads to ensure legal protection whenever it is found the need for equal protection. "
This Court's statement "is of particular significance, since in the light of this information, you should assume that all courts are required to establish from time to time whether in the given situation" is determined to need a level playing field " and check in advance if the device supports the married couple can also be applied to homosexual couples. "
The Court's ruling, therefore, opens the door to the judicial process for obtaining a full equality, a fact that the more important as the property remains the Italian political landscape.
"is also significant that the Court announces the intention to compare the homosexual couple and the couple" married ". The notation seems of particular importance, since it is then merely a statement of principle to deny a right granted to married couples on the sole ground of lack of marriage, venendosi to deny in its root that occurs in practice required by the Court. "
"It is in this respect of some interest that the reading of the sentence, except the lack of access to the institution of marriage, the Court did not set out any ontological heterogeneity between heterosexual and homosexual affection ".
COMMITTEE "YES, I WANT IT!"
for the recognition of the right to civil marriage to gay people
Press Thursday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Hp Pavillion T3000 Price
After the Constitutional Court of silence policy
Comment Att. prof. Marilisa D'Amico
Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Milan
Sentence no 138 of 2010 the Italian Constitutional Court is a crucial step, although not definitive in terms of recognizing the rights of gay couples and, also, the fundamental "right to marry."
of this decision is circulating a simplistic interpretation would argue that, in my opinion wrongly, that the Court "marriage" between same-sex couples could be achieved only by the revision of Art. 29 of the Constitution which does not lend itself to a reading of "evolutionary".
This interpretation of the sentence no 138 of 2010 is not acceptable, for three reasons:
1. level at the decision, the reading of Articles. 3:29 Constitution prediction based on the assumption that the original article. 29 of the Constitution, while knowing the phenomenon of homosexuality, he wished to deal only marriage between heterosexuals, is a very weak argument. It looks like what the Court held, in Case No. 421 of 1995, rejecting the so-called shares rose; wrong on that principle, the Court is back in Case No. 49 of 2003, which is a real overruling . Similarly, nothing would prevent the Court in the future to recognize the weakness of his performance only "historical" art. 29 Constitution By this yardstick, then, could have been held constitutionally unlawful even the anticipation of divorce.
2. The Constitutional Court, relying on. 2 of the Constitution, and Article. 117 of the Constitution (made stronger by the recent ruling by the Austrian Constitutional Court), has recognized not only the constitutional value of the "homosexual couple" but defined as necessary legal measures for the organic framework and has reserved the right to intervene in specific correction of all violations of specific rights. This decision is a warning the legislature very strong: no mention of faculty, but need of assistance.
3. The signal by the Court, is clear: in front of the legal vacuum, which places Italy in a situation quite unique compared to other European countries (Portugal, Austria, ... but to get out of Europe, including Argentina ), the Court should be extended to the role of the legislature and, therefore, adopt a policy on the organic framework. It will, however, the legislature, in its discretion, to decide to order a full equality, even in the name "marriage" of same-sex unions than heterosexuals.
The land, however, is the subject of profound change, as evidenced also the recent decision of the European Court (Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, 24 June 2010). The Court does not simply refer generically to politics, but carves out a space before the intervention to specific situations: this makes the warning, in my opinion, even more compelling.
In conclusion, those looking for today, even in good faith, and many more readings of the sentence, does nothing but waste valuable time and ignores the clear and unambiguous indication of the Constitutional Court: the need, without delay is a law.
The "legal proceedings" in the recognition and protection of rights, can not and should not replace the "street politics", but only to offer support and help when it is proved slow, insufficient or inadequate, as more often happens in Italy.
***
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Why Did Heather Brooke Quit
ARRIBA ARGENTINA! STEFANO
ARGENTINA, THE GAY MARRIAGE AND 'LAW.
INSTITUTIONS HAVE LAY IT RESOLVED, the unprecedented
DESPITE PRESSURE clerical.
Enzo Cucco, Giuseppina La Delfa and Maurizio Cecconi, spokesman for the Committee,
on a law approved last night by the Senate of Argentina.
"Argentina, a country where 91% of the population is Catholic, has run converted dawn today in the first state in South America - the tenth in the world - that recognizes gay people the right to civil marriage and In parallel, the adoptions. The final debate in the Senate of the Republic, which lasted over 15 hours, was transmitted entirely by television, representing a model of democratic discussion and decision-secular. In fact, despite the unprecedented pressure from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, going so far to organize street protests that have created tension and incidents, the highest institutions of Argentina have decided bearing in mind the common principle of equality before the law ", so Enzo Cucco, spokesman for the Committee" Yes, I do. " For Josephine
The Delphi spokesman of the Committee "Yes, I want it!", "The decision of Argentina is a historic step forward. As noted by María Rachid, representative of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (FALGBT), access to marriage also implies the recognition of all those rights which are tied to marriage. In particular, the adoptions. Equality before the law is the prerequisite for achieving social equality. "
"One day after the anniversary of the French Revolution, which marked the end of the power of the aristocracy and clergy, Argentina gives us a civilized, obtained with an exemplary effort, through the efforts of LGBT Argentine and the positions of the majority of secular political forces, "as well Maurizio Cecconi, spokesman for the Committee" Yes, I do, "which concludes:" While in Argentina open to gay marriage, in Italy we are stuck with the utterances of beam-clerical Giovanardi and the Berlusconi government. It 's time, also for our country, a new era of freedom and profound and radical change. "
COMMITTEE "YES, I WANT IT!"
for the recognition of the right to civil marriage to gay people
Press Thursday, July 15, 2010 
ARGENTINA, THE GAY MARRIAGE AND 'LAW.
INSTITUTIONS HAVE LAY IT RESOLVED, the unprecedented
DESPITE PRESSURE clerical.
Enzo Cucco, Giuseppina La Delfa and Maurizio Cecconi, spokesman for the Committee,
on a law approved last night by the Senate of Argentina.
"Argentina, a country where 91% of the population is Catholic, has run converted dawn today in the first state in South America - the tenth in the world - that recognizes gay people the right to civil marriage and In parallel, the adoptions. The final debate in the Senate of the Republic, which lasted over 15 hours, was transmitted entirely by television, representing a model of democratic discussion and decision-secular. In fact, despite the unprecedented pressure from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, going so far to organize street protests that have created tension and incidents, the highest institutions of Argentina have decided bearing in mind the common principle of equality before the law ", so Enzo Cucco, spokesman for the Committee" Yes, I do. " For Josephine
The Delphi spokesman of the Committee "Yes, I want it!", "The decision of Argentina is a historic step forward. As noted by María Rachid, representative of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (FALGBT), access to marriage also implies the recognition of all those rights which are tied to marriage. In particular, the adoptions. Equality before the law is the prerequisite for achieving social equality. "
"One day after the anniversary of the French Revolution, which marked the end of the power of the aristocracy and clergy, Argentina gives us a civilized, obtained with an exemplary effort, through the efforts of LGBT Argentine and the positions of the majority of secular political forces, "as well Maurizio Cecconi, spokesman for the Committee" Yes, I do, "which concludes:" While in Argentina open to gay marriage, in Italy we are stuck with the utterances of beam-clerical Giovanardi and the Berlusconi government. It 's time, also for our country, a new era of freedom and profound and radical change. "
COMMITTEE "YES, I WANT IT!"
for the recognition of the right to civil marriage to gay people
Press Thursday, July 15, 2010
Play Techdecklive.com
RODOTA ON GAY MARRIAGES
gay marriage and the duties of Parliament
Stefano Rodota
Republic, July 15, 2010
Around the world 's rights agenda is composed and decomposed. It discusses the freedom of expression on the Internet. The migrants' rights are central to an important speech of Obama, while in Europe produce manifestations of xenophobia and racism that affect national elections. The economic crisis affect the rights of workers, impose conditions which violate the principle of "decent work", the dignity of work. The latest news from 'Island Add another country to those who already have recognized same-sex marriage, while in Italy the gay community is experiencing an unprecedented controversy. These react an authoritative exponent of this world, Aurelio Mancuso, saying that "the quarrels of these communities do not want to hear about the rights community wants," adding that this is a request to all political forces, without distinction. A move "political nature" or a just institutional stress? The Italian Parliament is in default, and I think that would be brought to his duties. In a recent ruling, in fact, The Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutional importance of homosexual unions, because we are a source of "social groups" mentioned in the 'Article 2 of the Constitution. From this conclusion the Court draws an important conclusion: the same-sex couples joined by a stable coexistence "has the fundamental right to live freely in a state of torque, getting - on time, in the manner and within the limits prescribed by law - legal recognition with the associated rights and duties. " These words are difficult: a "fundamental right" is waiting for its full approval.
gay marriage and the duties of Parliament
Stefano Rodota
Republic, July 15, 2010
Around the world 's rights agenda is composed and decomposed. It discusses the freedom of expression on the Internet. The migrants' rights are central to an important speech of Obama, while in Europe produce manifestations of xenophobia and racism that affect national elections. The economic crisis affect the rights of workers, impose conditions which violate the principle of "decent work", the dignity of work. The latest news from 'Island Add another country to those who already have recognized same-sex marriage, while in Italy the gay community is experiencing an unprecedented controversy. These react an authoritative exponent of this world, Aurelio Mancuso, saying that "the quarrels of these communities do not want to hear about the rights community wants," adding that this is a request to all political forces, without distinction. A move "political nature" or a just institutional stress? The Italian Parliament is in default, and I think that would be brought to his duties. In a recent ruling, in fact, The Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutional importance of homosexual unions, because we are a source of "social groups" mentioned in the 'Article 2 of the Constitution. From this conclusion the Court draws an important conclusion: the same-sex couples joined by a stable coexistence "has the fundamental right to live freely in a state of torque, getting - on time, in the manner and within the limits prescribed by law - legal recognition with the associated rights and duties. " These words are difficult: a "fundamental right" is waiting for its full approval.
It is not acceptable, therefore, the neglect of the Parliament, because this will deprive people of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Someone in the Senate and the House, with all due hardness will ask that you asked this at least reopen the debate on de facto unions? But the Court goes further. While reiterating that the 'current constitutional framework does not allow marriage to encompass within it the framework of homosexual unions, makes two important statements. The first is general. It is noted that the current rules, which bind to the difference in sex marriage can not be overcome through an interpretation of constitutional judges. This means that, precluded the court, the way of change 's article of the Constitution on marriage, to be compatible with same-sex unions could be covered by the legislature. It can be argued that a constitutional amendment on such a hot topic seems unlikely. And here the second statement, which shows how a proper perspective is not absolute incompatibility between the model of traditional marriage and that of 'homosexual unions. You always talks about the Court that: "It may happen that, in reports to special circumstances, is determined to need a level playing field between the condition of the married couple and that of same-sex couples." A barrier has fallen. The Parliament can not use 's argument, used in the past, of an alleged obligation not to create "contiguity" between discipline and discipline of the marriage of de facto unions. Just because the Constitutional Court judges were guided by such awareness, we could expect a greater attention to the way the issue is dealt with by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union '. Here it takes a sharp reversal.
Nell 'Article 21 shall prohibit any discrimination based on sexual orientation. And, above all, in 'Article 9 states that "the right to marry and to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the' exercise '. The distinction between "the right to marry" and "to a family "was introduced precisely to allow the establishment of legal unions as distinct from those between people of different sex, so even those between homosexuals. And the breakthrough represented by the Charter becomes even more evident if one makes a comparison with what has the 'Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights' man of 1950,' Where is written that "men and women have the right to marry and found a family according to national laws governing the 'exercise of that right. " Comparing this item with that of the Charter, we capture substantial differences. In the paper disappears, the reference to "men and women." There is no mention of a single "Right to marry and to found a family" but recognize two distinct rights, the right to marry and to found a family. The conclusion is obvious. In the European constitutional framework, to which 'Italy must be based, there are now two categories of partnerships designed to regulate relations between people of life. Two groups that have similar legal significance, and therefore the same dignity you can not argue that there is a recognized principle - that of traditional heterosexual marriage - and an exception (if any) tolerated - that same-sex unions. In a country that honors the culture of debate and respects the rights of persons, these should be guidelines for the legislature. Since, however, these issues are now the subject of ideological arrogance of those who want imporrei own values, calling them non-negotiable, it may be recalled that the Catholic world is not reducible to the Vatican hierarchy and to whom it echoes. In 2008, the Jesuit magazine, social updates, published a series of writings on same-sex unions, with whom we may disagree on some points, but facing a very difficult conclusion.
the Catholic politician who says "not for the legislature to investigate how the relationship is lived in other respects than that binding of 'taking care of public and the promotion of 'other'. It is stressed that, once recognized the value of social coexistence, "would be contrary to the principle of equality guarantees to exclude certain types of partnerships, including between persons of the same sex." Since these are fundamental human rights, recognition "is the first issue of morality that constitutional guarantee." You could not say better. But I must add that no one can ignore this issue considering the affairs of others. Interviewed by The New York Times, Martha Nussbaum has said, "If I said, I am concerned that I'm enjoying a privilege denied to same-sex couples." Even the most intimate relationship between the decisions can not make us look away from living in society, from the condition and rights of every other person, near or far it is.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Rubbermaid Store In London Ontario
STATEMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GIOVANARDI
FAMILY 'pluralistic model.
UNITA 'D'ITALY THREATENED DALL'EVERSIONE
CONSTITUTION OF PDL AND NORTHERN LEAGUE
Maurizio Cecconi, spokesman for the Committee on the statements of
Secretary to the Prime Minister, Carlo Giovanardi.
"On 15 April, the Constitutional Court, with the important decision No. 138/2010, required the legal recognition of unmarried couples, heterosexual and homosexual. Very clear, In this sense, the words of the Court: "For training to be considered any form of social community, simple or complex, such as to allow and encourage the free development of individuals in their personal relationships, in the context of a pluralistic model of development. In this concept is to include homosexual unions also understood as stable coexistence between two persons of the same sex, which has the fundamental right to live freely in a state of torque, getting - on time, in the manner and within the limits prescribed by law - the recognition with the associated legal rights and duties ". The statements by the Secretary Giovanardi be considered, therefore, like nonsense words, "as well Maurizio Cecconi, spokesman for the Committee concludes that: "To threaten the unity of the Italian Republic and impunity constitutional subversion of the PDL and the Northern League. Those who, like Giovanardi, guide the institutions of our judgments without knowing the maximum Watchdog, is a dangerous drunk at the wheel of the country. "
Maurizio Cecconi
+39349808 48 99
Committee "Yes, I want it!"
for the recognition of the right to civil marriage to gay people
Press Friday, July 2, 2010 
FAMILY 'pluralistic model.
UNITA 'D'ITALY THREATENED DALL'EVERSIONE
CONSTITUTION OF PDL AND NORTHERN LEAGUE
Maurizio Cecconi, spokesman for the Committee on the statements of
Secretary to the Prime Minister, Carlo Giovanardi.
