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" .

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