Recently passed Italian bill will have grave consequences
Written by Sarah on February 15, 2007 – 3:30 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
I received an email from a colleague of mine with a press release attachment from the World Congress of Families. The Italian Parliament just passed a bill that would grant legal rights and benefits normally granted to married couples to unmarried, cohabiting couples, which of course includes homosexual couples. This includes inheritance rights, welfare benefits and input on medical decisions. No matter what the law is in Italy, this is just another excuse to make a step toward legitimizing, and then legalizing gay marriage. This is more than granting “rights” and “benefits” to those who should not be receiving them in a certain capacity, this is substituting traditional marriage with an arrangement that will continue to severely weaken the family. From the press release (ChristianNewsWire):
The bill grants Italy’s estimated 560,000 cohabitating couples many benefits traditionally reserved for marriage – including inheritance rights, welfare benefits and input on medical decisions.
The legislation threatens to split Prodi’s narrow center/left coalition, with the government’s minister of justice boycotting the cabinet session in which the bill was approved. Justice Minister Clemente Mastella, a member of a Catholic party in the coalition, says he opposes the bill because “it seeks solutions and guarantees which imitate marriage.â€
Warned Deputy Speaker of the Senate Roberto Calderoli: “They are destroying the family. This is just a Trojan horse to allow marriage between gays.â€
I will say that gay marriage is not the only issue here. This bill has put a state-sanctioned “ok” on cohabiting living situations by recognizing them as legal relationships by conferring various benefits. Marriage, which is not only the foundational institution of political and civil society, is also the starting point for families. The fact that cohabitation is on the rise has had devastating consequences on the natural family and societies around the world. More and more children, especially in Western Europe, have been born out of wedlock and global birth rates are dropping incredibly quickly. Italy, in fact, is a country with one of the lowest birthrates, 1.2 children per mother. I suspect that when this bill takes effect, we will be seeing seriously upsetting results within the decade.
Last 5 posts by Sarah- Of course the MSM is not going to report this - October 31st, 2008
- Barack Obama is not a terrorist - October 31st, 2008
- This needs to be McCain's next stump speech - October 13th, 2008
- "My bracelet has peace sign charms on it!" - September 26th, 2008
- Hugh Hewitt Debate Score Card - September 26th, 2008
Posted in We ask the Tough Questions. |
February 15th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
In my opinion, we should abolish civil marriage but make civil UNIONS with all the same legal rights as marriage available to all couples (hetero- or homosexual). Marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one. Furthermore, the question of gay marriage should be determined by each religion for itself. No conservative clergyman should be forced to marry homosexuals, nor should any liberal clergyman be forced not to. When I become a rabbi, I will be proud to marry homosexual couples.
That being said, I am aghast that a country would give all the rights of marriage to “cohabiting couples”. If they want those rights, there is no reason they can’t just commit to marriage. Marriage–and civil unions, for that matter–represents a legal contract, and marital rights stem from that contract. Cohabiting couples have no such contractual obligation to each other…and thus should not be granted marital rights. If you want rights, you have to take the responsibilities that go with them.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:33 am
as an atheist, the idea of rights being granted to cohabitating couples makes sense. does away with all the need for a drab religious ceremony .
what i don’t get is all the hubub about the breakdown of the family unit.
let’s face it families break down on their own, no amount of government protection is going to make mr. and mrs. jones down the block have a better marriage.
im sure the gays would be willing to negotiate a trade, you give them marriage and they’ll give back parades.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:59 am
A civil union would grant nonmarried, cohabiting couples all the rights and benefits that you said you did not want to go to these sorts of couples couples. Changing the name of the legal union does not make things all better. A civil union is just a fake look alike marriage. This is what is in place in Vermont. Civil unions is just another move to allow homosexual couples to have all the rights and benefits married couples have. It’s ridiculous. This is why I oppose any civil unions.
I would agree that private religious institutions should answer the question of gay marriage and homosexuality themselves. I do strongly disagree that you can completely separate religious marriage and civil marriage. In essence they are pretty much one in the same. The difference is that a “religious marriage” would be done in a church while a civil marriage would be done in another location, like a court. There are other nuanced differences, but you cannot separate the religous element from a civil institutions. Most American institutions are inherently religious because American was founded on Judeo-Christian values. This does not mean a particular church is in place (because of course that would violate separation of church and state), but rather there are religious underpinnings to many American customs and institutions, especially American marriage.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Sarah, my religion views marriage very differently than Christianity. Marriage in Judaism is a legal contract first and formost. In that contract, both parties give up certain rights and take on certain responsibilities in exchange for benefits. I have no problem with conferring marital benfits upon couples who are willing to accept the contractual obligations of a truly committed relationship, whether that contract be religious or civil. In my eyes, civil unions are simply marriages without the religious trappings, not “fake marriages”. A contract is a contract.