"On 15 April, the Constitutional Court, with the important decision No. 138/2010, required the legal recognition of unmarried couples, heterosexual and homosexual. Very clear, In this sense, the words of the Court: "For training to be considered any form of social community, simple or complex, such as to allow and encourage the free development of individuals in their personal relationships, in the context of a pluralistic model of development. In this concept is to include homosexual unions also understood as stable coexistence between two persons of the same sex, which has the fundamental right to live freely in a state of torque, getting - on time, in the manner and within the limits prescribed by law - the recognition with the associated legal rights and duties ". The statements by the Secretary Giovanardi be considered, therefore, like nonsense words, "as well Maurizio Cecconi, spokesman for the Committee concludes that: "To threaten the unity of the Italian Republic and impunity constitutional subversion of the PDL and the Northern League. Those who, like Giovanardi, guide the institutions of our judgments without knowing the maximum Watchdog, is a dangerous drunk at the wheel of the country. "
Maurizio Cecconi
+39349808 48 99
Committee "Yes, I want it!"
for the recognition of the right to civil marriage to gay people
Press Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Brent Everett Goes Bottom
Saturday, July 26, 2010, at 10 am at the Foundation
Sudd, Corso Umberto 35, Naples
Seminar:
"Families and the right to homosexual marriage
the light of the recent Judgement of the Constitutional Court"
The seminar is organized by the National Committee "Yes!, I want it for the recognition of the right to legal marriage between same-sex ", and is primarily the representatives of the Italian LGBT groups. The intent is to organize a debate on the consequences of the recent Constitutional Court ruling on the issue.
addition to representatives of organizations participating in the Committee has ensured its presence Antonio Rotelli, President of the Advocacy Network-Lenford.
Information:
Enzo Cucco
347.0431401
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Alcatel Crystal Sim Not Recognised
VALUE VALUE FROM YOUR CAPITAL ... ...
In any case, is secured and in case of premature death a minimum return of 2% per year.
AlValore Alliance is a single premium life insurance policy that provides for the payment at maturity of a capital re-evaluated .
In case of premature death of the insured, the revalued capital is recognized beneficiaries.
capital is reevaluated based on the results of the Euro San Giorgio : the revaluation is recognized in varying degrees, with a deduction of 0.80% in case of return of less than or equal to 6%.
Payments
The premium is paid in a lump sum on signing the contract: AlValore the Alliance can be signed from a minimum prize of 2,500 €.
Duration
A minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 15 years.
Bonus
consists of an increase in the insured benefit is recognized that contracts with a duration of at least 5 years and a minimum premium of 6,000 €.
Legal and tax
consists of an increase in the insured benefit is recognized that contracts with a duration of at least 5 years and a minimum premium of 6,000 €.
Legal and tax
Exemption from paying capital taxes paid in the event of premature death.
Impignorabilità and Immunity of the sum insured.
The benefit upon maturity or redemption is taxable income subject to substitute tax of 12.5%, the corresponding part the difference between the accrued capital (performance at maturity or redemption) and the single premium paid.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Stream The Training Of O Free
May 14, 2010 in Milan
announced the national meeting will take place:
May 14, 2010 from 11 am to 16
at the headquarters of the IGC, Via Bezzecca 3, Milan
On the agenda:
discussion on the ruling of the Constitutional Court
first consideration of new initiatives, judicial and not any other business
The meeting is open to representatives of associations Committee, the Lawyers Network Lenford Lawyers and the College who has supported our arguments before the Court.
Information:
Enzo Cucco
347.0431401 
announced the national meeting will take place:
May 14, 2010 from 11 am to 16
at the headquarters of the IGC, Via Bezzecca 3, Milan
On the agenda:
discussion on the ruling of the Constitutional Court
first consideration of new initiatives, judicial and not any other business
The meeting is open to representatives of associations Committee, the Lawyers Network Lenford Lawyers and the College who has supported our arguments before the Court.
Information:
Enzo Cucco
347.0431401
Monday, May 3, 2010
Differences Between Flip Mino And Ultra
MICROMEGA ON GAY MARRIAGE
Micromega
22/4/2010
gay marriage, whether the Civil Code takes precedence over the Constitution of
Persio Tincani
The issue of gay marriage in the Constitutional Court has concluded in the way that many predicted, ie a rejection of substantial questions of constitutionality remittances from the Court of Appeal of Trento and the court of Venice. The decision was, in this sense, not predictable, however, has nothing to do with the issue itself (same-sex marriage is compatible with the Constitution?) And everything to do with the fact that we should not pretend virgins, such as those convinced that there is always a court in Berlin. That the Court rejected the issues, in short, we were all more or less reasonably certain, both those in favor of gay marriage, or the vast majority of Italian jurists, as opposed to the minority of jurists.
All or almost all, in fact, considered unlikely that the Court would decide in the sense of the eligibility of same-sex marriage, since the question was (no matter now how much this has been a work of art) of an almost political significance exclusive, that has come to pass in the back that it, like every other issue placed in front of consultation on a matter of law and of law.
Beyond the arguments raised by each of the argument of the merits or constitutionality of groundlessness of particular observations in the two acts with which the courts have placed the issue before the Consulta, and even more beyond the arguments that each put forward to the eligibility or ineligibility for same-sex marriage in our legal system, nobody would have bet that a final word would be pronounced by the Court in this regard.
What wonder, then, is not that the Court has declared the foundation of the issues of constitutionality, but the way in which the did, in a ruling that the 2010 n.138 (April 15), much criticized, both in terms of legal technique, both in terms of mere consistency of argument. Steps argumentative false or questionable the decision are many. Here I simply point out one.
One of the strong opponents of same-sex marriage is the reference to "nature" this art. 29 of the Constitution where it states that "the Republic recognizes the rights of the family as a natural society founded on marriage." According to the interpretation given by them, the meaning of this article would be to sanction the constitutional level the so-called "natural family", which would be composed by a wife, a husband and, possibly, a certain number of children.
goes without saying that it is sufficient to read a minimum of attention, or honesty, the text of art. 29 to see that things are not so and that there is no "natural family". He is speaking of the family as a natural society, "which means, in legal language, a company that people form without any need for legal rules (unlike what happens, for example, in the case of corporations, that would be inconceivable without the legal rules that define and govern).
law, in short, comes after. And the Constitution, in particular, comes to determine that the rights of the family "(in reality the rights of individuals that compose it) have long recognized that this" natural society "has led to a marriage, under the rules of civil law. The Court, in fact, not even taking into account the theory of "natural family" and reaffirms the benefit of hard knocks, the obviousness that the text of the constitutional provision it makes sense to recognize, in fact, that families exist without you is a rule of law that defines them.
So far, nothing to say. The critical point, however, is a close second, when the Court writes: "In those circumstances, it is true that the concepts of family and marriage can not be considered "Crystallized" with respect to the time when the Constitution came into force, because they have the flexibility of its constitutional principles and therefore should be interpreted taking into account not only of the order processing, but also the evolution of society and costumes.
This interpretation, however, can only go so far as to affect the core of the standard, modified so as to include it in the phenomena and issues not covered in any way when it was enacted. " In particular, given that "the issue of homosexual unions was completely extraneous to the debate in the Assembly [Constituent N. d. A.], although the homosexual condition is not some unknown [...] it must be emphasized, therefore, that the rule did not consider same-sex unions, but rather intended to refer to marriage in the traditional sense of this institution. "
Let's see what's wrong with this step, critical of the ruling. And if it is true that the concepts of "family" and "marriage" should not be construed as crystallized in the era when the art was formulated. 29, then you do not understand why the evolution of society and customs, also referred to by the text of the sentence as a factor to take into account in interpreting the rule, not here appropriate to include in the definition of "family" who has access to "marriage" that consists of two persons of the same sex. The Court clarified, however, that the role of interpretation may not go so far as to affect "the core of the rule," which would indicate the marriage "in the traditional sense."
Here, as you can see, there's something wrong. The fact that the Constituent Assembly took into consideration the traditional marriage is, in all probability, no doubt. But at the same time, this can not be understood as a constraint for the next performer, at least not if one accepts, as the Court, that constitutional principles are distinguished by their intrinsic flexibility, given by them to take into account and the transformation of the evolution "of society and morals."
This apparent inconsistency (or the rules are flexible and follows the evolution of morals or are not) is, however, corrected by an immediate clarification of the Court itself, which explains how the "flexibility" can not reach up to " affect the core of the rule. " What is this core? The heterosexuality of marriage. And why? Why the Civil Code states: "The constituents, processing the art. 29 of the Constitution, discussed a school that had a definite shape and a comprehensive discipline in the civil order. Therefore, in the absence of several references is a foregone conclusion that they kept in mind the concept of marriage as defined by the Civil Code came into force in 1942, stated that [...] (and still provides) that the spouses should be persons of different sex. "
Now, say that the Civil Code establishes the difference in sex of the spouses that the marriage is valid because it is at least risky. The Civil Code, rather, do not ever express the necessary condition of the same sex for a valid marriage, so much so that the existing judicial decisions on this have always made a work of interpretation.
But even if you wanted to gloss over this point - in fact the center of the whole matter - the reasoning explained Court turns out to be a contradiction, because it leads to the only logical conclusion possible to subordinate the Constitution to the Civil Code. Which, to be precise, it is the opposite of what, by contrast, make a rigor of law, not interpret a constitutional article in the light of the Civil Code, but vice versa.
If not, in fact, it is not clear what is the role of a constitutional court, and what type of censorship could have on the general law, if it becomes the instrument to which the constitutional provision must look to get meaning. 
Micromega
22/4/2010
gay marriage, whether the Civil Code takes precedence over the Constitution of
Persio Tincani
The issue of gay marriage in the Constitutional Court has concluded in the way that many predicted, ie a rejection of substantial questions of constitutionality remittances from the Court of Appeal of Trento and the court of Venice. The decision was, in this sense, not predictable, however, has nothing to do with the issue itself (same-sex marriage is compatible with the Constitution?) And everything to do with the fact that we should not pretend virgins, such as those convinced that there is always a court in Berlin. That the Court rejected the issues, in short, we were all more or less reasonably certain, both those in favor of gay marriage, or the vast majority of Italian jurists, as opposed to the minority of jurists.
All or almost all, in fact, considered unlikely that the Court would decide in the sense of the eligibility of same-sex marriage, since the question was (no matter now how much this has been a work of art) of an almost political significance exclusive, that has come to pass in the back that it, like every other issue placed in front of consultation on a matter of law and of law.
Beyond the arguments raised by each of the argument of the merits or constitutionality of groundlessness of particular observations in the two acts with which the courts have placed the issue before the Consulta, and even more beyond the arguments that each put forward to the eligibility or ineligibility for same-sex marriage in our legal system, nobody would have bet that a final word would be pronounced by the Court in this regard.
What wonder, then, is not that the Court has declared the foundation of the issues of constitutionality, but the way in which the did, in a ruling that the 2010 n.138 (April 15), much criticized, both in terms of legal technique, both in terms of mere consistency of argument. Steps argumentative false or questionable the decision are many. Here I simply point out one.
One of the strong opponents of same-sex marriage is the reference to "nature" this art. 29 of the Constitution where it states that "the Republic recognizes the rights of the family as a natural society founded on marriage." According to the interpretation given by them, the meaning of this article would be to sanction the constitutional level the so-called "natural family", which would be composed by a wife, a husband and, possibly, a certain number of children.
goes without saying that it is sufficient to read a minimum of attention, or honesty, the text of art. 29 to see that things are not so and that there is no "natural family". He is speaking of the family as a natural society, "which means, in legal language, a company that people form without any need for legal rules (unlike what happens, for example, in the case of corporations, that would be inconceivable without the legal rules that define and govern).
law, in short, comes after. And the Constitution, in particular, comes to determine that the rights of the family "(in reality the rights of individuals that compose it) have long recognized that this" natural society "has led to a marriage, under the rules of civil law. The Court, in fact, not even taking into account the theory of "natural family" and reaffirms the benefit of hard knocks, the obviousness that the text of the constitutional provision it makes sense to recognize, in fact, that families exist without you is a rule of law that defines them.
So far, nothing to say. The critical point, however, is a close second, when the Court writes: "In those circumstances, it is true that the concepts of family and marriage can not be considered "Crystallized" with respect to the time when the Constitution came into force, because they have the flexibility of its constitutional principles and therefore should be interpreted taking into account not only of the order processing, but also the evolution of society and costumes.
This interpretation, however, can only go so far as to affect the core of the standard, modified so as to include it in the phenomena and issues not covered in any way when it was enacted. " In particular, given that "the issue of homosexual unions was completely extraneous to the debate in the Assembly [Constituent N. d. A.], although the homosexual condition is not some unknown [...] it must be emphasized, therefore, that the rule did not consider same-sex unions, but rather intended to refer to marriage in the traditional sense of this institution. "
Let's see what's wrong with this step, critical of the ruling. And if it is true that the concepts of "family" and "marriage" should not be construed as crystallized in the era when the art was formulated. 29, then you do not understand why the evolution of society and customs, also referred to by the text of the sentence as a factor to take into account in interpreting the rule, not here appropriate to include in the definition of "family" who has access to "marriage" that consists of two persons of the same sex. The Court clarified, however, that the role of interpretation may not go so far as to affect "the core of the rule," which would indicate the marriage "in the traditional sense."
Here, as you can see, there's something wrong. The fact that the Constituent Assembly took into consideration the traditional marriage is, in all probability, no doubt. But at the same time, this can not be understood as a constraint for the next performer, at least not if one accepts, as the Court, that constitutional principles are distinguished by their intrinsic flexibility, given by them to take into account and the transformation of the evolution "of society and morals."
This apparent inconsistency (or the rules are flexible and follows the evolution of morals or are not) is, however, corrected by an immediate clarification of the Court itself, which explains how the "flexibility" can not reach up to " affect the core of the rule. " What is this core? The heterosexuality of marriage. And why? Why the Civil Code states: "The constituents, processing the art. 29 of the Constitution, discussed a school that had a definite shape and a comprehensive discipline in the civil order. Therefore, in the absence of several references is a foregone conclusion that they kept in mind the concept of marriage as defined by the Civil Code came into force in 1942, stated that [...] (and still provides) that the spouses should be persons of different sex. "
Now, say that the Civil Code establishes the difference in sex of the spouses that the marriage is valid because it is at least risky. The Civil Code, rather, do not ever express the necessary condition of the same sex for a valid marriage, so much so that the existing judicial decisions on this have always made a work of interpretation.
But even if you wanted to gloss over this point - in fact the center of the whole matter - the reasoning explained Court turns out to be a contradiction, because it leads to the only logical conclusion possible to subordinate the Constitution to the Civil Code. Which, to be precise, it is the opposite of what, by contrast, make a rigor of law, not interpret a constitutional article in the light of the Civil Code, but vice versa.
If not, in fact, it is not clear what is the role of a constitutional court, and what type of censorship could have on the general law, if it becomes the instrument to which the constitutional provision must look to get meaning.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Pedestal Sink Towel Hanger
May 14, 2010 - SAVE THE DATE!
inform you that, as previously pre-announced, will take place 'in Milan on May 14 a seminar among the members of the National Committee and I Am the Bar Association to discuss in depth the court ruling and the developments (and not just legal) campaign for the right to same-sex matirmonio.
Soon the logistical details. Meanwhile, "save the date" 
inform you that, as previously pre-announced, will take place 'in Milan on May 14 a seminar among the members of the National Committee and I Am the Bar Association to discuss in depth the court ruling and the developments (and not just legal) campaign for the right to same-sex matirmonio.
