de Pacs I left A Padova è stta istituita l'anagrafe che potrà certificare come "famiglia" regolare qualsiasi type of coexistence on the basis of a simple bond of affection.
I decided to publish two interesting views: the first is an interview with Senator Elizabeth Padua Casellati (FI), the second is a radical intervention of the spokesman Marco Taradash RL.
OPENS THE WAY TOO MANY TO EMBIGUITA '
Casellati Elizabeth, Senator forzista, and expert at the National Family Law, commented: "I find this idea of \u200b\u200bthe junta to include unmarried couples in a record is insane. It is crossed by a large ambiguity, because Claudio Sinigaglia, representative of Margaret says that this is a measure wholly irrelevant in the sense that in his view nothing will be changed from a legal point of view, while it is clear the intention of the Zan-motion principle to derive a very strong, full of legal consequences. The rest could not be otherwise. Otherwise, why all these issues and a debate that lasts for months, if it were something that leaves no trace from the institutional point of view? Why then the continued delays and agreements, if it was just a principle that remains suspended, as if it were a purely private matter? I do not think anyone who wants to make public his condition and when they decide to do so, and sign a register, it means entering the ranks of all those people who will benefit from the administration. The ambiguity that supports this addition, which is a projection of what happens at the national level, is the result of disunity ... Union, because even at Padua, as in the central government to dictate the rules has left the ceilings and other so-called more moderate forces must give way, hiding behind the veil of ambiguity. Entering into the matter, the confusion that this measure will bring, will be detrimental to the citizens of Padua. I wonder what "emotional connection" is one that binds two people of the same sex, opposite sex, those who have a bond of love, or even a bond of friendship? For example, two students who attend our universities, e che abitano nello stesso alloggio, unite da un vincolo di amicizia per condividere un progetto di studio, avranno diritto all'iscrizione a questa anagrafe delle coppie? Il vecchietto e la badante, con quest'ultima che in alcuni casi potrebbe essere l'unico riferimento affettivo: insieme rappresentano anch'essi una coppia? E poi mi domando: chi stabilirà questo vincolo? Chi sceglierà le coppie? Ci potrà essere una coppia più meritevole di attenzione perché si riterrà che abbia un vincolo più forte di un'altra? A chi il compito di stabilire il confine dei sentimenti, quelli determinanti l'iscrizione? Basterà un'autocertificazione? Io non credo che tutto questo possa succedere perché ritengo che un'iscrizione lead to the acquisition of a series of rights, such as entering the list for public housing, for nursery schools, for various social services. If this is true, there could be a disadvantage for the legitimate family? I think that living together and the relationship each has to deal with them as they wish. Not go into the private facts, however, say that those who choose to live it does under a principle of freedom, freedom from rules and norms of our legal system. Those who decide not to marry because he believes it does not ultimately submit to the rules that the state requires spouses. Because if one escapes freely, as a choice, the rules of the state, then it would require protection? I find everything a contradiction in terms. "
IS TO PACS, PACS NO TO
What sense is the registry of unmarried couples by the city council of Padua? In itself, no one at the moment. It 'a symbolic act, a kind of law manifest no real content. But in the future could lead to something else, such as preferential allocation of social housing to registered couples. In practice it would be a way to introduce civil unions at the municipal level. It's worth taking this issue seriously. My opinion, which applies equally to civil unions as to Padua for domestic, is this: no, definitely no to civil unions for heterosexual couples, yes, definitely yes, for same sex unions. The decision to live a living instead of a marriage born of an act of personal freedom and mutual responsibility which can be translated simply as "we do not want the intrusion of the church nor the state or in our private choices." It 's a free decision, which can be freely changed at any time, or separated or married. What is the point then encode such a choice? Only to obtain economic benefits by getting the cost of their liberty on the community. But this behavior does not undermine the institution of the family, but freedom itself, negating the value of responsibility che ne è alla base. Diverso, del tutto diverso, il caso delle coppie omosessuali stabilmente conviventi: ad esse è proscritta la facoltà di contrarre matrimonio, religioso o statale, e tutta la serie di vantaggi che ciò comporta. Questi privilegi vengono offerti ai singoli dalla comunità in cambio dei vantaggi che la comunità si attende dalla formazione di una famiglia stabile. Il beneficio principale, e ciò che giustifica la gran parte dei diritti sociali legati al matrimonio, è la cura dei figli, il loro mantenimento, la loro educazione. Non valendo questo per le coppie omosessuali, mi pare più che giustificato un trattamento differenziato rispetto alle altre coppie dal punto di vista dell’estensione dei diritti sociali. What is not acceptable however is the ethical discrimination against gay couples, resulting in the denial of public recognition for their choice of stable coexistence. A liberal society is founded on individuals and the state has no right to decide whether to integrate or reject on its fringes who has an emotional and sexual life than the majority population. Marco Taradash
