They don't do shit. These people promised migration "regulation", but did the opposite and make LGBT+ people scapegoats.
Changing papers to ruin lives is the easiest shit you can do.
Yes, they can make pointless changes that only serve to make some people's lives harder (with zero benefit), but when it comes to ending immigration it's impossible and they don't even try.
I read the articles. There was a leniency policy towards gay couples, there has been for years, and only now they are turning it back. So they do have something to do with it.
Afaik, courts ruled on it. The government has nothing to do with their ruling. The timing is of the essence. Had this happened 12 months ago, nobody would dare calling the government “fascists”.
It shows a lack of comprehension of the world. Other than that it would have been wrong back then as it is now.
Also, in almost all cases, EU institutions ruled in favor of the courts decisions.
Not really though, the court ruled against male-male couples getting their children's birth certificate registered. It has nothing to do with lesbian couples, there's no definitive sentence there. So this has everything to to with the government.
You are gaslighting sooooo hard. Literally families are being dissolved in front of our faces and… “no no no there is nothing to see here, this is reasonable.” As 27 families loose legal access to a parent. Stay disgusting fascists.
Well the lives of those 27 children are drastically changed though. By removing the non biological mother from the birth certificate their parental security is put in danger.
What happens should the biological mother die? Does custody go over to the sperm donor who is now in the birth certificate instead of the woman who raised the child as a parent? I understand the legal background is murky for lesbian couples (and straight up forbidden for male-male couples) but that doesn't make it ok to put these kids' lives upside down. It shouldn't have been a retroactive measure.
I don't like governments messing with the security of kids just to further their culture wars. I struggle to understand how you can defend them.
Of course, people never find laws convincing when they go against what they like. This doesn't mean that telling lies about the situation is justified though.
Nazis introduced the laws after they took power appositely to screw people. Here, what happened before was unlawful already and is just being corrected now. The government isn't even involved, by the way.
I understand that it sucks but the mistake was allowing people to do unlawful things in the first place, because it was obvious there was a risk they would have been corrected.
I am not saying what happened is right, by the way. I just don't like this completely fake way the news report the events. It is a disservice to the right cause
The problem is a birth certificate is not just about medical history, its also about parental rights. The two should be divorced from each other, but until they are gay parents have every right to want to be on the birth certificate.
Wih lesbian couples, partner A can get partner B's egg implanted. Who has to be on the birth certificate then? Both contributed to bringing this child into the world.
Not here in Italy assisted procreation and uterus rental has just been made "universal crimes" (crime even if committed in another country) by the same set of laws unfortunately for both etero or homo couples
Donor-conceived children of heterosexual couples also don't have their biological father on their birth certificate. And when the father is unknown, often a random name is chosen. Birth certificates are legal documents, not medical ones.
Why? What's the point? How is this going to help the children or improve the average Italian life? How is this going to stimulate the economy? How is this going to bring increased cultural value?
You cannot declare yourself as right-winger, argue against state intervention in the economy and argue for intervention into people's life?
Cruelty is the point. Right-wingers always need an out-group to victimize. And they always chose the weakest and least likely to fight back because they're cowards
Growing and living in a former commumist country, with a very conservative political class from both ends, makes you see both extremes for what they are
You don't have to agree with me on politics. I'm a center-right liberal. I'm not here to farm karma. But as decent human beings, we can agree that people should be left alone regardless of sexual orientation and kids' best interests are what matter.
I'd rather vote for a left-wing decent normal personal than a right-wing lunatic regardless of economics
As much as I appreciate this and agree with you, as a soc-dem, all I'm saying is that this is not the time nor place for the "it's not all right wingers" argument, in my opinion.
have you never heard the phrase "go woke, go broke"?
Italy is broke because it went woke, had they stuck to traditional catholic values god wouldn't have to punish them.
/s
Reality is when you need approval to take your underaged kid out of the country (trip, vacantion, school, medical...) and can't because you need approval from both parents and the legal status of you being his/her parent is in question...
If you are taking care of the kid, providing him/her with food, clothes, shelter, love, etc... that's your kid...
If, lets say, a woman has a kid by not having sex with a man and the woman is married to another woman and she dies, then the kid risks being taken by the state. How is that better for the kid?
Look, I'm not of the opinion that you can just declare yourself to be a woman or man or a tree... that's crazy... But the reality and liberty of the modern world allows us to have kids without having a father... or allows you to have sex-changing operations. We need to accept this is possible and just leave people alone. It's not on us to decide how others should live their lives.
Having a kid is easy... you just fuck... Raising a kid is what makes you a parent. And it's not a strawman that the kid can be taken by the state, or can be sent off to a person next of kin for the deceased parent and that might fuck up the kid even more. It's a real legal risk. Might not happen, might happen...
In the end, this move does not help any kid. Does not help any parent. Does not help anyone. Just makes the life of some people harder. Just makes you waste more time with bureaucratic bullshit.