Soon the logistical details. Meanwhile, "save the date"
Thursday, April 22, 2010
How To Hook Up Time Warner Digital Phone
C. COMPLETE TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ON MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX YOU WANT IT
President AMIRANTE - Editor Criscuolo
public hearing Decision 23/03/2010 14/04/2010 15/04/2010
Deposit of Publication in OJ
contested provisions: Articles 93
, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143 bis and 156 bis of the Civil Code.
decided Instruments: ord. 177 and
Judgement No. 248/2009 138
YEAR 2010
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
ITALIAN PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
composed of: Chairman: Francesco Amirante; Judges: Ugo De Siervo, Paolo MADDALENA, Alfio Finocchiaro, Alfonso Quaranta, Franco GALLO, Luigi Mazzella, Gaetano SILVESTRI, Sabino Cassese, Maria Rita Saul, Giuseppe Tesauro, Paolo Maria NAPOLITANO, Joseph fridge, Alessandro Criscuolo, Paul Grossi,
gives the following Judgement
in the judgments of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis and 156 bis of the Civil Code, sponsored by the Court of Venice by order of April 3, 2009 and the Court of Appeal of Trent, by order of July 29, 2009, listed in nos. Register of Orders 177 and 248 of 2009 and published in the Official Gazette nos. 26 and 41, before special series 2009.
Visas acts of creation of the GM and others, as well as EO and other acts of intervention by the President of the Council of Ministers of the Radical certain rights, and CM and others (outside term)
heard in ' public hearing of March 23, 2010 the Judge Rapporteur Alessandro Criscuolo;
heard lawyers for the Association Alessandro Giadrossi radical Certain Rights and other MG and Ileana Alesso Clara and Massimo for the radical Association of certain rights, and for GM and other for CM and others, Vittorio Angiolini, Vincenzo Zeno-Zencovich Marilisa D'Amico and the radical Association of certain rights, and more for GM and other EO and Gabriella Palmieri State Advocate for the President of the Council of Ministers.
The facts
1 .- The Court of Venice in a panel, with the order mentioned in the inscription, raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3, 29 and 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, the question of Constitutional Articles 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis, 156-bis of the Civil Code, "in so far as consistently interpreted, not permit the people of homosexual orientation may marry persons of the same sex. "
The court pressed to be called to pronounce in a case brought by Mr GM and SG, both males, in contrast, pursuant to art. 98 of the Code, against the act of July 3, 2008, by which the registrar of the Venice City Council has refused to proceed with the publication of marriage by the same request.
The official, in fact, considered unlawful the publication, because it is inconsistent with existing legislation, constitutional or ordinary, as the institution of marriage in the Italian legal "is clearly focused on diversity sex of the spouses, "as it should be inferred by the provisions governing the institution itself, namely that such diversity" is a prerequisite, a fundamental requirement, so that the opposite hypothesis concerning same-sex, legally non-existent and certainly alien to the definition of marriage, at least according to all the regulations still in force, whether the second line of decisions. The act which the opposition also cites an opinion of the Ministry of the Interior, dated July 28, 2004, which states that "about the possibility to write a marriage contracted abroad same-sex, it is stated that this act is not in Italy and record in our system because there is no marriage between persons of the same sex as contrary to public policy ', this idea is reiterated in Circular of the Ministry on 18 October 2007.
The Venetian Court recalls the arguments of the appellants, who noted that in our legal system does not exist a concept of marriage, nor an express prohibition of marriage between persons of the same sex. In addition, the aforementioned acts of the Ministry of the Interior would relate to public policy and not to the international and domestic public, however, would be contrary to the Constitution and the Nice Charter, so that should be precluded. In any case, the literal interpretation of the rules of the Civil Code as a basis for the refusal of the publications, it would conflict with the Italian Constitution and in particular with Articles. 2, 3, 10, second paragraph, 13 and 29 of this. The referring
goes on to observe that, on the basis of these arguments, the moments have asked the Court, primarily, to order the registrar of the City of Venice to proceed with the publication of marriage in the alternative, to raise question of the constitutionality of Articles. 107, 108, 143, 143-bis and 156-bis. Civ., in reference to Arts. 2, 3, 10, second paragraph, 13 and 29 of the Constitution
the above, the Court of Venice states that, under current legislation, same-sex marriage is neither intended nor expressly prohibited. It is certain, however, that the legislature of 1942, both the reform of 1975 did not put the issue of gay marriage, then still not addressed, at least in Italy.
Moreover, "although there was no provision expressly defining the institution of marriage, as provided in the current Italian law, unquestionably refers only to marriage between persons of different sexes. While the Civil Code does not expressly identify the difference sex between the requirements for marriage, several of its rules, including those mentioned in the application and suspected of unconstitutionality, they relate as husband and wife as "actors" of the celebration (Articles 107 and 108), protagonists of the marital relationship (Articles 143 et seq.) and generation of authors (articles 231 et seq.). "
In the opinion of the Court, because of the clear wording of the rules set out not possible, the status of existing provisions, make an extension of the institution of marriage to people of the same sex. This would be a stretch is not allowed on the courts (other than the Constitution), "compared with a consolidated and ultramillenarian notion of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "
On the other hand, continues the court, "one can not ignore the rapid changes in society and customs in recent decades, during which there has to overcome the monopoly held by the model of normal family, and traditional contextual arise spontaneously in different shapes, albeit minority, living together, seeking protection, are inspired by the traditional model and, like, are intended to be considered and regulated. New needs, also linked to the evolution of culture and civilization, they ask protection, requiring a careful meditation on the continued compatibility of the interpretation traditional constitutional principles. "
According to the court of Venice, the first parameter is what art. 2 of the Constitution, to the extent that it recognizes the inviolable rights of man, not only in his individual sphere, but also and perhaps especially, in the social sphere, namely 'social groups in which he expresses his personality, "of which the family must be considered the first and fundamental expression.
fact, the family is the primary social formation in which he expressed the personality of the individual and are therefore protected by the inviolable rights, giving it a status (that of married person), which rises to sign characteristic within the company and which designates a set of rights and duties of all unique and not replaceable by the exercise of autonomy negotiations.
The right to marry constitutes a fundamental human right, recognized at the supranational level (Articles 12 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Art. 8 and 12 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by the law of 4 August 1955, n. 848 - Ratification and implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and the Additional Protocol to the Convention, signed at Paris March 20, 1952 - Articles. 7:09 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000), as well as at national level (art. 2 of the Constitution). The freedom to marry or not marry, and to choose their own spouse, concerns the sphere of autonomy and individuality, so that it results in a range over which the State can not interfere, unless there are overriding interests are incompatible, in this case not discernible.
The single most important law in relation to which a conflict could be considered would be that, due to their children to grow up in a suitable family environment, law corresponding also to a social interest. That interest, however, could only affect the rights of same-sex married couples have adopted children. It would, however, a distinct right than to marry, so that some jurisdictions, while introducing gay marriage, have no right of adoption. In any case, the regulation of this institution in the Italian, with an emphasis on the need to assess the child's interest in adopting, call the court every decision.
The court, then, examines the art. 3 of the Constitution, noting that since the right to marry is an essential expression of human dignity, it must be guaranteed to all without discrimination based on sex or personal circumstances, such as sexual orientation, with a requirement for the state to intervene in the event of impediments to its exercise.
Therefore, if the objective pursued by Article. 3 of the Constitution is to prohibit unreasonable difference in treatment, the implicit rule that excludes homosexuals from the right to marry persons of the same sex, thus following their sexual orientation (not pathological or illegal), has no rational justification, especially when placed in comparison with the similar situation of transsexuals that obtained by the correction of the attribution of sex under the law of April 14, 1982, No 164 (Rules of rectification of attribution of sex) may marry persons of their sex of birth (the Court notes that the Constitution in accordance with those laws has been recognized by the Constitutional Court ruling No. 165 of 1985).
According to the court, the allegations contained in that decision might well be regarded as applying equally to homosexuals. However, Law No 164 of 1982 would "radically changed the characteristics of the institution of civil marriage, allowing the celebration of subjects of the same biological sex and unable to procreate, thus enhancing the person's psycho-sexual orientation. " In this context, there is no justification for discrimination between homosexuals who do not want to make any adjustment to surgery, to which marriage is precluded, and transsexuals who are allowed to marry while belonging to the same biological sex and being unable to procreate.
The opinions contrary to the recognition of the freedom of same-sex marriage on the basis of ethical reasons, tied to tradition and nature, could not be shared, both for the radical changes that took place in the family customs, and because it would be dangerous argument in the past used to defend serious unlawful discrimination then recognized as the inequalities between the spouses in the marriage law reform or the Italian front in discrimination against women.
Moreover, "for gay rights, as well as those of transsexuals, there are very strong pressures coming from the European supranational context and to overcome the discrimination of all kinds, including one that prevents formalize effective unions."
The Court of Venice, with regard to Article. 29, first paragraph of the Constitution states that the meaning of the rule is not to recognize the foundation of the family in a sort of "natural right", but to affirm the pre-existence autonomy of the family of the State, thus imposing limits to the power of the state legislature, as the documents relating to the debate within the Constituent Assembly, in memory of abuse previously made to defend a certain type of family.
However, that protection is beyond the scope of traditional art. 29 of the Constitution and that family and marriage are institutions open to change, is demonstrated by the evolution that has affected the discipline since 1948. The referring court shall conduct a survey of legislation, recalls the actions of this court to protect the moral and legal equality of spouses, as well as the reform undertaken by the Law May 19, 1975, No 151 (Reform of family law), and notes that the constitutional meaning of family, far from being anchored to a typical conformation, and unalterable, it is otherwise proved receptive to social changes, their implications on the legal family.
would have no basis, therefore, the arguments justifying the implicit prohibition of marriage between same-sex resorting to topics related to the procreative capacity of the couple and the protection of procreation. In this regard, it would be sufficient to point out that the Constitution and civil law do not provide the ability to have children as a condition for entering marriage, the absence of this capacity as a condition or disability due to dissolution of marriage, so that this institution and the subsidiary would be clearly distinct.
Once excluded that the differential treatment of homosexual couples than heterosexual may be a basis in the wording of Article. 29 of the Constitution, this rule, when constitutional protection attaches to the legitimate family, does not preclude legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but rather should rise further yardstick against which to assess the constitutionality of the ban.
Finally, referring calls art. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, which requires the legislature to respect the constraints arising from Community law and international obligations. Recall in this regard, what rules interposed, Articles. 8, 12 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). In particular, with reference to art. 8, the European Court of Human Rights has upheld a concept of "private life" and the protection of personal identity is not limited to the individual sphere but extended to social life, coming to set a positive duty of States' intervention to remedy gaps likely to prevent the full realization. It cited the ruling Goodwin v. United Kingdom on July 17, 2002, by which the Strasbourg Court has declared its opposition to the Convention on the prohibition of marriage of transsexual sex with a person of his own original.
The Venice Court emphasizes the fact that the Nice Charter sets out the rights to respect for private and family life (art. 7), to marry and found a family (Article 9), not to be discriminated (Article 21), placing them among the fundamental rights of the European Union. Should not be neglected, then, the acts of European institutions, who have long called on States to remove obstacles to the marriage of homosexual couples, or the recognition equivalent legal arrangements, which are acts, whatever their legal status, a position in favor of recognizing the right to marry, or at least to the unification of legislation in the context of the Member States, the aforementioned rules for the legitimate family, to extend to homosexual unions (such acts are mentioned in the order).
Finally, the referring court notes that, under the laws of many countries with similar legal culture to the Italian one, is emerging notion of family relationships to include same-sex couples. In fact, in some countries (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain) a ban on same-sex marriage has been removed, while Other countries provide schools with discipline reserved to homosexual unions analogous to that of marriage, sometimes to the exclusion of provisions relating to parental responsibility for children and adoption. Among the countries that have not yet introduced the marriage or some form of protection paramatrimoniale, many offer some form of public registration of de facto families, including same sex.
Based on the above considerations, the Court reaches the conviction on the Venetian is not manifestly unfounded, the question of constitutionality raised, which also considers relevant for the application of the contested provisions do not be overcome in the path logical and legal to do to reach the decision of the case.
2. - Mr. and Mrs. GM and SG, have formed the opinion of constitutionality, with wide lodged July 20, 2009.
Having set out the facts from which the story begins and he reported the contents of the order of referral, private parties, emphasized the importance of the question, note that the referring court has recognized an indisputable fact, that in the current there is no prohibition in law that prevents two people of the same sex to marry. The necessary heterosexuality of the same come from a tradition of interpretation, founded in a social context quite different from and handed down tralaticio so, even for the reflections of the canonical discipline of the institution on the statutory system.
The historical dimension of the phenomenon, however, could not be an obstacle to a review of the case, as have other foreign constitutional courts. Neither one could argue that heterosexuality is an unfailing character of the marriage institution in interpreting art. 29 of the Constitution starting with the letter of the Civil Code in force, because that article does not constitutionalises characters institution of marriage under the common law or arising from the constant reinterpretation. The civil code would not object and parameter of the proceedings and in any case, "Could not become the figure to read as constitutional. It would be begging the question to say that the code does not violate the right to marry art. 29, since that provision in the light of the code provides only the union between persons of different sexes. With reference to a priori assumption, in fact, implement a subversion of the hierarchy of sources. "
Therefore, in light of the personalistic principle that pervades the entire Constitution, should determine the meaning of the words "marriage" and "family" used in that art. 29. This tends to favor the family founded on marriage. According to the exponents, it follows that, in our society even if two people of the same sex can form a family, to exclude them from marriage not only creates discrimination devoid of any rationality, but causes thousands of people see the state denied those protections that would otherwise would be granted to them by the constitutional provision.
The case is not comparable to heterosexual de facto couples, who find coverage elsewhere Constitution (Article 2 of the Constitution), because in the marital relationship there is a clear choice by the parties not to make the draft law of life that binds the partners , while for the pairs formed by same-sex this freedom does not exist to the extent where they can not choose to marry or not.
Recall the notion of family as a "natural society", contained in the referral order, the leaders observed that the interest protected by art. 29 of the Constitution is, first, the individual's right to self-determination, free from unwarranted interference by the state, whenever a person decides to make herself into a family relationship. For gay people this right results, at present, completely repressed.
would not be possible to argue that the constituents have elected to heterosexuality unfailing characteristic of the family, whose rights are recognized and guaranteed by art. 29 of the Constitution, so as to exclude from the scope of this rule pairs formed by persons of the same sex. For the private party would be certain that the phenomenon there was also the time of the Constituent Assembly, but, as a socially relevant, it could then be taken into consideration. This would mean that you have not opted for the family at the expense of heterosexual homosexual, reserving this lower social status and legal.
This situation, however, could not prevent a re-reading system, in view of the changed social and legal conditions, given the importance in this respect, the law under Article. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, especially the overarching principles of order, such as equality (and therefore non-discrimination) and the protection of fundamental rights.
The private parties further noted that the living law connotes a characteristic of the institution of marriage (a heterosexual), that Article. 29 of the Constitution does not suggest at all, thus preventing gay people's full enjoyment of their citizenship and the right to make themselves emotionally and socially in the context of the legitimate family.
