The statement by the Minister Mara Carfagna did not want the government to grant legal aid to the Gay Pride event has attracted the usual predictable controversy, culminating in the indictment of homophobia. Denying the sponsorship would be to disregard the rights of gay, starting with a thicker than symbolic, the right to marry. Little interests me at this moment, to assess on a strictly political attitudes of the young minister (attitude, however, not without wisdom, what I could perceive by the newspapers, even those most antipatizzanti against him). Most of the political question here is what is important is in fact a matter of law and anthropology, all in all elementary, but on which we continue to raise ideological fuss. Summarize them in a few key points. First point: gays have rights? Certainly yes, they have exactly the same rights enjoyed by any other human being: the only doubt would be absurd. Our Constitution, Art. 3 sets with clear determination that all citizens are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions. It would be hard to imagine a better formulation of the constitutional principle of equality. It follows that any discrimination against homosexuals, because of their homosexuality, is to our Constitution (and our social conscience) is absolutely intolerable and removed. Second point: gays have a right to protest peacefully against all discrimination is perpetrated against them? Once again: absolutely yes (under the usual conditions of public policy that every event must be met). Third point: gays have the right to obtain the patronage of the government for their events? The answer is no: all those that trigger an event obviously have the right to 'ask' patronage, not to 'get it'. It is for the government whether to give, according to a simple criterion: it is in a real game public interest? In our case it is in place where discrimination against homosexuals, to justify the benefit of sponsoring Gay Pride, so highly symbolic, as the government? The answer is no, unless you give (but no one today can) concrete examples of social discrimination taking place in our country against gay people. Fourthly, the lack of legal recognition of homosexual unions in Italy is not objectively discriminate against gays? No, unless you try (and not simply affirm) to the contrary. But this is a test impossible, because the law does not classify it legally the sex lives of citizens (let alone that of gay). There is one exception to this principle, that of marriage, which is structurally heterosexual institution, however, because the founding family (as acknowledged in the art. 29 of our Constitution). The claim of gay men to obtain for any legal recognition of their partnerships (up to double that) has no social motivations, but only psychological and symbolic reasons that demonstrate the mimetic character of homosexual unions (as opposed to heterosexual) and their structural fragility (inherently strong union is defending itself safely, without the right to ask for help). Fifth point: Anyone defending positions such as those mentioned above, it was knows to give his side the accusation of homophobia. This is of course a charge that is very difficult to avoid in a debate like so ideologically connoted homosexuality. You should not however forget that the price for not being accused of homophobia is becoming far too high, it is neither more nor less than to give (consciously or unconsciously) all''eterofobia '. What is more, after all, if not a sign of irreducible and unacceptable 'eterofobia' attempt to clear from within the anthropological and historical reality of marriage as a union between man and woman?
Francesco D'Agostino ( www.avvenire.it )
0 comments:
Post a Comment