(Which, incidentally, is another example of why the term “Judeo-Christian values” is just plain wrong. Jewish values and Christian values are actually surprisingly distinct from each other. For instance, did you know that in some cases Jewish law mandates abortion? Or that the Jewish position on divorce has always been in favor of it in a variety of instances?)
February 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
So tell me the problem with Vermont? Have you seen any increase in the divorce rate? Answer: no. How about in Massachusetts? Answer: the divorce rate for heterosexuals went down. The problem with your arguments is that there is simply no merit to them. Let’s say it loud and say it proud, “Gay marriage or civil unions do not have a negative impact on heterosexual marriage!”
The irony on this page, of course, is that you all squeal that we have to stop countries from imposing religious values on their citizens, so long as those religious values are Islamic. Then you turn around and say that the US should impose your religious values on our citizens. Can you please explain how you justify that in your head without suffering an aneurism?
Kat, I appreciate the Jewish customs you mention. One of the greatest civil union ceremonies I witnessed was a traditional Jewish ceremony for two women (one a physician, one a counselor) and their very proud and happy families from all over the world. That was about 15 years ago and they are still happily together and raising their 2 children. Can someone please explain to me in specifics why that threatens straight marriage? Sarah, are you so excited about lesbians marrying that you want to marry a woman rather than a man?
February 17th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Your information is incorrect, this is a law proposal and the parliament didn’t vote anything. By the way I’m not going to comment your post , since it’s clear that all you have read is a newspaper’s article. Read the law proposal and then make a comment on it this could be interesting. And finally, what’s the problem in giving rights to people? Why is that a problem for you and all the people that keep boring us with such useless comments. Try to be happy, and let others be happy to.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Paolo, thank you for correcting me. I apologize for saying it was made a law - I misunderstood. However, even if it is a proposal, that unfortunately shows the wrong direction Italy could be heading.
Unmarried, cohabiting couples, gay or straight, are not being denied any fundamental rights. They are being “denied” the rights they desire for being a couple, which is not at all ridiculous or discriminatory. There are rights and benefits for people if they qualify for them. I am not a veteran so why would I demand for the legal rights and benefits veterans receive? Why shouldn’t this logic hold for unmarried couples?
Marriage is not just a union between a man and a woman, marriage also entails a number of rights and benefits. It’s not an either/or, it’s a both/and.
How would I be “imposing” any religious values on anyone? The traditions and institutions of this country are inherently religious. Marriage is both a civil and religious institution - the civil aspect and the religious aspect are inextricably linked. That one cannot deny. The perception I get from those who say I am “imposing” religious beliefs on others really mean they a) misunderstand the origins of the institutions of this country and/or b) want to change America’s moral fabric.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Sarah,
What part about separating religious beliefs and protecting all citizens equally do you not understand? I pose you a very simple question (and read it several times before answering, because you have demonstrated a startling inability to retain information you apparently read): Do you think that Islamic countries should impose harsh Sharia law on its citizens because the countries were founded on Islamic beliefs?
And a follow up: don’t you think it reasonabale for Islamic countries to evolve from their strict religious interpretations to recognize the dignity and worth of women?
Unless you believe in imposition of Islamic law and base subjugation/mistreatment of women in Islamic countries, it is time for you to find another justification for the mistreatment and failure to protect all citizens of the US by permitting civil unions or marriage for GLBT couples.
Tell the truth: you think gay and lesbian relationships are second class (or worse) and that they don’t deserve the same benefits and obligations that you take for granted. Hey, let’s make them eat at separate lunch counters too!!!!!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
“How would I be “imposing†any religious values on anyone? The traditions and institutions of this country are inherently religious.”
Correction: this country was founded primarily by Deists, who established the traditions of this country based on ethical–not moral–values. (For those who are unaware of the difference, morals are dictated by a religion whereas ethics are dictated by human reason alone. The two often coincide, but not always.)
Furthermore, I am all in favor of changing America’s moral fabric. How many times, after all, has America’s moral fabric changed before? The changes in the treatment of Native Americans, blacks, Jews, and yes, homosexuals too, have all made America a stronger and more moral nation. Traditions are born out of very specific reasons, and many times they do not age gracefully.