Neither would be possible that "natural society" is understood as a place of procreation, as civil marriage does not would be more institutionally oriented to that purpose. Since 1975, the impotence is not due to invalidity of marriage, except when it is a matter of error that has incurred the other spouse (art. 122 no. Civ.). Moreover, they can also marry people who, having undergone gender reassignment, are unsuitable for generation and those who, because of age, most do not have that attitude.
Ultimately, procreation is only one element in any relationship and it demonstrates how far the concept of family to be accepted in art. 29 of the Constitution than the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Marriage is, without doubt, the union of two lives, whose aims coincide with the fundamental rights and duties which the spouses take the time to celebrate on the basis of art. 143 cod. Civ., for which the prospect is foreign, only if, the procreation, otherwise you should not consider the celebration of a marriage as often as it is impossible for the engaged naturalistically procreate. The exponents
pass, then, to treat the right to marriage as a fundamental human right, by invoking (among others) the jurisprudence of this Court, which declined the law itself or in terms of freedom to contract marriage with the person selected (Case No 445 of 2002), both the freedom not to marry and join in some other way (Case No. 166 of 1998), and noting that gay citizens can not enjoy these freedoms.
Having outlined the aspects and purposes of that law, and prospects related to the exercise even under the protection of minorities discriminated against, they put emphasis on the need for the aforementioned fundamental right is guaranteed to all without distinction even if a citizen is in that particular personal situation that is homosexuality. This is not in the abstract, according to the thesis of those who believe it would be left to the ordinary legislator the choice of admission or the marriage of couples formed by persons of the same sex. If there is a fundamental responsibility of the Constitutional Court, the trial court or by interpretation, to remove obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of everyone, especially if you consider that you are not talking about a legal prohibition but a mere practice interpretation.
In this case, "fully realized as a person means being able to live up at the bottom of their sexual orientation, choosing a partner for life, in a qualified legal relationship which is marriage, a person of their sex."
Therefore the interpretation that excludes pairs formed by same-sex marriage, according to the exponents, is an unreasonable limit the exercise of personal freedom, disregarding a person's ability to choose what is best for themselves in a relational dimension.
The private parties rely further on the argument that Article. 29 of the Constitution precludes the legal recognition of homosexual couples, even if only through an alternative institution to marriage, and claim is unfounded, noting that the said article can not be construed to violate a fundamental principle of the constitutional order, ie the principle of equality. After argued at length on this point, even with regard to economic aspects of the extension of marriage to homosexual couples, the complainants argue that in our society, no longer characterized by a homogeneity at the cultural level, the principle of equality must take a new dimension, time to promote pluralism and social inclusion. With this view runs counter to use the law to the effect of excluding a person from the enjoyment of any right or fundamental freedom by virtue of his personal condition. And this without considering the simultaneous violation of Article. 2 of the Constitution, because by doing so hindered the exercise of the right to full self-realization.
addition, private parties emphasize the Community and international law already mentioned in the referral.
They then criticize the argument that a judge, even if the Constitutional Court can not go so far as to grant the request of the applicants seeking the publication of banns on the assumption of their right to marry.
reiterated that it was in the presence of a practice of interpretation, derived by the context of ordinary legislation, dating back to well before the entry into force of the Constitution, and that this practice contrasts (as mentioned earlier) with high-level principles and rules constitutional status, the complainants contend that, in this case, it is not to create a new institution, or to affirm the existence of a new right (operations precluded the judiciary), because the right to marry and there is already clear connotations, but, despite being a fundamental right, it is granted only to the enjoyment of heterosexual people.
Finally, I recall some arguments of foreign courts that have addressed the constitutional holding in their respective systems, the prohibition of marriage between persons of the same sex.
In closing, he asks this Court to acquire adequate information on the number of base pairs formed by people of the same sex, who live on Italian territory, and the impact of the current practice of interpretation, which excludes same-sex marriage, on their psychosocial well-being.
3. - The President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the state, said intervention in the present case of the constitutionality of a document lodged 21 July 2009, asking that the question be declared inadmissible, however, manifestly unfounded.
The defense of the State proceeds on the ground that the law concerning the institution of marriage, is that given by the civil law, whether that is constitutional, refers of course unions between persons of different sexes.
The requirement for diversity of sex, which is derived directly from Article. 107 cod. Civ. as well as several other provisions of the Code, is traditionally and consistently ranked by doctrine and jurisprudence of the preconditions for the existence of the marriage. In fact, according to Attorney General, the institution of marriage in our system is set up as a journalistic institution to govern certain effects, that the legislature protection as a direct result of a relationship of coexistence between people of different sex (subsidiary rights successors, the law concerning adoption).
The reference to Article. 2 of the Constitution, made by the court, would not be decisive or transferring. This
willing to constant interpretation of this court, "must be reconnected to the constitutional rules relating to individual rights and fundamental guarantees, as least in the sense that no other inviolable fundamental rights that are not necessarily those resulting from constitutionally envisaged '(Case No. . 98, 1979), among which included the claim would not be driven by the plaintiffs in the trial court.
Placing art. 2 of the Constitution among the "fundamental principles" and instead placing art. 29 in Title II of the "social ethic," constitute not only the textual argument, but also the most significant argument to exclude the validity of the assumption contained in the referral, there are of course forbidden in our legal coexistence between people of the same sex. In fact, the doctrine most recently tends to bring the protection of same-sex couples under the protection of unmarried couples.
there is no violation of the principle of equality, in art. 3 of the Constitution, because that requires equal treatment for similar situations and differential treatment to differing factual situations.
The defense notes that the doctrine of the State, in commenting on the aforementioned art. 3, considered the prohibition of discrimination based on sex "somewhat less rigid than others," both in terms of correlation of some distinction to the objective differences between the sexes, both in terms of regulation, to the extent that in the Constitution shall they come across rules justifying to some extent, distinctions based on sex, 'in particular, Articles 29, 37 and 51. "
The doctrine would also consider referring to the principle of reasonableness, expressed in that article. 3 of the Constitution, not applicable in this case, because a different regulatory treatment could be considered "reasonable" because it aimed to meet others and prevailing constitutional values.
Nor would it be pertinent to refer to case law regarding unlawful discrimination faced by trans people before, because the problem of "identity of biological sex" in that hypothesis would assume a different significance. How
art. 29 of the Constitution, that provision, stating that "The Republic recognizes the rights of the family as a natural society founded on marriage," outlines a "two-way relationship" between the concepts mentioned in it and also "bind the legislature to hold separate discipline institution of the family from those that may be devoted to any other type of social formation, albeit having similar characteristics. "
According to Advocacy, the discussions developed in the Constituent Assembly when drafting Article. 29, it would be two further reconstructions of the meaning of that provision.
pregiuridico The first emphasizes the institution of the family, identifying a single model unique and stable, and the second gives art. 29 content changing with the changing social mores. Part of the doctrine, however, has overcome this dichotomy, arguing that the rule refers to a family model that, as susceptible to developments and changes, however, is characterized by a "hard core" that is "the indispensable minimum and its content in the element of difference in sex between husband and wife" and thus maintains the original meaning set out in the Charter, without changing it in a different way, distant from the initial formulation.
Finally, there is apparent conflict with Art. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, in relation to the constraints deriving from EU and international obligations.
The defense of the state, first, that Community law has not legislated on marriage, but it is limited in several resolutions to indicate the criteria and principles, leaving it to individual member states to adapt national laws.
The freedom for the European regulators gave rise, therefore, to multiple forms of protection for gay couples.
There would be contrary to Articles. 7, 9 and 21 of the Charter of Nice, an integral part of the Lisbon Treaty, as its art. 9, which recognizes the right to marry and to found a family, referring to national law to determine the conditions for the exercise of that right.
As for international obligations and, in particular, to respect the ECHR, the law cited the Italian Civil Code does not seem to conflict with the Articles. 8 (right to respect for family life), 12 (right to marry) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR, since their art. 12 not only reaffirms that the institution of marriage involves persons of different sex, but refers to national law to determine the conditions for the exercise of its right.
Ultimately, beyond the heterogeneity of recognition patterns adopted by European states, the element that unites them is the "centrality of the legislature" in the process of inclusion of gay couples under the effects of legal disciplines protection.
Moreover, intervention by the Constitutional Court of manipulative type would not be possible by executing a lexical the mere substitution of the words "husband" and "wife" with the word "spouses" because in reality it would make a new design of the regulatory fabric codicistico, in the light of a constitutional provision that just refers to it, and this task would necessarily be reserved to the legislature.
4. - The Court of Appeal of Trento, with the other order mentioned in the inscription, raised, with reference to Arts. 2, 3:29 Constitution, the question of constitutionality of Articles. 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis, 156-bis. Civ., in so far, a total assessed, do not allow individuals to marry persons of the same sex.
The Territorial Court was requested to be pressed in the complaint, pursuant to art. 739 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proposed by two pairs (each consisting of same-sex) against a decree of the Court of Trent, which had rejected the opposition made by the claimants against a decision of the Registrar of the City of Trento. By that measure, the official said had refused to proceed with the marriage banns required by the opponents, not eligible in the Italian legal marriage between persons of the same sex, and rejection was considered legitimate by the Court.
The referring court, after considered unfounded the claim is seeking the order the registrar to proceed to publication, examines the question of constitutionality, in the alternative proposed by the claimants.
After recalling the order of the Court of Venice, the referring court notes that, over time which have been enacted rules governing marriage, "there has been an inexorable transformation of society and morals, which led to overcoming the monopoly held by traditional family model and the simultaneous emergence of spontaneous seeking various forms of cohabitation (sometimes loudly) to be protected and regulated. "
In this context, in the opinion of the Court thirty is necessary to ask whether the institution of marriage, in the discipline, whether or not in conflict with the constitutional principles.
The question arises, in particular, respect the principle of equality under Article. Basically 3 of the Constitution, and the right to marry is "an essential expression of human dignity (Article constitutionally guaranteed. 2 of the Constitution and, at the supranational level, Articles. 12 and 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 'Man of 1948, Articles. 8:12 ECHR and Articles. 7 and 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000), one wonders whether it is legitimate to prevent homosexual or whether, instead, it should be guaranteed to all without discrimination based on sex or personal circumstances (such as sexual orientation), with a requirement of the State to intervene in the event of impediments to the exercise of it. "
would not be denied that the issue is relevant to the decision, because the declaration of unconstitutionality of the rules governing marriage, in so far do not allow gay marriage, exert a decisive influence on the outcome of the trial court.
Also, it could be argued the issue is clearly unfounded, because "as noted above can not be overcome by an interpretation that marriage can and should be allowed only to heterosexual couples because of his social function, according to some principle derived from Article. 29 of the Constitution (under which recognizes the rights of the family as a natural society founded on marriage). This principle would, in fact, we only recognize its natural role in the family, in the sense that on one hand the state can not ignore this social reality to which nature tends to the vast majority of individuals and, second, says the family based on marriage, but it certainly does not come to exclude protection of the family in fact (which is not affected by marriage) or to affirm the role of the family as the granary of the State. "
According to the court, "the legislative and judicial developments, very well remembered by the Court of Venice in the order mentioned above, returns now a concept of the family not to include that, under Article. 29 of the Constitution to give importance only to the legitimate family functionally aimed at the spouses of procreative capacity so that, if anything, is also in relation to that provision of the constitutional question must be judged worthy of attention by the court of law. "
5. - President Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the state, has intervened in proceedings concerning the constitutional document filed Nov. 3, 2009, asking that the question be declared inadmissible, however, unfounded. The State's defense held the similar arguments as those given in proceedings instituted by the order of the Court of Venice.
6. - There were also formed, by application filed November 2, 2009, the private parties in the proceedings instituted by the order of the Court of Appeal of Trento, gentlemen and ladies ZE LL and OE and OM, declaring the admission and that the question raised and obtain its acceptance.
7. - In the latter court said action, by an application filed November 3, 2009, the Association of Radical certain rights, in the person of the secretary and legal representative pro tempore, who, referring to the same statutory objectives of the Association, said were entitled to intervene as eligible and based the questions of constitutionality raised by the Appeal Court of Trento, reserving any further appropriate illustration of their argument and the filing of any documentation.
8 .- By application filed February 25, 2010 in the proceedings concerning the constitutionality promoted by the order of the Court of Appeal of Trento, explained Messrs. CM intervention and GV, PGB and CGR, and RZ RFRPC
The interveners, all male, I state that, with three acts on the same date November 5, 2009, communicated by letters sent on 11 November 2009, the Journal marital status of the City of Milan has announced the refusal to proceed with the marriage banns to their demands.
They point out that self-interest and directed to take action arose subsequent to the expiration date in the ordinary terms of constitutional review, which is why the act of intervention is filed within twenty days before the date fixed for hearing discussion. Given that this is temporal circumstance beyond the control of the applicants and confirmed by documents drawn up by the government, called as necessary by analogy with art. 153, second paragraph, no. proc. Civ. They say that the intervention should be considered timely and ask, however, are put back in terms.
Moreover, they argue that the intervention should be considered acceptable in the light of the innovations introduced by the Constitutional Court, which has expressed in recent years in favor of a gradual approach to eligibility, case by case, "especially where individual players or groups boasted a direct bearing on the question of legitimacy in a constitutional process that relates to public interest: that the decision on the constitutionality of the law. "
In this context, interest in direct, specific and concrete of the intervening decision of this Court can not be questioned, because the declaration of validity of the question would get the marriage banns already required by the officer and refused to marital status on the grounds for ineligibility, in the current law, marriages between persons of the same sex.
In substance, the interveners play considerations similar to those previously mentioned in support of the merits of question.
9. - Close to a hearing to discuss the private parties in the two reviews of the constitutionality of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers radical Some Rights Association have submitted statements in support of their demands.
legal considerations
1. - The Court of Venice, with the order mentioned in the headnote, raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3, 29 and 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Articles 93, 96, 98, 107, 108 , 143, 143-bis, 156-bis of the Civil Code, "in so far as consistently interpreted, do not allow that people of homosexual orientation can marry persons of the same sex. "
The court pressed to be called to pronounce in a case brought by two men, in contrast, pursuant to art. 98 of the Code, against the act by which the registrar of the Venice City Council has refused to proceed with the publication of marriage by the same request, deeming it contrary to existing legislation, constitutional or ordinary, as the institute of marriage, under Italian law, would be focused on the difference in sex between spouses.
The Venetian Court refers the arguments by the applicants, who noted that, in the current law, there is no concept of marriage, or his express prohibition of same-sex. They refer to the Constitution and the Charter of Nice, noting that a literal interpretation of the rules of the Civil Code as a basis for the refusal of the publications, it would be unconstitutional and in particular with Articles. 2, 3, 10, second paragraph, and 29 of the Constitution
the above, the referring court notes that, under Italian law, same-sex marriage is not expressly provided for nor forbidden. Moreover, even in the absence of a rule of definition, "the institution of marriage, as provided in the current Italian law, unquestionably refers only to marriage between persons of different sex. " In the opinion of the Court, the clear wording of the provisions of the Code, regulations of the institute in question, it would also extend to same-sex. This would be a stretch is not allowed on the courts (other than the Constitution), "in front of a thousand year and established the concept of marriage as a union of a man and a woman."