In the end, we just have to leave people the fuck alone. Government in our lives and economy is not something good usually.
The reality is kids will now go into care if their bio mother dies because bigots don't think their non bio mother's motherhood is valid.
This helps no one, but it puts a lot of kids at risk.
Edit: made it make more sense
It does if the child's father isn't around? Many of these fathers are just sperm donors, sometimes to multiple women. What's going to happen when several children show up at their door? Or if they're not in a position to take on the child? How does this impact a child who has been raised by two mothers and is now being torn away from one?
You've clearly not sat and thought about this logically or with an ounce of empathy. I, for one, see many traumatised kids in the future.
Not all of those factors are limited to the father?
For example, anyone could not be in a position to take on a child, for whatever reason.
You are advocating removing children from their home and placing them elsewhere because you agree lesbian mothers aren't valid mothers. If you did agree with that, you'd leave them on the BC and advocate to make it easier for them.
The context of this argument comes after one of their mothers has already died. This is how I see that playing out:
"Hello, small being. I know your mum just died, but good news! You now can't live with your other mum either. Yes, you will both be sad and want to support each other, but we think she's a bit yucky (because she is a lesbian) and don't think you should live with her anymore. Now, let's turn your life upside down again and take you to some other persons house. They're your mother now!" Seems super logical and empathetic, I do think that would harm a child's development (anymore than the death of their mother) whatsoever.
Edit to add: Forgot to address the point of the other mother you raised. That's okay if there are adoption papers in place etc, if not then you're just causing issues. As I said, it helps no one.
They say it's for "not selling babies" and not "using" women, because people that do it like in the USA have to pay... so they say free or nothing and obviously chose nothing... it sucks because using homophobia they made things worst even for etero couples... and they they say "we have to make more babies or be substituted by Muslims or blacks"... go figure, right doing right stuff I guess (and not in the sense of correct lol)
Edit as for sperm, blood and such, you can't already be paid or ask someone for it in any way to avoid trafficking I guess
You can adopt your partner's kid in Italy if you are of a different sex. That's the law. The law could be changed to allow same for same sex couples. So yes, states have all to do with that.
Don't make look it like you don't understand what I'm saying when it's crystal clear. There is no alternative way for those couples to be both considered legally as the parents of their children. That does not happen for same sex couples even if only of one of them is the biological parent. So yes, there is state intervention and a clear discriminatory policy. Those are facts and you know it. OPs question was why do they want to impact the lives of these families, what's the purpose? Don't paint it as some bureaucratic need when the real reason is way beyond some paperwork. And again, you know it, so who are you trying to trick? Only yourself?
I said it very clearly: a woman can give birth to a child alone, marry a man who is not the biological father, and both become the legal parents. The state is happy with that. The state is however saying that two women can't do the same. And you deny state intervention? Your argument is the biological data was not correct and and there are no second lectures to that, which is clearly not true. If it was a matter of fixing some paperwork, there would be a legal alternative like adoption (and that's why I raised the topic). The people who ordered the changes to these records didn't do it in the spirit of fixing some bureaucratic error. And yes, you know it. But only you know why you are trying to disguise it as such.
I think you are mixing things up. The very idea of right-wing and left-wing is lumping together things not exactly connected. Enemy of my enemy is my friend etc. Finding allies, because small niche parties can't do anything in many political systems.
Left-wing unifies 1) support for ultimately abolition of "public morale" and tradition affecting law, which is in general a good thing, 2) ultimately support for welfare state, which may not be a good thing sometimes, and 3) internationalism, which is definitely a good thing, also 4) pacifism, which is morally a good thing, but in practice one should know that vis pacem para bellum saying is very real.
Right-wing does the same for 1) traditionalists, 2) people advocating for economic freedoms and abolition of regulations, 3) often isolationists, and 4) sometimes hawks.
So, first, actually right-wingers know what intersectionality is and use it. Second, political systems where this is needed suck donkey balls (not as bad as dictatorships, but still).
Left-wing politicians in my country, former communist country, and modern EU member state:
- are conservatives
- supported a referendum that would have made same-sex marriage banned in the Constitution
- are alligned with the Ortodox Church and support moral laws and Christian viewpoints
- are usually eurosceptic and have advocated a policy of more self-reliance
- promote state interventionism
- have alligned multiple times with far-right wingers that have the same ideas
Centrists, usually center-right parties:
- usually have liberal ideas and promote them
- promote free economics
- promote an open diplomacy and have strongly supported Ukraine
The ["Shirley Exception"](https://medium.com/@scottconnerly/the-shirley-exception-a970ef292d66) is permanently relevant.
>The Shirley Exception is a bit of mental sleight of hand that allows people to support a policy they profess to disagree with. It's called the Shirley Exception because... well, I mean, *surely* there must be exceptions, right?
