The plan against the family

  • Italiano
  • Español
Paolo Maria Floris

To understand what is really at stake in the manifestation which will take place on January 30, promoted by “Let’s defend our children” and open to all those who support the right of the child to have a father and a mother, we must start from the sentence n. 138/2010 of the Constitutional Court, widely invoked by the drafters of the bill on “civil unions” (the so-called Cirinnà bill). This bill does not mention marriage between persons of the same sex perhaps in homage to the Sentence which stressed that “the whole discipline of the (matrimonial) institution contained in the Civil Code and in the special legislation, postulates the different sexes of the spouses, as part of a consolidated and ultra-millennial notion of marriage”, but the entire system of the bill attempts to equate civil unions to marriage, through constant references (eg. in Art. 3, c. 3:04 , with an explicit reference to the property regime of the family etc.) to the institution of marriage.

Apart from the linguistic acrobatics of the bill (see Michele Ainis’ “The hypocrisy language on gay civil unions” in Corriere della Sera, January 20) why this haste in wanting to transform into an institution – a “specific social formation” – a system of guarantees of individual rights that, if any deficiencies were to be found (eg. in succession and the survivor’s pension, etc.) could easily be changed in the Civil Code or in the laws regarding the specific legislation? On closer inspection, the problem has remained unchanged over the last 10 years; we read what the committee which organized the “Family Day” in 2007, wrote against Dico in their call: “The emergence of new needs deserves to be carefully considered, but we hope that the legislature will not confuse the demands of partners living together with the specific needs of the family founded on marriage and those of its members.”

“The experience of living together, already present in a system of absolute freedom guaranteed by current legislation, has an essentially private profile and do not need public recognition that would inevitably lead to institutionalizing different and unacceptable patterns of family, which are in direct conflict with the Constitution”. So the urge to empty the concept of family as it is masterfully described by our Constitution, in the art. 29 (“a natural society founded on marriage”, hence pre-existing the State itself) has not completely disappeared after the defeat of the project, but has resurfaced calling the overcoming of our legislation, calling it “backward” with respect to other Western countries (Africa and the East do not count!);  we must ask, then, why certain countries which are so “advanced” in the field of family and marriage, are completely closed to the immigration of masses of dispossessed; translated into the current cultural battle on the family it means: why the Catholic Church (which is so culturally influential in “backward” countries) is so useful when it works in the social field, but becomes reactionary and obscurantist when it reaffirms the uniqueness of the family consisting of a man and a woman, to guarantee their children a father and a mother?

Perhaps we need to just ask what is the reason that leads the dominant way of thinking to want to destroy the institution of family and the institution of marriage, using individual rights as a pretext which, I repeat, nobody wants to deny homosexuals. Pope Francis is probably right when, talking about gender theory, he used terms such as “ideological colonization” and “error of the human mind”; perhaps through this ideological colonization they want to homologate the last Western industrialized country to a social atomization that is functional to a project of domination. But all this has to deal with a people which, to put it in the beautiful words pronounced by John Paul II, constitutes “the Italian exception” and which has recently demonstrated the ability to defend its tradition as a source of identity, hence, awareness of its diversity as a contribution to civilization.

Paolo Maria Floris

Vice President of “Identità cristiana”

National Commitee  “Let’s defend our children”

Avviso: le pubblicità che appaiono in pagina sono gestite automaticamente da Google. Pur avendo messo tutti i filtri necessari, potrebbe capitare di trovare qualche banner che desta perplessità. Nel caso, anche se non dipende dalla nostra volontà, ce ne scusiamo con i lettori.