On the other hand, the Court can not ignore the rapid changes in society and morals, the excess of the monopoly held by traditional family model, birth spontaneous forms (albeit minority) living together, seeking protection, are inspired by the traditional model and, like, are intended to be considered and regulated. New needs, also linked to the evolution of culture and civilization, they ask protection, requiring a careful meditation on the continued compatibility with the traditional interpretation of constitutional principles.
circumstances, the Court of Venice, building on the ground that the right to marry is a fundamental human right, recognized in national and supranational (Article 2 of the Constitution), illustrates the complaints concerning the various parameters Constitutional evoked, reaching the conviction on the issue is not manifestly unfounded promoted, which also considers relevant for the application of the contested provisions do not be overcome in the path logical and legal to be done in order to reach the decision of the case.
2. - The Court of Appeal of Trento, with the other order mentioned in the inscription, raised, with reference to Arts. 2, 3:29 Constitution, the question of constitutionality of Articles. 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis, 156-bis. Civ., in so far, a total assessed, do not allow individuals to marry persons of the same sex.
The Territorial Court was requested to be pressed in the complaint, under Article 739 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proposed by two pairs (each consisting of same-sex) against the decree of the Court of Trent, which had rejected the opposition made by the claimants against a decision of the officer marital status of the Municipality of Trent. By that measure, the official said had refused to proceed with the marriage banns required by the opponents, not eligible in the Italian legal marriage between persons of the same sex, and rejection was considered legitimate by the Court.
The referring court, having found no basis for the claim is seeking the order to the officer proceed with the Registrar of publications, go examine the question of constitutionality, in the alternative proposed by the claimants, conducting in relation to the complaints could be envisaged, similar considerations to those given by the Court of Venice.
3. - The two judgments of constitutionality, the subject of the same matter, are to be met to be decided with a single sentence.
4. - At the outset, it must be confirmed by the ordinance adopted at the public hearing and is annexed hereto, with which they have been declared ineligible for assistance radical Some Rights Association and Messrs CM and GV, and PGB C . GR, and RZ RFRPC This consolidated under guidance of constitutional law, mentioned in the order, that are not eligible for assistance in proceedings concerning the constitutionality indirectly, to persons who are not parties to the trial court, nor are holding a qualified interest, inherent in a direct and immediate relationship of substance raised in the cause and not just regulated, just like any other, from the norms and standards to criticism, was also on the ground that the eligibility of the intervention by a third party holds an interest similar to that put forward only in the main proceedings, contrary to the incidental nature of that court's legitimacy.
5. - The question raised by both referral orders, with reference to Article. 2 of the Constitution, must be declared inadmissible because it seeks to obtain a preliminary additive not constitutionally required (ex plurimis: orders No. 243, 2009, No. 316, 2008, No. 185 of 2007, No. 463 of 2002).
6. - Those ordinances both move from the assumption that the institution of civil marriage as provided for in the current Italian law, refers only stable union between a man and a woman. This figure shows not only the contested provisions, but also by the discipline of legitimate filiation (art. 231 et seq. cod. Civ. and, in particular with regard to the action of disavowal, Art. 235, 244 et seq. the same code), and other laws, including, for example, you may refer to the art. 5, first and second paragraphs of the Law of 1 December 1970 No 898 (Discipline of the cases of dissolution of marriage), and the law on civil status law.
In essence, the entire discipline of the institute, which is contained in the Civil Code and special legislation, requires the same sex spouses as part of "a thousand year and established the concept of marriage," as noted by the order of the Court Venetian.
same sense is the doctrine, most inclined to the view that the identity of sex is because of absence of marriage, even if a party comes to disability. The rare case of legitimacy, which (although as obiter dicta) has addressed the question, considered the difference in sex between spouses of the minimum requirements necessary to establish the existence of the marriage (Supreme Court, Case No. 7877 of 2000, No. 1304 of 1990 and No. 1808 of 1976).
7. - Without prejudice to the foregoing, it must then determine whether the constitutional principle evoked by the referring courts require to reach a declaration of illegality of the contested legislation (with possible application of Article. 27, the last part of the law March 11, 1953, No 87 - Guidelines on the establishment and functioning of the Constitutional Court), extending to homosexual unions the discipline of civil marriage, in such a way to fill the void caused by the fact that the legislature has not raised the issue of gay marriage.
8. - Article. 2 of the Constitution provides that the Republic recognizes and guarantees the inviolable rights of man, as an individual and in social groups where he expresses his personality and demands the fulfillment of the mandatory duties of political solidarity, economic and social development.
However, for training to be considered any form of social community, simple or complex, such as to allow and encourage the free development of individuals in their personal relationships, in the context of a pluralistic model of development. In this concept is to be counted even homosexual unions, seen as stable coexistence between two persons of the same sex, which has the fundamental right to live freely provided torque, obtaining - in time, in the manner and within the limits prescribed by law - legal recognition with the related rights and obligations.
should be precluded, however, that the aspiration for such recognition - which necessarily requires a framework of a general nature, aimed at regulating rights and duties of members Torque - can only be achieved through an equivalence of homosexual unions to marriage. Just as the committee, including without limitation, the laws of the countries that have so far recognized these unions to ensure the diversity of choices.
It follows therefore that, within the scope of Article. 2 of the Constitution, it is the Parliament, exercising its discretion, determine the guarantees and recognition of these unions, is reserved to the Constitutional Court the power to intervene in the interests of specific situations (as was the case for cohabitation: Case No 559 of 1989 and No 404, 1988). It may happen, in fact, that in relation to particular cases, and found the need for uniform treatment of the condition of the married couple and that of gay couples, this court can ensure that treatment with the control of reason.
9. - The issue raised with regard to the parameters identified in the Articles. 3:29 Constitution is founded.
should take as a basis for logical reasons, the latter provision. It states, in the first paragraph that "The Republic recognizes the rights of the family as a natural society founded on marriage," and in the second paragraph adds that "Marriage is ordained on moral and legal equality of spouses within the limits established by law to guarantee family unity. "
The rule, which gave rise to a lively discussion of doctrine still open, raises the legitimate family as the foundation of marriage, defined as "natural society" (with that expression, as is apparent from the drafting of the constituent assembly, we wished to emphasize covered by the rule that the family had the original rights and existing state, that this was to recognize).
That said, it is true that the concepts of family and marriage can not be considered "crystallized" with respect to the time when the Constitution came into force, because they have the flexibility of its constitutional principles and therefore should be interpreted taking into account not only of the order processing, but also the evolution of society and morals. This interpretation, however, can only go so far as to affect the core of the standard, modified so as to include it in the phenomena and issues not covered in any way when it was enacted.
In fact, as is clear from the preparatory work, the issue of homosexual unions was completely extraneous to the debate in the Assembly, although the homosexual condition is not certainly known. The constituents, developing art. 29 of the Constitution, discussed a school that had a definite shape and a comprehensive discipline in the civil order. Therefore, in the absence of other references, it is a foregone conclusion that they kept in mind the concept of marriage as defined by the Civil Code came into force in 1942, which, as we have seen above, established (and still provides) that the spouses should be persons of opposite sex. In this sense, is also guiding the second paragraph of the provision, saying the moral and legal principle of equality of the spouses had their respect to the position of women which intended to give dignity and equal rights in marriage.
This meaning of the precept Constitution can not be overcome by interpretation, because it would not be a simple reading of the system or abandon a mere practice of interpretation, but to undertake a creative interpretation.
It should be repeated, then, that the rule did not consider same-sex unions, but rather intended to refer to marriage in the traditional meaning of this institution.
It is no coincidence, moreover, that the Constitution, after having dealt with the marriage, has found it necessary to deal with the protection of children (art. 30), ensuring equal treatment, even those born out of wedlock, although consistent with members of the legitimate family. The proper and due protection, granted to illegitimate children, does not alter the constitutional significance attributed to the legitimate family and the (potential) procreative purpose of marriage is to differentiate homosexual union.
In this context, with reference to art. 3 of the Constitution, censorship rules of the Civil Code which, as mentioned above, affects only a marriage between a man and woman, can not be considered illegal at the constitutional level. This is because it is grounded in the cited art. 29 of the Constitution, and because such legislation should not give rise to an unreasonable discrimination, since homosexual unions can not be considered homogeneous at the wedding.
The reference, in the referral of the Court of Venice, Act April 14, 1982, No 164 (Rules of rectification of attribution of sex) is not relevant. The legislation cited
hours - subject to scrutiny by this Court that, in sentence no 161, 1985, declared inadmissible or unfounded issues of constitutionality at the time promoted - provides for the correction of the attribution of sex under the ruling of the court, res judicata, which gives a person a sex other than that laid down by 'birth certificate, is modified as a result of its sexual characteristics (Article 1).
As you can see, this is an entirely different condition from that homosexual and therefore unfit to serve as a tertium comparationis. The transsexual, in fact, the fundamental requirement to be met is that to coincide with the psyche and soma, this effect is essential, as a rule, surgery that, with the consequent correction registry, can usually achieve this coincidence (Case No. 161 of 1985, paragraph three of the legal considerations). The person is admitted to the marriage for the future modification to the sex, authorized by the court. The recognition of the right to marry to those who have changed sex, then, is rather an argument for confirm the status of heterosexual marriage as provided in current law.
10. - It remains to consider the parameter related art. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution (proposed only in the order of the Court of Venice).
The referring primarily evokes such rules interposed, Articles. 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 12 (right to marry) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) was ratified and enforced by law August 4, 1955, No 848 (Ratification and implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and the Additional Protocol to the Convention signed in Paris March 20, 1952) focuses on a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (C. Goodwin v. Case United Kingdom, July 11, 2002), who declared contrary to the Convention on the prohibition of marriage of transsexual (after surgery) with the original person of the same sex, arguing that the analogy with the case of gay marriage also mentions the Charter of Nice (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and, in particular, Article. 7 (right to respect for private and family life), art. 9 (right to marry and a family), art. 21 (right not to be discriminated), mentions several resolutions of the European institutions, "which has long called on States to remove obstacles to the marriage or the recognition of same-sex couples equivalent legal arrangement", and finally, reports that in ' law of many states having similar to the Italian legal culture, is emerging notion of family relationships to include same-sex couples.
That said, it should be noted that: a) a warning to the judgment of the European Court is not relevant because it concerns a case governed by English law on the case of a transsexual who, after the operation, having acquired female characters (Case cited., paragraphs 12-13) had started a relationship with a man, with whom, however, could not get married "because the law was regarded as a man" (paragraph 95 ). Such cases, in Italian law, he would find solution within the discipline and Law 164, 1982. And, anyway, we have already noted that the positions of transsexuals and homosexuals are not homogeneous (see paragraph 9), b) and Articles. 8 and 14 of the ECHR, and Articles. 7 and 21 of the Nice Charter contains general provisions concerning the right to respect for private and family life and the prohibition of discrimination, however, largely similar. Instead of the ECHR Articles 12 and 9 of the Charter of Nice specifically involving the right to marry and to found a family. For the principle of specialty, therefore, it is those rules which reference should be made in this case.
However, Article. 12 provides that "Men and women in marital age have the right to marry and form a family according to the national laws governing the exercise of that right."
In turn the art. 9 states that "The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise." In order to
latter provision be said that the Charter of Nice has been implemented by the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, which entered into force on 1 December 2009. In fact, the new text of art. 6, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on European Union, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon provides that "1. The Union recognizes the rights, freedoms and principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 7 December 2000, adjusted December 12, 2007 in Strasbourg, which has the same legal value as the Treaties ".
not necessary for the purposes of these proceedings, address the problems that the entry into force of the Treaty Union puts in order and national legal systems, especially with regard to Article. 51 of the Charter, which governs the scope. For the purposes of this decision it should be noted that Article. 9 of the Charter (as, indeed, art. 12 of the ECHR), affirming the right to marry refers to national laws governing the exercise. It should be added that the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention that had drafted (and which, while not having the status of law, are a sure means of interpretation), with reference to that art. 9 clarify (Inter alia) that "Article neither prohibits nor imposes the granting of the status of marriage to unions between persons of the same sex."
Therefore, apart from the explicit reference to the men and women, it is crucial that the survey also cited the legislation does not require full equality to same-sex unions under the rules for marriages between men and women.
Again, with reference to national laws, it is confirmed that the matter is at the discretion of Parliament.
further evidence of this is evident, as already mentioned, an examination of the choices and solutions adopted by numerous countries that have introduced, in some cases, a true extension of the scheme provided to homosexual unions to civil marriage or, more frequently, and very different forms of protection ranging from assimilation to the trend of those unions marriage, until the clear distinction, on terms of the effects compared to the same.
Based on the above, it must obtain a declaration of inadmissibility of the question by the court, with reference to art. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution for these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
together the reviews:
a) declares ineligible, in relation to articles 2 and 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Articles 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis, 156-bis of the Civil Code, raised by the Court of Venice and the Court of Appeal Trento with the order mentioned in the inscription;
b) declared unfounded, in relation to Articles 3 and 29 of the Constitution the question of the constitutionality of the above articles of the Civil Code raised by the Court of Venice and the Court of Appeal of Trento with the same orders.
Decided in Rome, the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, April 14, 2010.
F.to:
AMIRANTE Francis, President
Alessandro Criscuolo, Editor
Giuseppe DI PAOLA, Registrar
Filed in Chancery 15 April 2010. The Director of Stationery
F.to: DI PAOLA
Attachment:
order read at the hearing on March 23, 2010
ORDER
Visas acts relating to the constitutionality proceedings brought by order of the Court of Appeal Trento filed July 29, 2009 (RO No. 248 of 2009);
noted that this court has intervened in the Association of Radical certain rights, in person and legal representative of the Secretary-pt, by application filed November 3, 2009;
that have occurred in the same trial, by an application filed February 25, 2010, Messrs. CM and GV, PGB and CGR, and RFRPC RZ, all male;
that neither the Radical Association, nor the gentlemen in intervention on 25 February 2010 were parties to the trial court;
that it is settled jurisprudence of this Court, are allowed to cross to the action of the constitutionality (in addition to the President of the Council of Ministers and in the case of regional law, the President of the Regional Government), the only parties to the main, while the involvement of persons outside this is only admissible for nationals holding a qualified interest, inherent in a direct and immediate relationship to the substantive obligation in question is not simply regulated, like any other, from the norms and standards to criticism (ex plurimis: order read at the hearing March 31, 2009, upheld by No 151 of 2009; Case No. 94 of 2009, No 96, 2008, No. 245, 2007, order No. 414 of 2007);
that eligibility for intervention by a third party who holds an interest similar to that put forward only in the main proceedings is contrary to the nature of the proceedings incidental to the constitutionality, as the access of parties to that trial would take place without prior review of the effects and the question is not manifestly unfounded by the court;
that, therefore, is the intervention of the Radical Certain Rights to be explained by the application received February 25, 2010 must be declared ineligible, regardless of the lateness of the latter (Ordinance No. 119 of 2008).
for these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares inadmissible the actions of the Radical Certain Rights and Messrs CM and GV, PGB and CGR, and RZ RFRPC
F.to:
AMIRANTE Francis, President 
President AMIRANTE - Editor Criscuolo
public hearing Decision 23/03/2010 14/04/2010 15/04/2010
Deposit of Publication in OJ
contested provisions: Articles 93
, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143 bis and 156 bis of the Civil Code.
decided Instruments: ord. 177 and
Judgement No. 248/2009 138
YEAR 2010
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
ITALIAN PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
composed of: Chairman: Francesco Amirante; Judges: Ugo De Siervo, Paolo MADDALENA, Alfio Finocchiaro, Alfonso Quaranta, Franco GALLO, Luigi Mazzella, Gaetano SILVESTRI, Sabino Cassese, Maria Rita Saul, Giuseppe Tesauro, Paolo Maria NAPOLITANO, Joseph fridge, Alessandro Criscuolo, Paul Grossi,
gives the following Judgement
in the judgments of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis and 156 bis of the Civil Code, sponsored by the Court of Venice by order of April 3, 2009 and the Court of Appeal of Trent, by order of July 29, 2009, listed in nos. Register of Orders 177 and 248 of 2009 and published in the Official Gazette nos. 26 and 41, before special series 2009.