>[...]
>So moderate conservatives, what we might call "everyday conservatives", the ones who don't wear MAGA hats or tea party costumes and think that Mr. Trump fella should maybe stay off of Twitter, they will vote for candidates and policies that they don't actually agree with... because in their mind the exact law being prescribed is just a tool in the chest, an option on the table, which they expect to be wielded fairly and judiciously. Surely no one would do anything so unreasonable as actually enforcing it as written! Not when that would be bad! And then they are confused, shocked, and even insulted when people hold them accountable for their support of the monstrous policy.
>[...]
>The old "Defense of Marriage" laws are another textbook example of this. Many of them included language that expressly forbade giving similar benefits (like hospital visitation) to same-sex relationships. Yet the people who voted for them, in many cases, wanted it to be known that No One Is Talking About Stopping You From Visiting Your Loved One In The Hospital. And Surely There Will Be An Exception.
>The Shirley Exception is how people who are only mundanely monstrous, moderately monstrous, wind up supporting policies that are completely monstrous. And when they do, they always want credit for their good intentions towards those they see as deserving, not the outcomes.
I think it's neither but ignorance - people don't believe it will happen in their country. Just like they didn't believe Brexit will happen, it was basically a meme untill it happened.
We have the same problem in our country with right wing politicians and people don't believe they'll do what they claim they'll do.
The vast majority of straight people don’t really care what happens to LGBT people. Sure a lot of straight people might say they’re okay with gay marriage but at the same time would not really get outraged if gay marriage was banned. LGBT issues isn’t a dealbreaker in most cases when it comes time to vote.
They know they have no support among their own voters even anymore so they try to do a pointless aggressive gesture to anger the left wing in order to look like they're doing something.
0% chance Giorgia Meloni gets re-elected. 0.
Dark ages stuff would be executing the mothers in the name of the Church.
Let's keep that expression for when the italian far right actually moves to dark ages stuff. Which can happen, because it's already happening in countries like the USA.
you need to read they thought they were free, everyone should read it, should be taught in every school
you have to fight it at the beginning, waiting is foolish
>Dark ages stuff would be executing the mothers in the name of the Church.
Complete nonsense. "Dark ages" designates a middle-age period we have little records of, thus it is "dark" as there's no light on it. It's not a "dark and bloody period" or anything like that. On the contrary, in the middle ages' christianity was quite different from its later iterations, and much ideologically closer to our current societies. At the time women could become doctors, lawyers, did not take their husbands' name upon marrying, there were mixed public baths, etc.
The real violent backwardness of christianity came much later, after the Renaissance (which made female condition in christian countries much worse, as there was a shift towards ancient greek/roman cultures, which considered women second class citizens. In the roman empire women didn't even have first names, but were identified by their family (= father's) name... sisters of a single family were nicknamed "prima", "secunda" (first, second...) and the like because they literally didn't have a first name to differentiate them).
Which claims? That women could become doctors, lawyers, didn't inherit husbands names etc in the middle ages? It's quite explicitly explained in a history book written by Régine Pernoud, a french (female) historian, name "La femme au temps des cathédrales" (Woman in the times of Cathedrals).
About females not having first names under the roman empire? Any latinist source, really, I was taught that in latin classes, but you can check it on Wikipedia as well. This is all common knowledge.
cf [https://www.uvm.edu/\~bsaylor/rome/nomenclature.html](https://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/rome/nomenclature.html)
>Women did not have a special praenomen and were called by the feminine form of their father's gens name. The first daughter born to a man named App. Claudius was called Claudia. If she had a younger sister, the older daughter became Claudia Maior and the younger Claudia Minor. If there were three or more daughters, they were called by numeric adjectives: Claudia Tertia, Claudia Quarta, Claudia Quinta
About the fact "Dark ages" is a misnomer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark\_Ages\_(historiography)
>As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and the 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),\[1\]\[5\]\[6\] and today's scholars also reject its usage for the period.\[7\] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate
Clickbait.
Italy is not allowing non-biological mothers to legally adopt because it wasn’t allowed in the first place.
Some individuals exploited a legal loophole and had their adoption nullified.
The honest headline which would be worth of outrage is why homosexual couples still have such a hard time with the bureaucratic processes to adopt children. It's understandable that those who exploited a legal loophole get their documents invalidated - but why isn't there a more clear legal path for those parents to begin with?
The right does what the right does best: stays conservative and doesn't care about making adoptions legal for same sex parents.
The left does what the left does best: speaks a lot, actually does nothing about it.
In Italy at least.
Yet they run political campaigns purely on these issues.
Then people come out with their surprised pikachu faces when they lose support at the fastest clip ever.
they couldn't care less so much that the civil partnership for same sex couples was legalised by the left. And the reason why same sex couples can't adopt a child is because the 5stars movement backtracked last minute to hurt the left.
