When positive law is not grounded in natural law, claims become rights and rights are messed around. The Constitutional Charter itself is stemmed through linguistic changes inside law itself. For example, introducing the new expression “special social formation” instead of “family”, as it occurs in the so much (and rightly) contested Cirinnà Legislative Decree, from the name of the rapporteur in the Committee on Legal Affairs. Our Constitution is, in fact, explicit in defining, in Article 29, the family as a “natural society founded on marriage”, hence, on the union between a man and a woman. The institution of marriage was born to protect children, is rooted in the creative potential of the spouses. And this is where the Gordian knot it. The so-called “Stepchild Adoption” implies the possibility for one of the partners to adopt the child of the other one.
According to the president emeritus of the Constitutional Court, Cesare Mirabelli, this is a “legal maze”, before being a political one. In fact, according to some people, it is an implicit permission to AID and uteruses for rent. And it would be a first step – a step, as the name itself says – towards adoptions by homosexual couples. Then comes the question, a very serious one, of minors’ priority interest, children’s rights, to have a father and a mother first of all, as well as the certainty of one’s biological identity. It is an attack on the natural family, precisely when politics should commit to ensuring the application of the constitutional principle contained in the Article 31, according to which the State should “facilitate” the formation of families and the carrying out of their tasks, such as education and legal and social protection of the fundamental rights of the human being.
“Civil union for homosexual couples” is treated as equivalent to marriage for rights and duties in Cirinnà’s Legislative Decree (including reversibility of the pension) and is not applicable to heterosexual couples. In short, we are assimilating homosexual unions to marriage, using another name for it. It is contracted in front of a public official, in the presence of witnesses, like weddings. One can take on the partner’s surname and choose the communion or the separation of goods. And they “divorce” to get separated. There are many references to matrimonial law in the content of the Decree.
According to the president emeritus of the Constitutional Court, Mirabelli, the way the text was presented, it “forces legislation”. The individual rights of the homosexual couples should be protected, on the basis of Article 2 of the Italian Constitution, hence regulating the solidarity affective unions and their matrimonial relationships freely, by dissolving the union with a simple declaration of the parties. According to the jurist, adoption is “inadmissible”. ”Stepchild Adoption” should be deleted from the Legislative Decree and possibly discussed during the reformation of the adoptions. In fact, the text refers to the 1983 law on the adoption of minors. Also for the child neuropsychiatrist Angela Magazù, medical director of the local hospital company of Matera, is very inappropriate. “Having a child at all costs is selfishness, not a right”, she declares to In Terris. “A couple, be it hetero- or homosexual, can achieve fulfilment in many ways, not necessarily through procreation or parenthood”.
The adoption of the partner’s child is extremely rare also among heterosexual couples, even when the minor no longer has the other parent. So what is the reason for this hypothesis provided by the Cirinnà Legislative Decree? It is evidently a ploy to introduce adoption. Whereas “children need a father and a mother, both reference figures, a man and a woman, to grow well and become sane adults, adapted, aware, and responsible,” Magazù says. “Differences may not be in the affective and cognitive potentials, but they are present in the way we share our daily life, while playing”. The mother takes care of the children, represents security, care, and comfort. The father transmits a world view, educates to the rules. Certainly, the neuropsychiatrist states, we should understand which is the best way to address the reality of homosexual couples with children; we cannot ignore it. The solution put forwards by the childhood specialist is to think of “monitored fostering instead of adoption”, with periodic controls on the well-being of the minors in custody and on a case-by-case basis.
As to the hypothesis that ‘Europe asks it from us”, which is used by some politicians to “force” the assimilation of homosexual unions to marriage is a slap in the face of truth. The legal expert replies: “We do not receive indications on IMU or car tax related issues…”. Besides, the European Court of Human Rights has commented leaving freedom to the Member States, since “it does not prohibit and does not require the granting of the status of marriage to unions between people of the same sex”.
The colors of the “rainbow” families are far from being pastel. On his blog, then on the pages of Tempi, Robert Oscar Lopez, professor of English literature at the University of California, told about his drama of being the son of a lesbian mother, Since the age of 2, he grew up without a father, together with his mother’s partner. “I felt like I lacked something” he says. “On the outside I might have looked like the perfect son, but inside I had a huge wound I was trying to alleviate with sex”. At the beginning, he had homosexual relations. Minors’ formation happens through imitation. Then, he found out he had heterosexual impulses. “A homosexual family is not a suitable environment for growing a child,” Lopez says.
The research conducted by the American Psychologist Mark Regnerus, the widest research so far (it examined 248 children of homosexuals) and is scientifically reliable, demonstrates that those who grew up with two people of the same sex is from 25 to 40 times more disadvantaged than their peers who lived with a father and a mother.
Next January 26 the debate on this decree is going to resume in the Senate. In the meantime, the fire of this controversy brings into the spotlight the serious ethical and social, as well as cultural implications of the vote in which Italian parliamentarians are going to choose according to their conscience and hopefully not irresponsibly.
The association “Generation Family” launches an appeal to the senators of all sides, asking them not to lend themselves to what seems to be an operation of “ideological colonization”. This “pseudo-marriage” is “a hypocritical and compromising choice” – according to the spokesperson Filippo Savarese – which is likely to become “a time bomb, ready to explode in the courts”. It is certainly an attack on the natural family, which uses law as a weapon.