Visas acts of creation of the GM and others, as well as EO and other acts of intervention by the President of the Council of Ministers of the Radical certain rights, and CM and others (outside term)
heard in ' public hearing of March 23, 2010 the Judge Rapporteur Alessandro Criscuolo;
heard lawyers for the Association Alessandro Giadrossi radical Certain Rights and other MG and Ileana Alesso Clara and Massimo for the radical Association of certain rights, and for GM and other for CM and others, Vittorio Angiolini, Vincenzo Zeno-Zencovich Marilisa D'Amico and the radical Association of certain rights, and more for GM and other EO and Gabriella Palmieri State Advocate for the President of the Council of Ministers.
The facts
1 .- The Court of Venice in a panel, with the order mentioned in the inscription, raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3, 29 and 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, the question of Constitutional Articles 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis, 156-bis of the Civil Code, "in so far as consistently interpreted, not permit the people of homosexual orientation may marry persons of the same sex. "
The court pressed to be called to pronounce in a case brought by Mr GM and SG, both males, in contrast, pursuant to art. 98 of the Code, against the act of July 3, 2008, by which the registrar of the Venice City Council has refused to proceed with the publication of marriage by the same request.
The official, in fact, considered unlawful the publication, because it is inconsistent with existing legislation, constitutional or ordinary, as the institution of marriage in the Italian legal "is clearly focused on diversity sex of the spouses, "as it should be inferred by the provisions governing the institution itself, namely that such diversity" is a prerequisite, a fundamental requirement, so that the opposite hypothesis concerning same-sex, legally non-existent and certainly alien to the definition of marriage, at least according to all the regulations still in force, whether the second line of decisions. The act which the opposition also cites an opinion of the Ministry of the Interior, dated July 28, 2004, which states that "about the possibility to write a marriage contracted abroad same-sex, it is stated that this act is not in Italy and record in our system because there is no marriage between persons of the same sex as contrary to public policy ', this idea is reiterated in Circular of the Ministry on 18 October 2007.
The Venetian Court recalls the arguments of the appellants, who noted that in our legal system does not exist a concept of marriage, nor an express prohibition of marriage between persons of the same sex. In addition, the aforementioned acts of the Ministry of the Interior would relate to public policy and not to the international and domestic public, however, would be contrary to the Constitution and the Nice Charter, so that should be precluded. In any case, the literal interpretation of the rules of the Civil Code as a basis for the refusal of the publications, it would conflict with the Italian Constitution and in particular with Articles. 2, 3, 10, second paragraph, 13 and 29 of this. The referring
goes on to observe that, on the basis of these arguments, the moments have asked the Court, primarily, to order the registrar of the City of Venice to proceed with the publication of marriage in the alternative, to raise question of the constitutionality of Articles. 107, 108, 143, 143-bis and 156-bis. Civ., in reference to Arts. 2, 3, 10, second paragraph, 13 and 29 of the Constitution
the above, the Court of Venice states that, under current legislation, same-sex marriage is neither intended nor expressly prohibited. It is certain, however, that the legislature of 1942, both the reform of 1975 did not put the issue of gay marriage, then still not addressed, at least in Italy.
Moreover, "although there was no provision expressly defining the institution of marriage, as provided in the current Italian law, unquestionably refers only to marriage between persons of different sexes. While the Civil Code does not expressly identify the difference sex between the requirements for marriage, several of its rules, including those mentioned in the application and suspected of unconstitutionality, they relate as husband and wife as "actors" of the celebration (Articles 107 and 108), protagonists of the marital relationship (Articles 143 et seq.) and generation of authors (articles 231 et seq.). "
In the opinion of the Court, because of the clear wording of the rules set out not possible, the status of existing provisions, make an extension of the institution of marriage to people of the same sex. This would be a stretch is not allowed on the courts (other than the Constitution), "compared with a consolidated and ultramillenarian notion of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "
On the other hand, continues the court, "one can not ignore the rapid changes in society and customs in recent decades, during which there has to overcome the monopoly held by the model of normal family, and traditional contextual arise spontaneously in different shapes, albeit minority, living together, seeking protection, are inspired by the traditional model and, like, are intended to be considered and regulated. New needs, also linked to the evolution of culture and civilization, they ask protection, requiring a careful meditation on the continued compatibility of the interpretation traditional constitutional principles. "
According to the court of Venice, the first parameter is what art. 2 of the Constitution, to the extent that it recognizes the inviolable rights of man, not only in his individual sphere, but also and perhaps especially, in the social sphere, namely 'social groups in which he expresses his personality, "of which the family must be considered the first and fundamental expression.
fact, the family is the primary social formation in which he expressed the personality of the individual and are therefore protected by the inviolable rights, giving it a status (that of married person), which rises to sign characteristic within the company and which designates a set of rights and duties of all unique and not replaceable by the exercise of autonomy negotiations.
The right to marry constitutes a fundamental human right, recognized at the supranational level (Articles 12 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Art. 8 and 12 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by the law of 4 August 1955, n. 848 - Ratification and implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and the Additional Protocol to the Convention, signed at Paris March 20, 1952 - Articles. 7:09 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000), as well as at national level (art. 2 of the Constitution). The freedom to marry or not marry, and to choose their own spouse, concerns the sphere of autonomy and individuality, so that it results in a range over which the State can not interfere, unless there are overriding interests are incompatible, in this case not discernible.
The single most important law in relation to which a conflict could be considered would be that, due to their children to grow up in a suitable family environment, law corresponding also to a social interest. That interest, however, could only affect the rights of same-sex married couples have adopted children. It would, however, a distinct right than to marry, so that some jurisdictions, while introducing gay marriage, have no right of adoption. In any case, the regulation of this institution in the Italian, with an emphasis on the need to assess the child's interest in adopting, call the court every decision.
The court, then, examines the art. 3 of the Constitution, noting that since the right to marry is an essential expression of human dignity, it must be guaranteed to all without discrimination based on sex or personal circumstances, such as sexual orientation, with a requirement for the state to intervene in the event of impediments to its exercise.
Therefore, if the objective pursued by Article. 3 of the Constitution is to prohibit unreasonable difference in treatment, the implicit rule that excludes homosexuals from the right to marry persons of the same sex, thus following their sexual orientation (not pathological or illegal), has no rational justification, especially when placed in comparison with the similar situation of transsexuals that obtained by the correction of the attribution of sex under the law of April 14, 1982, No 164 (Rules of rectification of attribution of sex) may marry persons of their sex of birth (the Court notes that the Constitution in accordance with those laws has been recognized by the Constitutional Court ruling No. 165 of 1985).
According to the court, the allegations contained in that decision might well be regarded as applying equally to homosexuals. However, Law No 164 of 1982 would "radically changed the characteristics of the institution of civil marriage, allowing the celebration of subjects of the same biological sex and unable to procreate, thus enhancing the person's psycho-sexual orientation. " In this context, there is no justification for discrimination between homosexuals who do not want to make any adjustment to surgery, to which marriage is precluded, and transsexuals who are allowed to marry while belonging to the same biological sex and being unable to procreate.
The opinions contrary to the recognition of the freedom of same-sex marriage on the basis of ethical reasons, tied to tradition and nature, could not be shared, both for the radical changes that took place in the family customs, and because it would be dangerous argument in the past used to defend serious unlawful discrimination then recognized as the inequalities between the spouses in the marriage law reform or the Italian front in discrimination against women.
Moreover, "for gay rights, as well as those of transsexuals, there are very strong pressures coming from the European supranational context and to overcome the discrimination of all kinds, including one that prevents formalize effective unions."
The Court of Venice, with regard to Article. 29, first paragraph of the Constitution states that the meaning of the rule is not to recognize the foundation of the family in a sort of "natural right", but to affirm the pre-existence autonomy of the family of the State, thus imposing limits to the power of the state legislature, as the documents relating to the debate within the Constituent Assembly, in memory of abuse previously made to defend a certain type of family.
However, that protection is beyond the scope of traditional art. 29 of the Constitution and that family and marriage are institutions open to change, is demonstrated by the evolution that has affected the discipline since 1948. The referring court shall conduct a survey of legislation, recalls the actions of this court to protect the moral and legal equality of spouses, as well as the reform undertaken by the Law May 19, 1975, No 151 (Reform of family law), and notes that the constitutional meaning of family, far from being anchored to a typical conformation, and unalterable, it is otherwise proved receptive to social changes, their implications on the legal family.
would have no basis, therefore, the arguments justifying the implicit prohibition of marriage between same-sex resorting to topics related to the procreative capacity of the couple and the protection of procreation. In this regard, it would be sufficient to point out that the Constitution and civil law do not provide the ability to have children as a condition for entering marriage, the absence of this capacity as a condition or disability due to dissolution of marriage, so that this institution and the subsidiary would be clearly distinct.
Once excluded that the differential treatment of homosexual couples than heterosexual may be a basis in the wording of Article. 29 of the Constitution, this rule, when constitutional protection attaches to the legitimate family, does not preclude legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but rather should rise further yardstick against which to assess the constitutionality of the ban.
Finally, referring calls art. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, which requires the legislature to respect the constraints arising from Community law and international obligations. Recall in this regard, what rules interposed, Articles. 8, 12 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). In particular, with reference to art. 8, the European Court of Human Rights has upheld a concept of "private life" and the protection of personal identity is not limited to the individual sphere but extended to social life, coming to set a positive duty of States' intervention to remedy gaps likely to prevent the full realization. It cited the ruling Goodwin v. United Kingdom on July 17, 2002, by which the Strasbourg Court has declared its opposition to the Convention on the prohibition of marriage of transsexual sex with a person of his own original.
The Venice Court emphasizes the fact that the Nice Charter sets out the rights to respect for private and family life (art. 7), to marry and found a family (Article 9), not to be discriminated (Article 21), placing them among the fundamental rights of the European Union. Should not be neglected, then, the acts of European institutions, who have long called on States to remove obstacles to the marriage of homosexual couples, or the recognition equivalent legal arrangements, which are acts, whatever their legal status, a position in favor of recognizing the right to marry, or at least to the unification of legislation in the context of the Member States, the aforementioned rules for the legitimate family, to extend to homosexual unions (such acts are mentioned in the order).
Finally, the referring court notes that, under the laws of many countries with similar legal culture to the Italian one, is emerging notion of family relationships to include same-sex couples. In fact, in some countries (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain) a ban on same-sex marriage has been removed, while Other countries provide schools with discipline reserved to homosexual unions analogous to that of marriage, sometimes to the exclusion of provisions relating to parental responsibility for children and adoption. Among the countries that have not yet introduced the marriage or some form of protection paramatrimoniale, many offer some form of public registration of de facto families, including same sex.
Based on the above considerations, the Court reaches the conviction on the Venetian is not manifestly unfounded, the question of constitutionality raised, which also considers relevant for the application of the contested provisions do not be overcome in the path logical and legal to do to reach the decision of the case.
2. - Mr. and Mrs. GM and SG, have formed the opinion of constitutionality, with wide lodged July 20, 2009.
Having set out the facts from which the story begins and he reported the contents of the order of referral, private parties, emphasized the importance of the question, note that the referring court has recognized an indisputable fact, that in the current there is no prohibition in law that prevents two people of the same sex to marry. The necessary heterosexuality of the same come from a tradition of interpretation, founded in a social context quite different from and handed down tralaticio so, even for the reflections of the canonical discipline of the institution on the statutory system.
The historical dimension of the phenomenon, however, could not be an obstacle to a review of the case, as have other foreign constitutional courts. Neither one could argue that heterosexuality is an unfailing character of the marriage institution in interpreting art. 29 of the Constitution starting with the letter of the Civil Code in force, because that article does not constitutionalises characters institution of marriage under the common law or arising from the constant reinterpretation. The civil code would not object and parameter of the proceedings and in any case, "Could not become the figure to read as constitutional. It would be begging the question to say that the code does not violate the right to marry art. 29, since that provision in the light of the code provides only the union between persons of different sexes. With reference to a priori assumption, in fact, implement a subversion of the hierarchy of sources. "
Therefore, in light of the personalistic principle that pervades the entire Constitution, should determine the meaning of the words "marriage" and "family" used in that art. 29. This tends to favor the family founded on marriage. According to the exponents, it follows that, in our society even if two people of the same sex can form a family, to exclude them from marriage not only creates discrimination devoid of any rationality, but causes thousands of people see the state denied those protections that would otherwise would be granted to them by the constitutional provision.
The case is not comparable to heterosexual de facto couples, who find coverage elsewhere Constitution (Article 2 of the Constitution), because in the marital relationship there is a clear choice by the parties not to make the draft law of life that binds the partners , while for the pairs formed by same-sex this freedom does not exist to the extent where they can not choose to marry or not.
Recall the notion of family as a "natural society", contained in the referral order, the leaders observed that the interest protected by art. 29 of the Constitution is, first, the individual's right to self-determination, free from unwarranted interference by the state, whenever a person decides to make herself into a family relationship. For gay people this right results, at present, completely repressed.
would not be possible to argue that the constituents have elected to heterosexuality unfailing characteristic of the family, whose rights are recognized and guaranteed by art. 29 of the Constitution, so as to exclude from the scope of this rule pairs formed by persons of the same sex. For the private party would be certain that the phenomenon there was also the time of the Constituent Assembly, but, as a socially relevant, it could then be taken into consideration. This would mean that you have not opted for the family at the expense of heterosexual homosexual, reserving this lower social status and legal.
This situation, however, could not prevent a re-reading system, in view of the changed social and legal conditions, given the importance in this respect, the law under Article. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, especially the overarching principles of order, such as equality (and therefore non-discrimination) and the protection of fundamental rights.
The private parties further noted that the living law connotes a characteristic of the institution of marriage (a heterosexual), that Article. 29 of the Constitution does not suggest at all, thus preventing gay people's full enjoyment of their citizenship and the right to make themselves emotionally and socially in the context of the legitimate family.