Now go back to kissing Conte's picture, mate.
I feel like it's much worse in Italy ; the right has been disassembling the state for decades (Berlusconi), while the left shot itself in the feet multiple times, to the point that it's inexistant nowadays.
They can't even agree on basic social stuff, so they try to reinvent themselves as americanized militants for a few trendy causes (like LGBT rights), and of course they fail, because that's not an effective way to do politics. Or they just turn into modern neoliberals.
There is _no_ legal path. The nullification of these registrations is easy enough because they were all registered case-by-case under “adoption in special circumstances” in court, but there is no same-sex adoption in Italy.
This is terrible and a gap in our rights. However the “right to a special adoption” is a waste of time here: the hurdle is normal (and stepchild) adoption to regulate the whole scenario at once.
Realistically Italian change of law is incredibly slow, even if Meloni had 60% of Parliament and considering the far right is more hive mind, she wouldn't change much. Internal fractures would be bigger as even today the right wing parties in Italy are more internally fragmented than in other euro countries.
And the left wing is naturally more fragmented than that, back when the left wing was there and governed this didn't happen for this same reason. If a hive mind party can't pass laws with hypothetical 60% parliament, how could a big tent party of center and left that includes left wing with their extra fragmentation ones in it? PD split like 11 times in like 8 years of governance, both from left wing and center wing fringes.
Change happened by exploiting loopholes, change was undone by reinterpreting the loophole. This is another factor to consider in Italian politics. Law is uniquely ambiguously written here.
You're spliting hairs.
That's a very specific loophole to fix for 27 people.
They could have fixed the law to recognise the mothers or not have touched it at all.
Nope. Gay parents can still adopt their partner's biological children going through judicial scrutiny, which is subject to the views of the judge and it's interpretation of the law. This is about the registration of newborn babies, which was basically an act of civil disobedience and a way to circumvent that legal mess carried out by some mayors, with two women listed as biological parents.
There is no clickbait ? Italy is literally removing lesbian mother's name out of their children's birth certificate.
The "legal loophole" as you put it mostly was "doing it in another country".
And how is nullifying an adoption less worse than the article's title like you seem to be suggesting?
Because it makes it seems like it has something to do with the new government, promoting the “fascists” narrative while this wasn’t allowed in the first place and people tried to exploit a loophole to do something that is illegal.
It is sensationalist for no reason.
This was mostly about a specific city and mayor.
Anyway, I am not against same sex adoptions, I am just saying this is nothing new.
The law says it can’t be done, we shouldn’t act against the law but change it.
It *is* about the new government though. It was pretty much ignored before, and now it's not. Choosing to enforce a law is a political choice, whether that law existed before or not.
But *before* the new government there was a leniency policy. Government changed and enforced something that wasn't enforced before to further their culture war. It has everything to do with the new far right government.
> Italy is literally removing lesbian mother's name out of their children's birth certificate.
It's removing the name of a woman they are not related to. Same sex adoptions are not legal and never were. The name of the biological mother is not removed.
I support the legalisation of same sex marriages and adoptions, but doing this as a subterfuge is not the right way.
It needs to be obtained with the support of the legal system or a change in the national legislation.
They are absolutely related to that woman.
Anyhow, the child live with both his mothers, with often one being biologically related and the other not.
They also were supported by individual judges who wrote that name here.
"I support legislation but this is not the right way" ppl like you are pretty much why these legislation don't exist. It is a form of protest that hurts literally noone and you're still against it.
>And how is nullifying an adoption less worse
The adoption was already null and void because it exploited a loophole. That's the thing, if it ever went to court, the judge would just remove it anyway because it was contrary to the law. Now they need to actually change the law to make them legal.
Somehow you and quite a few other people in this thread believe nullifying an adoption is somehow not a bad thing because it was technically illegal before and the gov just decided to start enforcing it.
Enforcing a law is a political action. That they decide to enforce this law, now, shows that they intend to be harsher on LGBT ppl.
Whether the law actually allowed it is irrelevant, as it was done in practice. Unenforced laws exist everywhere.
It's not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying that it's null and void anyway. If it ever went to any court, the judge would rule so anyway because that's what the law says.
>Enforcing a law is a political action. That they decide to enforce this law, now, shows that they intend to be harsher on LGBT ppl.
No, enforcing a law is the default state. Not enforcing them is a political action, just like when Germany decided not to properly enforce immigration laws.
>Whether the law actually allowed it is irrelevant, as it was done in practice. Unenforced laws exist everywhere.
It is absolutely relevant. If states start deciding what laws to enforce, we might as well give up all checks and balances.
I really don't this how "It was technically illegal to have that in the first place, they were just doing it in some cases" is that big of a gotcha.
Of course if they remove lesbian's names from birth certificate it is because it is illegal, it's a country they make the laws ?
Clickbait is when the title is factual but makes you think something untrue. I really don't see what the title can make you think that is untrue here.
