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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment