Mar 26th

Italian Constitutional Court to rule on same-sex marriage

By valit
A major European development this week has so far gone unreported by PinkNews.co.uk. 
 
An ongoing legal battle for the recognition of same-sex marriage in Italy has finally come to a hearing this week in front of the country's Constitutional Court. 
 
Affermazione Civile (civil affirmation), a legal action coordinated by the association Certi Diritti and the LGBT legal network Rete Lenford, was launched several years ago when a number of same-sex couples across Italy applied for marriage licences in different Italian towns and, upon being refused, sued the town administrations. 
 
Rete Lenford's lawyers argue that although Italian law limits marriage to one man and one woman, such laws are unconstitutional as no such restrictions appear in the Italian Constitution. Article 29 in the Constitution, the only one dealing with marriage, reads: "The family is recognised by the republic as a natural association founded on marriage. Marriage entails moral and legal equality of the spouses within legally defined limits to protect the unity of the family."
 
Citing other articles in the Constitution supporting the right to fulfil one's personality, to have equality before the law regardless of sex and personal or social conditions, as well as a number of European treaties of which Italy is a cosignatory and that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the legal team argues that all laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples should be found to be unconstitutional. 
 
Out of the many parallel lawsuits brought by same-sex couples across Italy, four were supported by lower courts last year which called upon the Constitutional Court to rule on the matter. 
 
For years subsequent Italian governments have been unable or unwilling to address the lack of protections faced by same-sex couples in the country and the quiet but steady progress of this court action has surprised many LGBT activists in the country. 
 
The long-awaited hearing took place on Tuesday 23 March in Rome before the 15 justices of the Constitutional Court. The Court has a maximum of 20 days to render its verdict but often reaches one on the same day and some activists were hoping 23 March would be a historic day for the Italian LGBT movement.  
 
However, in view of upcoming regional elections this weekend and in order for the verdict not to influence the political process, the Court has decided to postpone its discussion and verdict until it resumes after the Easter break on Monday 12 April.

LGBT media network Gay.tv has suggested that the Vatican is putting pressure on the Court to deny the petition. 
0 Comments
Mar 10th

Where Stonewall is wrong... we want access to full marriage now!

By bohemicus
I have been following with a keen interest the history of achieving gay equality over last 18 years. I don't know the reasoning behind Stonewall's approach - they seem to follow "drip-by-drip" rather than revolutionary attitude to gay equality. To be fair, Stonewall these days under Ben Summerskill's leadership is much better/far more radical than it ever has been under Angela Mason.

It's well known that some people within Stonewall (such as well-known actor Ian McKellen) are not happy with same-sex partnership rights, and are for full opening up of marriage to same-sex couples.

Look at Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Norway - most of them had same-sex partnership laws first, before actually cancelling them in favour of opening up regular marriage to same-sex couples. There is a possibility that they did it in order to preserve social/civic consensus, in the end that step ended up being revolutionary, as  Lutherans (Swedish state church) agreed to follow suit and open up religious marriage ceremony to same-sex couples.

But considering that apart from the Netherlands and Canada, staunchly Catholic countries such as Belgium and Spain, and now even Portugal, which never stood at the vanguard of lesbian and gay equality in Europe, had opened marriage to same-sex couples, it looks as if multi-speed Europe has somehow emerged. In case of Belgium and Portugal, they are smaller countries eclipsed by powerful neighbours, which they now have culturally copied as if saying - look, we are modern and can do it as well.

Which way now for the UK - are we going to be happy with "separate but equal" doctrine for much longer, or are we going to demand full equality (99.5% equality not being full equality) without any caveats? A hundred-odd years ago, it was women who fought for full franchise (no taxation without representation) -- now it's our turn to learn some lessons from them and not settle for anything less but full, complete equality.
0 Comments