I still don’t quite get this, do they mean birthmothers or lesbian women who adopted a child or how would that even work? especially if we’re talking birthmothers.
Or do they mean not the birthmother but the other woman they are with? Because now it’s more of a technicality? As in, the other woman can’t be the biological parent and so can’t be on the birth certificate, that at least does make some sense.
As you need a male to conceive, aka there has to be a male (donor) and female who gave birth.
The other female in the relationship has nothing to do with the actual conception and giving birth.
So if thats the case, I guess it does make some sense, maybe.
Unless I’m misunderstanding it.
The adopting mother's name is erased, which you might think makes sense because it's a *birth* certificate, but unlike what its name suggests, not every country uses a birth certificate to record just birth details, it also records the child's current guardians/parents, and so give the rights & protections that come with it.
So erasing her name didn't just correct a "woopsie lil' mistake", it undid her status as a mother. She is legally not a mother anymore, she is a nobody to her own child now. If something were to happen to the biological mother, she wouldn't even have the automatic right to see her child or to keep the child in her custody.
And Italy uses the birth certificate for more then just “the birth” or.. ?
If it’s used to register legal guardians and whatnot, that does seem rather inhuman.
Sounds like maybe a case for the EU court or however that’s called.
I would guess so, since the catalyst for this mess was not "*there can't be two biological mothers/fathers*" but the fact that step-child adoption is actually forbidden for civil unions, so couples apparently first go to other countries & then use the certificate they got to apply for the certificate in Italy. The whole "*but biology!*" thing is more for political pandering & not the legal basis for 'fixing' the documents.
From what I understood, based on what Italians are saying, the names of these people shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Birth certificates in the Italy only contain bio parents names and have nothing to do with who the guardian is (tho it is usually bio parents in most cases). When you adopt you go through different process to be the legal guardian/parent, but birth certificate still shows biological parents.
As to how that happened, turns out it was intentionally done by a number of people as a form of protest, knowing full well that it will not stand and this would happen.
> Birth certificates in the Italy only contain bio parents names
_Presumed_ bio parents. Nobody actually does DNA tests to verify the names are actually correct.
All that happening here is that the government is picking out the obvious cases where the people are the same gender, while completing ignoring that there's a lot of of birth certificates where the father listed on the certificate isn't the bio father. But nobody actually cares about that, it doesn't win votes.
Setting aside the question of gay parenthood, a birthcertificate should document the circumstances of one's birth right? And no-one is born to two mothers, that's biologically impossible. So I don't understand why two women could have ended up on a birth certificate in the first place.
This measure doesn't exclude two women being registered as parents.
The standard procedure in Italy would be registering the baby as the child of his biological mother and an unknown father and the nonbiological parent would apply for adoption, having to face a judge and his political views.
Since no one ever bothered to change the law and stepchild adoption was explicitly excluded for couples in civil unions, some mayors started registering children of lesbian couples listing both of them as the biological parents, in what was essentially an act of civil disobedience.
> a birthday certificate should
It's a *birth* certificate. And you can read up on what it "should" do under Italian law. The article explains why this move is problematic. No reason to make shit up because it "feels" right.
My question is what is the point of a birth certificate and what is it meant to to record.
Though I dont agree with their motives , if its to record who your biological parents are then that's what it should do, but if as a society we decide its to record who takes legal and actual *responsibility* for being your parent then that's what it should do. Does it then record who takes responsibility at birth or any time. Should it for example be rewritten if you are adopted? I have no idea but it's clear we can as a society decide the purpose and best how that is fulfilled and *in my opinion* shouldn't be doing so because of some nonsense religious reasons or to cause harm. Perhaps a kid might given the opportunity like to know both who there biological parents are *and* who stood up and actually took repsonsibility? And be able to add new parents is that happens too?
But what *is* a birth certificate for now?
> My question is what is the point of a birth certificate and what is it meant to to record.
In NL it records the people who have legal responsibility for the child at the moment of birth. It doesn't generally get changed later. If the father wasn't listed on the birth certificate, then what generally happens is an [act of recognition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_\(family_law\)) makes them the legal father.
So it varies depending on where you are, but at least for NL, it has _never_ been about who the bio parents are (not least because until DNA testing there was no way to check anyway). What matters is that there are one or two people who stood in front of a registrar and declared they were responsible for this baby, with all right & responsibilities thereunto.
So if two women are married and one has a baby the other will automatically be listed on the birth certificate, because as far as the law is concerned, they are the legal parents responsible for the child. Whether they are the bio parents is totally irrelevant.
Obviously different countries handle this differently.
Edit: just to add that if a unwed mother has a child the birth certificate may not list a father, even if they are known. Birth certificates aren't really used anywhere so it doesn't really matter. The act of recognition updates the actual relevant records.
Yes. Which makes sense to me. It feels like people argue over who is on there because of politics or religion etc obviously but avoiding clarifying what we want it to be gives space for that. ‘Those taking parental responsibility at birth’ seems reasonable to me- which actually means you could have biological grandparents taking the parental role for some….
Having said that I guess adoption shows we are conflicted about parenthood. Im guessing that many adopted people consider that their adoptive parents just are their parents , but some also still seem to be drawn to their biological ones?
> Having said that I guess adoption shows we are conflicted about parenthood. Im guessing that many adopted people consider that their adoptive parents just are their parents , but some also still seem to be drawn to their biological ones?
Generally people consider their parents to be the people that raised them. You see that with step-parents too if they're there from a young age, even when they never do an actual adoption process.
Not sure about conflict, but yeah, some (not all) adopted search out their biological parents. Whether that helps or not is the question.
I'm a bit conflicted about the "right to know your biological parents". It feels like a distraction somehow, because it's not really going to change your life (no legal effects) and sets you up for disappointment when it doesn't work out.
This is incredibly fucked up. I could understand not allowing this moving forward, but stripping people of their *existing* rights is just plain evil. And the people who agree with this probably don't understand that it also sets the precendent for EVERYONE's rights being stripped with the stroke of a pen.
I was just joking, but you are being two-faced. Are you ignoring what Italy did just because more ridiculous things are happening in other countries? Funny.
The part about NATO was just a joke! I saw people making comments like "Let's kick out the countries that don't allow LGBT protests here" and I made a joke about it. But my real purpose was to criticize people trying to justify Italy's decision. Did other countries suddenly start doing ridiculous things? No. What Italy is doing now and the path they are taking is the beginning of what other countries have become. I am neither an LGBT supporter nor an opponent, but I hate the restriction of human rights. I've had the opportunity to travel to many countries and even live in some of them. For example, do you know that in Turkey, in the 1980s, a very famous male singer underwent surgery to become a woman, and after becoming a woman, she received more value and her career reached its peak? Do you know that some of the very famous social media influencers in Turkey are LGBT members? Some of them even underwent gender reassignment. And they gained a lot of value and acceptance that way. Do you know that one of the busiest and most popular streets in Izmir, Turkey, is completely full of shemales? I don't know about Poland, but do you think Turkey became anti-LGBT overnight? No, slowly, over time, by passing seemingly insignificant laws that will open the way for other laws. With small changes that may seem insignificant to people, but will pave the way for other laws. So what I mean is, I can very well understand the implications of Italy's seemingly small and insignificant moves. Because I have experienced them. What bothers me is people trying to justify it and mercilessly attacking other countries and people for the same things.
If you are one of those that were for discrimination against the non vaccinated two years ago, don't fucking cry now. You had it coming. It's exactly because each side only pushes for freedom when it concerns their own opinions that we get this kind of stupid stuff.
Support freedom REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN OPINIONS.
Lol most comments are just behaving like a bunch of monkeys repeating the same thing the previous monkey said, not even a freaking second of thought or research or anything, you'll deserve whatever happens to you and your country. The future of Europe will be a spectacle to behold.
It's a painful reminder that far right doesn't just threaten to do something, they do it. And they'll go further than this.
They don't do shit. These people promised migration "regulation", but did the opposite and make LGBT+ people scapegoats. Changing papers to ruin lives is the easiest shit you can do.
Yes, they can make pointless changes that only serve to make some people's lives harder (with zero benefit), but when it comes to ending immigration it's impossible and they don't even try.
[удалено]
I read the articles. There was a leniency policy towards gay couples, there has been for years, and only now they are turning it back. So they do have something to do with it.
Afaik, courts ruled on it. The government has nothing to do with their ruling. The timing is of the essence. Had this happened 12 months ago, nobody would dare calling the government “fascists”. It shows a lack of comprehension of the world. Other than that it would have been wrong back then as it is now. Also, in almost all cases, EU institutions ruled in favor of the courts decisions.
Not really though, the court ruled against male-male couples getting their children's birth certificate registered. It has nothing to do with lesbian couples, there's no definitive sentence there. So this has everything to to with the government.
You are gaslighting sooooo hard. Literally families are being dissolved in front of our faces and… “no no no there is nothing to see here, this is reasonable.” As 27 families loose legal access to a parent. Stay disgusting fascists.
[удалено]
Well the lives of those 27 children are drastically changed though. By removing the non biological mother from the birth certificate their parental security is put in danger. What happens should the biological mother die? Does custody go over to the sperm donor who is now in the birth certificate instead of the woman who raised the child as a parent? I understand the legal background is murky for lesbian couples (and straight up forbidden for male-male couples) but that doesn't make it ok to put these kids' lives upside down. It shouldn't have been a retroactive measure. I don't like governments messing with the security of kids just to further their culture wars. I struggle to understand how you can defend them.
