More good news from my country

[fpb]

The Italian Constitutional Court, which has the power to strike down laws enacted by Parliament if they conflict with the Constitution, has struck down requests from two senior courts to, in effect, allow "gay marriage" on Constitutional grounds. Its sentence amounts in essence to saying that unless the legislative power takes on itself to pass such a reform, it is not for the judiciary power to re-read the Constitution to mean what its authors and generations of lawyers and judges of every colour had never meant it to say.

A few other countries ought to pay attention, but I guess they won't.

Comments

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Are there civil partnerships in Italy?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Whoops! Sorry, wrong. I remembered the Prodi government passing them, but it seems I was wrong. They have been brought in by a number of regional authorities, which add up to a vast majority of the country, but the Berlusconi government is unlikely to do anything about them nationally, which is the only level that counts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Italy

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That does not change the fact that I think the Constitutional Court was wholly in the right. Whatever one thinks of civil union or even of "gay marriage", to pass it by judicial fiat which perverts the very sense of the law means that from henceforth no word of law will count worth a damn. This, alas, will not stop the judicial bandits who want to do just that, because the notion that they can interpret the laws as they please flatters their self-importance and offers them infinite fields for corruption.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

From the constitutional PoV, you are of course right. I do favour civil partnerships/unions because otherwise, people who've lived as a couple for decades suddenly are seen as total strangers if one of them dies, with heart-rending results sometimes. And even when the families acknowledge the relationship, I expect inheritance tax is as disastrous in Italy as it is in France if you're not closely related.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

My problem with civil partnership is that they are all too obviously intended to be ersatz marriage. Why, for instance, is there a prohibition on close relatives being married, at least in English law? Why limit the number of members to two? No wonder that the Press speaks of Elton John having "married" his live-in lover.

More good news from my country

[(Anonymous)]

I agree entirely.

"Civil Unions" and "homosexual marriage" are used in my homeland New Zealand, to undermine tradtional family values, such as the two (heterosexual) parent family.

If people are heterosexual, and want the rights of legal partners they can have a registry wedding or a Church one (the latter is more important in my opinion). The main reason for "civil unions" is that they are easier to annul/divorce from than traditional marriage, at least in New Zealand.

Rather than working through problems people just walk away from what are in most cases completely salvageable situations.

Those homosexuals wanting a (Christian)Church wedding should remember that Jesus considered homosexuality to be a sin.

However, I would have no problem seeing laws passed that allowed for same sex partners to declare each other "next of kin" for inheritance and medical purposes.

I may not approve of their orientation, but then again I don't have to agree with them, nor they with me.

What I do object to is the perversion of the traditional doctrines of my faith.

I am a practicing Orthodox Christian.

More good news from my country

[(Anonymous)]

Congratulations.

As Christ said "marriage is between a man and a woman"

Good enough for me.

Re: More good news from my country

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The Court did admit that Parliament had the power to enact "gay marriage", although I am not clear whether it would have to amend the Constitution to do so. And while the doctrine of Christ and His Church cannot be separated from ordinary marriage - http://fpb.livejournal.com/84324.html - the Gospel does not actually contain the words you quote. We must be careful to say nothing that cannot be strictly demonstrated, because opponents, especially in this area, are not only numerous but sometimes quite clever, and include some who claim to be Christian.