Neither would be possible that "natural society" is understood as a place of procreation, as civil marriage does not would be more institutionally oriented to that purpose. Since 1975, the impotence is not due to invalidity of marriage, except when it is a matter of error that has incurred the other spouse (art. 122 no. Civ.). Moreover, they can also marry people who, having undergone gender reassignment, are unsuitable for generation and those who, because of age, most do not have that attitude.
Ultimately, procreation is only one element in any relationship and it demonstrates how far the concept of family to be accepted in art. 29 of the Constitution than the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Marriage is, without doubt, the union of two lives, whose aims coincide with the fundamental rights and duties which the spouses take the time to celebrate on the basis of art. 143 cod. Civ., for which the prospect is foreign, only if, the procreation, otherwise you should not consider the celebration of a marriage as often as it is impossible for the engaged naturalistically procreate. The exponents
pass, then, to treat the right to marriage as a fundamental human right, by invoking (among others) the jurisprudence of this Court, which declined the law itself or in terms of freedom to contract marriage with the person selected (Case No 445 of 2002), both the freedom not to marry and join in some other way (Case No. 166 of 1998), and noting that gay citizens can not enjoy these freedoms.
Having outlined the aspects and purposes of that law, and prospects related to the exercise even under the protection of minorities discriminated against, they put emphasis on the need for the aforementioned fundamental right is guaranteed to all without distinction even if a citizen is in that particular personal situation that is homosexuality. This is not in the abstract, according to the thesis of those who believe it would be left to the ordinary legislator the choice of admission or the marriage of couples formed by persons of the same sex. If there is a fundamental responsibility of the Constitutional Court, the trial court or by interpretation, to remove obstacles that prevent the enjoyment of everyone, especially if you consider that you are not talking about a legal prohibition but a mere practice interpretation.
In this case, "fully realized as a person means being able to live up at the bottom of their sexual orientation, choosing a partner for life, in a qualified legal relationship which is marriage, a person of their sex."
Therefore the interpretation that excludes pairs formed by same-sex marriage, according to the exponents, is an unreasonable limit the exercise of personal freedom, disregarding a person's ability to choose what is best for themselves in a relational dimension.
The private parties rely further on the argument that Article. 29 of the Constitution precludes the legal recognition of homosexual couples, even if only through an alternative institution to marriage, and claim is unfounded, noting that the said article can not be construed to violate a fundamental principle of the constitutional order, ie the principle of equality. After argued at length on this point, even with regard to economic aspects of the extension of marriage to homosexual couples, the complainants argue that in our society, no longer characterized by a homogeneity at the cultural level, the principle of equality must take a new dimension, time to promote pluralism and social inclusion. With this view runs counter to use the law to the effect of excluding a person from the enjoyment of any right or fundamental freedom by virtue of his personal condition. And this without considering the simultaneous violation of Article. 2 of the Constitution, because by doing so hindered the exercise of the right to full self-realization.
addition, private parties emphasize the Community and international law already mentioned in the referral.
They then criticize the argument that a judge, even if the Constitutional Court can not go so far as to grant the request of the applicants seeking the publication of banns on the assumption of their right to marry.
reiterated that it was in the presence of a practice of interpretation, derived by the context of ordinary legislation, dating back to well before the entry into force of the Constitution, and that this practice contrasts (as mentioned earlier) with high-level principles and rules constitutional status, the complainants contend that, in this case, it is not to create a new institution, or to affirm the existence of a new right (operations precluded the judiciary), because the right to marry and there is already clear connotations, but, despite being a fundamental right, it is granted only to the enjoyment of heterosexual people.
Finally, I recall some arguments of foreign courts that have addressed the constitutional holding in their respective systems, the prohibition of marriage between persons of the same sex.
In closing, he asks this Court to acquire adequate information on the number of base pairs formed by people of the same sex, who live on Italian territory, and the impact of the current practice of interpretation, which excludes same-sex marriage, on their psychosocial well-being.
3. - The President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the state, said intervention in the present case of the constitutionality of a document lodged 21 July 2009, asking that the question be declared inadmissible, however, manifestly unfounded.
The defense of the State proceeds on the ground that the law concerning the institution of marriage, is that given by the civil law, whether that is constitutional, refers of course unions between persons of different sexes.
The requirement for diversity of sex, which is derived directly from Article. 107 cod. Civ. as well as several other provisions of the Code, is traditionally and consistently ranked by doctrine and jurisprudence of the preconditions for the existence of the marriage. In fact, according to Attorney General, the institution of marriage in our system is set up as a journalistic institution to govern certain effects, that the legislature protection as a direct result of a relationship of coexistence between people of different sex (subsidiary rights successors, the law concerning adoption).
The reference to Article. 2 of the Constitution, made by the court, would not be decisive or transferring. This
willing to constant interpretation of this court, "must be reconnected to the constitutional rules relating to individual rights and fundamental guarantees, as least in the sense that no other inviolable fundamental rights that are not necessarily those resulting from constitutionally envisaged '(Case No. . 98, 1979), among which included the claim would not be driven by the plaintiffs in the trial court.
Placing art. 2 of the Constitution among the "fundamental principles" and instead placing art. 29 in Title II of the "social ethic," constitute not only the textual argument, but also the most significant argument to exclude the validity of the assumption contained in the referral, there are of course forbidden in our legal coexistence between people of the same sex. In fact, the doctrine most recently tends to bring the protection of same-sex couples under the protection of unmarried couples.
there is no violation of the principle of equality, in art. 3 of the Constitution, because that requires equal treatment for similar situations and differential treatment to differing factual situations.
The defense notes that the doctrine of the State, in commenting on the aforementioned art. 3, considered the prohibition of discrimination based on sex "somewhat less rigid than others," both in terms of correlation of some distinction to the objective differences between the sexes, both in terms of regulation, to the extent that in the Constitution shall they come across rules justifying to some extent, distinctions based on sex, 'in particular, Articles 29, 37 and 51. "
The doctrine would also consider referring to the principle of reasonableness, expressed in that article. 3 of the Constitution, not applicable in this case, because a different regulatory treatment could be considered "reasonable" because it aimed to meet others and prevailing constitutional values.
Nor would it be pertinent to refer to case law regarding unlawful discrimination faced by trans people before, because the problem of "identity of biological sex" in that hypothesis would assume a different significance. How
art. 29 of the Constitution, that provision, stating that "The Republic recognizes the rights of the family as a natural society founded on marriage," outlines a "two-way relationship" between the concepts mentioned in it and also "bind the legislature to hold separate discipline institution of the family from those that may be devoted to any other type of social formation, albeit having similar characteristics. "
According to Advocacy, the discussions developed in the Constituent Assembly when drafting Article. 29, it would be two further reconstructions of the meaning of that provision.
pregiuridico The first emphasizes the institution of the family, identifying a single model unique and stable, and the second gives art. 29 content changing with the changing social mores. Part of the doctrine, however, has overcome this dichotomy, arguing that the rule refers to a family model that, as susceptible to developments and changes, however, is characterized by a "hard core" that is "the indispensable minimum and its content in the element of difference in sex between husband and wife" and thus maintains the original meaning set out in the Charter, without changing it in a different way, distant from the initial formulation.
Finally, there is apparent conflict with Art. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, in relation to the constraints deriving from EU and international obligations.
The defense of the state, first, that Community law has not legislated on marriage, but it is limited in several resolutions to indicate the criteria and principles, leaving it to individual member states to adapt national laws.
The freedom for the European regulators gave rise, therefore, to multiple forms of protection for gay couples.
There would be contrary to Articles. 7, 9 and 21 of the Charter of Nice, an integral part of the Lisbon Treaty, as its art. 9, which recognizes the right to marry and to found a family, referring to national law to determine the conditions for the exercise of that right.
As for international obligations and, in particular, to respect the ECHR, the law cited the Italian Civil Code does not seem to conflict with the Articles. 8 (right to respect for family life), 12 (right to marry) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR, since their art. 12 not only reaffirms that the institution of marriage involves persons of different sex, but refers to national law to determine the conditions for the exercise of its right.
Ultimately, beyond the heterogeneity of recognition patterns adopted by European states, the element that unites them is the "centrality of the legislature" in the process of inclusion of gay couples under the effects of legal disciplines protection.
Moreover, intervention by the Constitutional Court of manipulative type would not be possible by executing a lexical the mere substitution of the words "husband" and "wife" with the word "spouses" because in reality it would make a new design of the regulatory fabric codicistico, in the light of a constitutional provision that just refers to it, and this task would necessarily be reserved to the legislature.
4. - The Court of Appeal of Trento, with the other order mentioned in the inscription, raised, with reference to Arts. 2, 3:29 Constitution, the question of constitutionality of Articles. 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis, 156-bis. Civ., in so far, a total assessed, do not allow individuals to marry persons of the same sex.
The Territorial Court was requested to be pressed in the complaint, pursuant to art. 739 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proposed by two pairs (each consisting of same-sex) against a decree of the Court of Trent, which had rejected the opposition made by the claimants against a decision of the Registrar of the City of Trento. By that measure, the official said had refused to proceed with the marriage banns required by the opponents, not eligible in the Italian legal marriage between persons of the same sex, and rejection was considered legitimate by the Court.
The referring court, after considered unfounded the claim is seeking the order the registrar to proceed to publication, examines the question of constitutionality, in the alternative proposed by the claimants.
After recalling the order of the Court of Venice, the referring court notes that, over time which have been enacted rules governing marriage, "there has been an inexorable transformation of society and morals, which led to overcoming the monopoly held by traditional family model and the simultaneous emergence of spontaneous seeking various forms of cohabitation (sometimes loudly) to be protected and regulated. "
In this context, in the opinion of the Court thirty is necessary to ask whether the institution of marriage, in the discipline, whether or not in conflict with the constitutional principles.
The question arises, in particular, respect the principle of equality under Article. Basically 3 of the Constitution, and the right to marry is "an essential expression of human dignity (Article constitutionally guaranteed. 2 of the Constitution and, at the supranational level, Articles. 12 and 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 'Man of 1948, Articles. 8:12 ECHR and Articles. 7 and 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000), one wonders whether it is legitimate to prevent homosexual or whether, instead, it should be guaranteed to all without discrimination based on sex or personal circumstances (such as sexual orientation), with a requirement of the State to intervene in the event of impediments to the exercise of it. "
would not be denied that the issue is relevant to the decision, because the declaration of unconstitutionality of the rules governing marriage, in so far do not allow gay marriage, exert a decisive influence on the outcome of the trial court.
Also, it could be argued the issue is clearly unfounded, because "as noted above can not be overcome by an interpretation that marriage can and should be allowed only to heterosexual couples because of his social function, according to some principle derived from Article. 29 of the Constitution (under which recognizes the rights of the family as a natural society founded on marriage). This principle would, in fact, we only recognize its natural role in the family, in the sense that on one hand the state can not ignore this social reality to which nature tends to the vast majority of individuals and, second, says the family based on marriage, but it certainly does not come to exclude protection of the family in fact (which is not affected by marriage) or to affirm the role of the family as the granary of the State. "
According to the court, "the legislative and judicial developments, very well remembered by the Court of Venice in the order mentioned above, returns now a concept of the family not to include that, under Article. 29 of the Constitution to give importance only to the legitimate family functionally aimed at the spouses of procreative capacity so that, if anything, is also in relation to that provision of the constitutional question must be judged worthy of attention by the court of law. "
5. - President Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the state, has intervened in proceedings concerning the constitutional document filed Nov. 3, 2009, asking that the question be declared inadmissible, however, unfounded. The State's defense held the similar arguments as those given in proceedings instituted by the order of the Court of Venice.
6. - There were also formed, by application filed November 2, 2009, the private parties in the proceedings instituted by the order of the Court of Appeal of Trento, gentlemen and ladies ZE LL and OE and OM, declaring the admission and that the question raised and obtain its acceptance.
7. - In the latter court said action, by an application filed November 3, 2009, the Association of Radical certain rights, in the person of the secretary and legal representative pro tempore, who, referring to the same statutory objectives of the Association, said were entitled to intervene as eligible and based the questions of constitutionality raised by the Appeal Court of Trento, reserving any further appropriate illustration of their argument and the filing of any documentation.
8 .- By application filed February 25, 2010 in the proceedings concerning the constitutionality promoted by the order of the Court of Appeal of Trento, explained Messrs. CM intervention and GV, PGB and CGR, and RZ RFRPC
The interveners, all male, I state that, with three acts on the same date November 5, 2009, communicated by letters sent on 11 November 2009, the Journal marital status of the City of Milan has announced the refusal to proceed with the marriage banns to their demands.
They point out that self-interest and directed to take action arose subsequent to the expiration date in the ordinary terms of constitutional review, which is why the act of intervention is filed within twenty days before the date fixed for hearing discussion. Given that this is temporal circumstance beyond the control of the applicants and confirmed by documents drawn up by the government, called as necessary by analogy with art. 153, second paragraph, no. proc. Civ. They say that the intervention should be considered timely and ask, however, are put back in terms.
Moreover, they argue that the intervention should be considered acceptable in the light of the innovations introduced by the Constitutional Court, which has expressed in recent years in favor of a gradual approach to eligibility, case by case, "especially where individual players or groups boasted a direct bearing on the question of legitimacy in a constitutional process that relates to public interest: that the decision on the constitutionality of the law. "
In this context, interest in direct, specific and concrete of the intervening decision of this Court can not be questioned, because the declaration of validity of the question would get the marriage banns already required by the officer and refused to marital status on the grounds for ineligibility, in the current law, marriages between persons of the same sex.
In substance, the interveners play considerations similar to those previously mentioned in support of the merits of question.
9. - Close to a hearing to discuss the private parties in the two reviews of the constitutionality of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers radical Some Rights Association have submitted statements in support of their demands.
legal considerations
1. - The Court of Venice, with the order mentioned in the headnote, raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3, 29 and 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Articles 93, 96, 98, 107, 108 , 143, 143-bis, 156-bis of the Civil Code, "in so far as consistently interpreted, do not allow that people of homosexual orientation can marry persons of the same sex. "
The court pressed to be called to pronounce in a case brought by two men, in contrast, pursuant to art. 98 of the Code, against the act by which the registrar of the Venice City Council has refused to proceed with the publication of marriage by the same request, deeming it contrary to existing legislation, constitutional or ordinary, as the institute of marriage, under Italian law, would be focused on the difference in sex between spouses.
The Venetian Court refers the arguments by the applicants, who noted that, in the current law, there is no concept of marriage, or his express prohibition of same-sex. They refer to the Constitution and the Charter of Nice, noting that a literal interpretation of the rules of the Civil Code as a basis for the refusal of the publications, it would be unconstitutional and in particular with Articles. 2, 3, 10, second paragraph, and 29 of the Constitution
the above, the referring court notes that, under Italian law, same-sex marriage is not expressly provided for nor forbidden. Moreover, even in the absence of a rule of definition, "the institution of marriage, as provided in the current Italian law, unquestionably refers only to marriage between persons of different sex. " In the opinion of the Court, the clear wording of the provisions of the Code, regulations of the institute in question, it would also extend to same-sex. This would be a stretch is not allowed on the courts (other than the Constitution), "in front of a thousand year and established the concept of marriage as a union of a man and a woman."