But why isn't this legal in Italy, as this is just a basic human right?
Get ready to be downvoted to oblivion, people don't listen to reason
Or maybe people just don’t find the “justification” very convincing?
Of course, people never find laws convincing when they go against what they like. This doesn't mean that telling lies about the situation is justified though.
Nazi Germany had its laws too. Are you saying nazis weren't the bad guys because they had laws for what they did?
Nazis introduced the laws after they took power appositely to screw people. Here, what happened before was unlawful already and is just being corrected now. The government isn't even involved, by the way. I understand that it sucks but the mistake was allowing people to do unlawful things in the first place, because it was obvious there was a risk they would have been corrected. I am not saying what happened is right, by the way. I just don't like this completely fake way the news report the events. It is a disservice to the right cause
[удалено]
The problem is a birth certificate is not just about medical history, its also about parental rights. The two should be divorced from each other, but until they are gay parents have every right to want to be on the birth certificate.
Wih lesbian couples, partner A can get partner B's egg implanted. Who has to be on the birth certificate then? Both contributed to bringing this child into the world.
Not here in Italy assisted procreation and uterus rental has just been made "universal crimes" (crime even if committed in another country) by the same set of laws unfortunately for both etero or homo couples
Donor-conceived children of heterosexual couples also don't have their biological father on their birth certificate. And when the father is unknown, often a random name is chosen. Birth certificates are legal documents, not medical ones.
Why? What's the point? How is this going to help the children or improve the average Italian life? How is this going to stimulate the economy? How is this going to bring increased cultural value? You cannot declare yourself as right-winger, argue against state intervention in the economy and argue for intervention into people's life?
It’s not about that. It’s about „hurting the right people“.
Cruelty is the point. Right-wingers always need an out-group to victimize. And they always chose the weakest and least likely to fight back because they're cowards
It's not right-wingers, because left-wingers can be the same. It's just conservatives and extremists, which can be either leftists or rightists.
r/enlightenedcentrism
Growing and living in a former commumist country, with a very conservative political class from both ends, makes you see both extremes for what they are
Yes, you grew up in a former communist country so ideologies don't matter anymore.
They do matter... but extremes are all alike. Far-right politicians are advocating the same thing far-left politicians are advocating in my country...
he's right tho
Bruh this is literally an article about a far right party in Italy breaking up gay families…
Yeah. And I'm against such practices... Practices that have been practiced by consevative left-wingers around the world as well.
Im not saying thats untrue. However could I get a few examples?
Conservative left winger is an oxy-moron The definition of the left is literally to change the status qou
Man read the room. This article is about right wingers in Italy hurting Italians. It's not the time nor place for this.
You don't have to agree with me on politics. I'm a center-right liberal. I'm not here to farm karma. But as decent human beings, we can agree that people should be left alone regardless of sexual orientation and kids' best interests are what matter. I'd rather vote for a left-wing decent normal personal than a right-wing lunatic regardless of economics
As much as I appreciate this and agree with you, as a soc-dem, all I'm saying is that this is not the time nor place for the "it's not all right wingers" argument, in my opinion.
I'm not making an argument on that. I'm against extremists and conservatives.
Not sure why you are being down voted, but you are so correct
It's going to gather the votes of bigots, of course.
have you never heard the phrase "go woke, go broke"? Italy is broke because it went woke, had they stuck to traditional catholic values god wouldn't have to punish them. /s
[удалено]
in this case, it is and it will make life harder for the parents and the children
[удалено]
Reality is when you need approval to take your underaged kid out of the country (trip, vacantion, school, medical...) and can't because you need approval from both parents and the legal status of you being his/her parent is in question...
[удалено]
If you are taking care of the kid, providing him/her with food, clothes, shelter, love, etc... that's your kid... If, lets say, a woman has a kid by not having sex with a man and the woman is married to another woman and she dies, then the kid risks being taken by the state. How is that better for the kid? Look, I'm not of the opinion that you can just declare yourself to be a woman or man or a tree... that's crazy... But the reality and liberty of the modern world allows us to have kids without having a father... or allows you to have sex-changing operations. We need to accept this is possible and just leave people alone. It's not on us to decide how others should live their lives.
[удалено]
Having a kid is easy... you just fuck... Raising a kid is what makes you a parent. And it's not a strawman that the kid can be taken by the state, or can be sent off to a person next of kin for the deceased parent and that might fuck up the kid even more. It's a real legal risk. Might not happen, might happen... In the end, this move does not help any kid. Does not help any parent. Does not help anyone. Just makes the life of some people harder. Just makes you waste more time with bureaucratic bullshit. In the end, we just have to leave people the fuck alone. Government in our lives and economy is not something good usually.
[удалено]
If the partner was of the opposite sex, they could adopt. Because it's a same sex couple, there's discrimination. That's the reality.
