The Future continues its relentless campaign against say, declaring them unconstitutional. Already a few weeks ago annexed to its opinion to the Italian Constitutional Note 24, which put some doubt on the constitutionality I say to an equalization of marriage. Among them, two presidents emeriti of the Consulta, and Richard Chiappa Antonio Baldassarre. Doubts also founded and now deepened by the authors of the draft provision of law, have shown that as the recognition of rights does not amount to an automatically equalizing marriage. Just read the draft of the bill to realize it. The assumption is therefore unconstitutional was a simple misunderstanding. Not so many members of the Catholic faith of journalism but also of the Italian Parliament, who consciously lies. Given the insistence, I wonder how constitutional principles related to the conduct of the Members who vote based on principles fideistic. Italy is a secular country. Vote as bubbles, no possums, circular pizzini means to undermine the very concept of the Constitution. In other words, the Catholic leaders of this House are the province of passive decisions that are made elsewhere. The most controversial bills in recent years have involved strong contrast with the Church: euthanasia, assisted reproduction, now I say. In all these cases, the parliamentarians who believe they voted en bloc against any progressive thrust. The arms are raised in the halls of Parliament are controlled by a mind far from the Senate and the House, remotely operated from several kilometers away. So, to vote and the CEI. And 'this Constitutional? I think not. I will move two objections. The first is that Italy is a Catholic country, then these MPs do nothing but represent the people. The second is that in every case, the MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience. We see the first claim. It is true that the parliamentary fideists represent the population. "On the eve of" Family Day ", the poll conducted yesterday by IPR Marketing for Repubblica.it , an Italy shows substantial agreement on the concept of" extended family "(ie not necessarily linked to marriage), though contrary that certain rights are also recognized same-sex couples. In short, yes to say, no to gay marriage. This is the stance of the majority of Italian citizens, quite different from that expressed by Members of the center-right. The second objection is more subtle and complex, covering it all the rights associated with individual morality in which it is easy to get bogged down. Put it this way: if some regurgitation of individual conscience (which has often removed the Italian left) is found to be contrary to the Constitution, it is wiser sopirlo. It is guaranteed in the Constitution as a secular country Italy. Especially when they know so much cries of hypocrisy: the same people who now say they see a threat to the family, the foundation of society, they voted for five years more unacceptable come la depenalizzazione del falso in bilancio, senza temere di minacciare la moralità, pilastro ben più fondante (e più in crisi) della società. In ogni caso, se passasse come “naturale” l’uniformarsi degli esponenti cattolici alla voce del Vaticano, allora dovremmo aspettarci che un islamico voti a prescindere a favore dell’immigrazione, che un senatore juventino voglia abbattere il diritto sportivo, che un deputato milanese provi a devolvere milioni di euro alle città con più discoteche. Insomma, dovremmo celebrare il funerale sia del buon senso che del principio di rappresentanza per cui quei signori siedono in Parlamento. In tutta Europa, destre più conservative della nostra hanno approvato leggi più of progressive say. We see in the low post in the European landscape.
0 comments:
Post a Comment