On the other hand, the Court can not ignore the rapid changes in society and morals, the excess of the monopoly held by traditional family model, birth spontaneous forms (albeit minority) living together, seeking protection, are inspired by the traditional model and, like, are intended to be considered and regulated. New needs, also linked to the evolution of culture and civilization, they ask protection, requiring a careful meditation on the continued compatibility with the traditional interpretation of constitutional principles.
circumstances, the Court of Venice, building on the ground that the right to marry is a fundamental human right, recognized in national and supranational (Article 2 of the Constitution), illustrates the complaints concerning the various parameters Constitutional evoked, reaching the conviction on the issue is not manifestly unfounded promoted, which also considers relevant for the application of the contested provisions do not be overcome in the path logical and legal to be done in order to reach the decision of the case.
2. - The Court of Appeal of Trento, with the other order mentioned in the inscription, raised, with reference to Arts. 2, 3:29 Constitution, the question of constitutionality of Articles. 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis, 156-bis. Civ., in so far, a total assessed, do not allow individuals to marry persons of the same sex.
The Territorial Court was requested to be pressed in the complaint, under Article 739 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proposed by two pairs (each consisting of same-sex) against the decree of the Court of Trent, which had rejected the opposition made by the claimants against a decision of the officer marital status of the Municipality of Trent. By that measure, the official said had refused to proceed with the marriage banns required by the opponents, not eligible in the Italian legal marriage between persons of the same sex, and rejection was considered legitimate by the Court.
The referring court, having found no basis for the claim is seeking the order to the officer proceed with the Registrar of publications, go examine the question of constitutionality, in the alternative proposed by the claimants, conducting in relation to the complaints could be envisaged, similar considerations to those given by the Court of Venice.
3. - The two judgments of constitutionality, the subject of the same matter, are to be met to be decided with a single sentence.
4. - At the outset, it must be confirmed by the ordinance adopted at the public hearing and is annexed hereto, with which they have been declared ineligible for assistance radical Some Rights Association and Messrs CM and GV, and PGB C . GR, and RZ RFRPC This consolidated under guidance of constitutional law, mentioned in the order, that are not eligible for assistance in proceedings concerning the constitutionality indirectly, to persons who are not parties to the trial court, nor are holding a qualified interest, inherent in a direct and immediate relationship of substance raised in the cause and not just regulated, just like any other, from the norms and standards to criticism, was also on the ground that the eligibility of the intervention by a third party holds an interest similar to that put forward only in the main proceedings, contrary to the incidental nature of that court's legitimacy.
5. - The question raised by both referral orders, with reference to Article. 2 of the Constitution, must be declared inadmissible because it seeks to obtain a preliminary additive not constitutionally required (ex plurimis: orders No. 243, 2009, No. 316, 2008, No. 185 of 2007, No. 463 of 2002).
6. - Those ordinances both move from the assumption that the institution of civil marriage as provided for in the current Italian law, refers only stable union between a man and a woman. This figure shows not only the contested provisions, but also by the discipline of legitimate filiation (art. 231 et seq. cod. Civ. and, in particular with regard to the action of disavowal, Art. 235, 244 et seq. the same code), and other laws, including, for example, you may refer to the art. 5, first and second paragraphs of the Law of 1 December 1970 No 898 (Discipline of the cases of dissolution of marriage), and the law on civil status law.
In essence, the entire discipline of the institute, which is contained in the Civil Code and special legislation, requires the same sex spouses as part of "a thousand year and established the concept of marriage," as noted by the order of the Court Venetian.
same sense is the doctrine, most inclined to the view that the identity of sex is because of absence of marriage, even if a party comes to disability. The rare case of legitimacy, which (although as obiter dicta) has addressed the question, considered the difference in sex between spouses of the minimum requirements necessary to establish the existence of the marriage (Supreme Court, Case No. 7877 of 2000, No. 1304 of 1990 and No. 1808 of 1976).
7. - Without prejudice to the foregoing, it must then determine whether the constitutional principle evoked by the referring courts require to reach a declaration of illegality of the contested legislation (with possible application of Article. 27, the last part of the law March 11, 1953, No 87 - Guidelines on the establishment and functioning of the Constitutional Court), extending to homosexual unions the discipline of civil marriage, in such a way to fill the void caused by the fact that the legislature has not raised the issue of gay marriage.
8. - Article. 2 of the Constitution provides that the Republic recognizes and guarantees the inviolable rights of man, as an individual and in social groups where he expresses his personality and demands the fulfillment of the mandatory duties of political solidarity, economic and social development.
However, for training to be considered any form of social community, simple or complex, such as to allow and encourage the free development of individuals in their personal relationships, in the context of a pluralistic model of development. In this concept is to be counted even homosexual unions, seen as stable coexistence between two persons of the same sex, which has the fundamental right to live freely provided torque, obtaining - in time, in the manner and within the limits prescribed by law - legal recognition with the related rights and obligations.
should be precluded, however, that the aspiration for such recognition - which necessarily requires a framework of a general nature, aimed at regulating rights and duties of members Torque - can only be achieved through an equivalence of homosexual unions to marriage. Just as the committee, including without limitation, the laws of the countries that have so far recognized these unions to ensure the diversity of choices.
It follows therefore that, within the scope of Article. 2 of the Constitution, it is the Parliament, exercising its discretion, determine the guarantees and recognition of these unions, is reserved to the Constitutional Court the power to intervene in the interests of specific situations (as was the case for cohabitation: Case No 559 of 1989 and No 404, 1988). It may happen, in fact, that in relation to particular cases, and found the need for uniform treatment of the condition of the married couple and that of gay couples, this court can ensure that treatment with the control of reason.
9. - The issue raised with regard to the parameters identified in the Articles. 3:29 Constitution is founded.
should take as a basis for logical reasons, the latter provision. It states, in the first paragraph that "The Republic recognizes the rights of the family as a natural society founded on marriage," and in the second paragraph adds that "Marriage is ordained on moral and legal equality of spouses within the limits established by law to guarantee family unity. "
The rule, which gave rise to a lively discussion of doctrine still open, raises the legitimate family as the foundation of marriage, defined as "natural society" (with that expression, as is apparent from the drafting of the constituent assembly, we wished to emphasize covered by the rule that the family had the original rights and existing state, that this was to recognize).
That said, it is true that the concepts of family and marriage can not be considered "crystallized" with respect to the time when the Constitution came into force, because they have the flexibility of its constitutional principles and therefore should be interpreted taking into account not only of the order processing, but also the evolution of society and morals. This interpretation, however, can only go so far as to affect the core of the standard, modified so as to include it in the phenomena and issues not covered in any way when it was enacted.
In fact, as is clear from the preparatory work, the issue of homosexual unions was completely extraneous to the debate in the Assembly, although the homosexual condition is not certainly known. The constituents, developing art. 29 of the Constitution, discussed a school that had a definite shape and a comprehensive discipline in the civil order. Therefore, in the absence of other references, it is a foregone conclusion that they kept in mind the concept of marriage as defined by the Civil Code came into force in 1942, which, as we have seen above, established (and still provides) that the spouses should be persons of opposite sex. In this sense, is also guiding the second paragraph of the provision, saying the moral and legal principle of equality of the spouses had their respect to the position of women which intended to give dignity and equal rights in marriage.
This meaning of the precept Constitution can not be overcome by interpretation, because it would not be a simple reading of the system or abandon a mere practice of interpretation, but to undertake a creative interpretation.
It should be repeated, then, that the rule did not consider same-sex unions, but rather intended to refer to marriage in the traditional meaning of this institution.
It is no coincidence, moreover, that the Constitution, after having dealt with the marriage, has found it necessary to deal with the protection of children (art. 30), ensuring equal treatment, even those born out of wedlock, although consistent with members of the legitimate family. The proper and due protection, granted to illegitimate children, does not alter the constitutional significance attributed to the legitimate family and the (potential) procreative purpose of marriage is to differentiate homosexual union.
In this context, with reference to art. 3 of the Constitution, censorship rules of the Civil Code which, as mentioned above, affects only a marriage between a man and woman, can not be considered illegal at the constitutional level. This is because it is grounded in the cited art. 29 of the Constitution, and because such legislation should not give rise to an unreasonable discrimination, since homosexual unions can not be considered homogeneous at the wedding.
The reference, in the referral of the Court of Venice, Act April 14, 1982, No 164 (Rules of rectification of attribution of sex) is not relevant. The legislation cited
hours - subject to scrutiny by this Court that, in sentence no 161, 1985, declared inadmissible or unfounded issues of constitutionality at the time promoted - provides for the correction of the attribution of sex under the ruling of the court, res judicata, which gives a person a sex other than that laid down by 'birth certificate, is modified as a result of its sexual characteristics (Article 1).
As you can see, this is an entirely different condition from that homosexual and therefore unfit to serve as a tertium comparationis. The transsexual, in fact, the fundamental requirement to be met is that to coincide with the psyche and soma, this effect is essential, as a rule, surgery that, with the consequent correction registry, can usually achieve this coincidence (Case No. 161 of 1985, paragraph three of the legal considerations). The person is admitted to the marriage for the future modification to the sex, authorized by the court. The recognition of the right to marry to those who have changed sex, then, is rather an argument for confirm the status of heterosexual marriage as provided in current law.
10. - It remains to consider the parameter related art. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution (proposed only in the order of the Court of Venice).
The referring primarily evokes such rules interposed, Articles. 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 12 (right to marry) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) was ratified and enforced by law August 4, 1955, No 848 (Ratification and implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and the Additional Protocol to the Convention signed in Paris March 20, 1952) focuses on a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (C. Goodwin v. Case United Kingdom, July 11, 2002), who declared contrary to the Convention on the prohibition of marriage of transsexual (after surgery) with the original person of the same sex, arguing that the analogy with the case of gay marriage also mentions the Charter of Nice (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and, in particular, Article. 7 (right to respect for private and family life), art. 9 (right to marry and a family), art. 21 (right not to be discriminated), mentions several resolutions of the European institutions, "which has long called on States to remove obstacles to the marriage or the recognition of same-sex couples equivalent legal arrangement", and finally, reports that in ' law of many states having similar to the Italian legal culture, is emerging notion of family relationships to include same-sex couples.
That said, it should be noted that: a) a warning to the judgment of the European Court is not relevant because it concerns a case governed by English law on the case of a transsexual who, after the operation, having acquired female characters (Case cited., paragraphs 12-13) had started a relationship with a man, with whom, however, could not get married "because the law was regarded as a man" (paragraph 95 ). Such cases, in Italian law, he would find solution within the discipline and Law 164, 1982. And, anyway, we have already noted that the positions of transsexuals and homosexuals are not homogeneous (see paragraph 9), b) and Articles. 8 and 14 of the ECHR, and Articles. 7 and 21 of the Nice Charter contains general provisions concerning the right to respect for private and family life and the prohibition of discrimination, however, largely similar. Instead of the ECHR Articles 12 and 9 of the Charter of Nice specifically involving the right to marry and to found a family. For the principle of specialty, therefore, it is those rules which reference should be made in this case.
However, Article. 12 provides that "Men and women in marital age have the right to marry and form a family according to the national laws governing the exercise of that right."
In turn the art. 9 states that "The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise." In order to
latter provision be said that the Charter of Nice has been implemented by the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, which entered into force on 1 December 2009. In fact, the new text of art. 6, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on European Union, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon provides that "1. The Union recognizes the rights, freedoms and principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 7 December 2000, adjusted December 12, 2007 in Strasbourg, which has the same legal value as the Treaties ".
not necessary for the purposes of these proceedings, address the problems that the entry into force of the Treaty Union puts in order and national legal systems, especially with regard to Article. 51 of the Charter, which governs the scope. For the purposes of this decision it should be noted that Article. 9 of the Charter (as, indeed, art. 12 of the ECHR), affirming the right to marry refers to national laws governing the exercise. It should be added that the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention that had drafted (and which, while not having the status of law, are a sure means of interpretation), with reference to that art. 9 clarify (Inter alia) that "Article neither prohibits nor imposes the granting of the status of marriage to unions between persons of the same sex."
Therefore, apart from the explicit reference to the men and women, it is crucial that the survey also cited the legislation does not require full equality to same-sex unions under the rules for marriages between men and women.
Again, with reference to national laws, it is confirmed that the matter is at the discretion of Parliament.
further evidence of this is evident, as already mentioned, an examination of the choices and solutions adopted by numerous countries that have introduced, in some cases, a true extension of the scheme provided to homosexual unions to civil marriage or, more frequently, and very different forms of protection ranging from assimilation to the trend of those unions marriage, until the clear distinction, on terms of the effects compared to the same.
Based on the above, it must obtain a declaration of inadmissibility of the question by the court, with reference to art. 117, first paragraph of the Constitution for these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
together the reviews:
a) declares ineligible, in relation to articles 2 and 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Articles 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143-bis, 156-bis of the Civil Code, raised by the Court of Venice and the Court of Appeal Trento with the order mentioned in the inscription;
b) declared unfounded, in relation to Articles 3 and 29 of the Constitution the question of the constitutionality of the above articles of the Civil Code raised by the Court of Venice and the Court of Appeal of Trento with the same orders.
Decided in Rome, the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, April 14, 2010.
F.to:
AMIRANTE Francis, President
Alessandro Criscuolo, Editor
Giuseppe DI PAOLA, Registrar
Filed in Chancery 15 April 2010. The Director of Stationery
F.to: DI PAOLA
Attachment:
order read at the hearing on March 23, 2010
ORDER
Visas acts relating to the constitutionality proceedings brought by order of the Court of Appeal Trento filed July 29, 2009 (RO No. 248 of 2009);
noted that this court has intervened in the Association of Radical certain rights, in person and legal representative of the Secretary-pt, by application filed November 3, 2009;
that have occurred in the same trial, by an application filed February 25, 2010, Messrs. CM and GV, PGB and CGR, and RFRPC RZ, all male;
that neither the Radical Association, nor the gentlemen in intervention on 25 February 2010 were parties to the trial court;
that it is settled jurisprudence of this Court, are allowed to cross to the action of the constitutionality (in addition to the President of the Council of Ministers and in the case of regional law, the President of the Regional Government), the only parties to the main, while the involvement of persons outside this is only admissible for nationals holding a qualified interest, inherent in a direct and immediate relationship to the substantive obligation in question is not simply regulated, like any other, from the norms and standards to criticism (ex plurimis: order read at the hearing March 31, 2009, upheld by No 151 of 2009; Case No. 94 of 2009, No 96, 2008, No. 245, 2007, order No. 414 of 2007);
that eligibility for intervention by a third party who holds an interest similar to that put forward only in the main proceedings is contrary to the nature of the proceedings incidental to the constitutionality, as the access of parties to that trial would take place without prior review of the effects and the question is not manifestly unfounded by the court;
that, therefore, is the intervention of the Radical Certain Rights to be explained by the application received February 25, 2010 must be declared ineligible, regardless of the lateness of the latter (Ordinance No. 119 of 2008).
for these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares inadmissible the actions of the Radical Certain Rights and Messrs CM and GV, PGB and CGR, and RZ RFRPC
F.to:
AMIRANTE Francis, President
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)