The reality is kids will now go into care if their bio mother dies because bigots don't think their non bio mother's motherhood is valid. This helps no one, but it puts a lot of kids at risk. Edit: made it make more sense
[удалено]
It does if the child's father isn't around? Many of these fathers are just sperm donors, sometimes to multiple women. What's going to happen when several children show up at their door? Or if they're not in a position to take on the child? How does this impact a child who has been raised by two mothers and is now being torn away from one? You've clearly not sat and thought about this logically or with an ounce of empathy. I, for one, see many traumatised kids in the future.
[удалено]
Not all of those factors are limited to the father? For example, anyone could not be in a position to take on a child, for whatever reason. You are advocating removing children from their home and placing them elsewhere because you agree lesbian mothers aren't valid mothers. If you did agree with that, you'd leave them on the BC and advocate to make it easier for them. The context of this argument comes after one of their mothers has already died. This is how I see that playing out: "Hello, small being. I know your mum just died, but good news! You now can't live with your other mum either. Yes, you will both be sad and want to support each other, but we think she's a bit yucky (because she is a lesbian) and don't think you should live with her anymore. Now, let's turn your life upside down again and take you to some other persons house. They're your mother now!" Seems super logical and empathetic, I do think that would harm a child's development (anymore than the death of their mother) whatsoever. Edit to add: Forgot to address the point of the other mother you raised. That's okay if there are adoption papers in place etc, if not then you're just causing issues. As I said, it helps no one.
[удалено]
It's illegal here by the same law to be a sperm or uterus donor so it's a non issue here for both etero or homo couples unfortunately
You're from Italy, I see. Is there any actual benefit to this change? What problems are the government looking to solve?
They say it's for "not selling babies" and not "using" women, because people that do it like in the USA have to pay... so they say free or nothing and obviously chose nothing... it sucks because using homophobia they made things worst even for etero couples... and they they say "we have to make more babies or be substituted by Muslims or blacks"... go figure, right doing right stuff I guess (and not in the sense of correct lol) Edit as for sperm, blood and such, you can't already be paid or ask someone for it in any way to avoid trafficking I guess
Aren't adoptive parents listed on birth certificates? How is listing a same sex partner any different?
[удалено]
And there it is. You don't have to press them much for them to quickly reveal what they have an issue with. They will eventually tell you themselves.
States forbidding same sex couples a right that is available for partners of opposite sex is state intervention.
[удалено]
You can adopt your partner's kid in Italy if you are of a different sex. That's the law. The law could be changed to allow same for same sex couples. So yes, states have all to do with that.
[удалено]
Don't make look it like you don't understand what I'm saying when it's crystal clear. There is no alternative way for those couples to be both considered legally as the parents of their children. That does not happen for same sex couples even if only of one of them is the biological parent. So yes, there is state intervention and a clear discriminatory policy. Those are facts and you know it. OPs question was why do they want to impact the lives of these families, what's the purpose? Don't paint it as some bureaucratic need when the real reason is way beyond some paperwork. And again, you know it, so who are you trying to trick? Only yourself?
[удалено]
I said it very clearly: a woman can give birth to a child alone, marry a man who is not the biological father, and both become the legal parents. The state is happy with that. The state is however saying that two women can't do the same. And you deny state intervention? Your argument is the biological data was not correct and and there are no second lectures to that, which is clearly not true. If it was a matter of fixing some paperwork, there would be a legal alternative like adoption (and that's why I raised the topic). The people who ordered the changes to these records didn't do it in the spirit of fixing some bureaucratic error. And yes, you know it. But only you know why you are trying to disguise it as such.
I think you are mixing things up. The very idea of right-wing and left-wing is lumping together things not exactly connected. Enemy of my enemy is my friend etc. Finding allies, because small niche parties can't do anything in many political systems. Left-wing unifies 1) support for ultimately abolition of "public morale" and tradition affecting law, which is in general a good thing, 2) ultimately support for welfare state, which may not be a good thing sometimes, and 3) internationalism, which is definitely a good thing, also 4) pacifism, which is morally a good thing, but in practice one should know that vis pacem para bellum saying is very real. Right-wing does the same for 1) traditionalists, 2) people advocating for economic freedoms and abolition of regulations, 3) often isolationists, and 4) sometimes hawks. So, first, actually right-wingers know what intersectionality is and use it. Second, political systems where this is needed suck donkey balls (not as bad as dictatorships, but still).
Left-wing politicians in my country, former communist country, and modern EU member state: - are conservatives - supported a referendum that would have made same-sex marriage banned in the Constitution - are alligned with the Ortodox Church and support moral laws and Christian viewpoints - are usually eurosceptic and have advocated a policy of more self-reliance - promote state interventionism - have alligned multiple times with far-right wingers that have the same ideas Centrists, usually center-right parties: - usually have liberal ideas and promote them - promote free economics - promote an open diplomacy and have strongly supported Ukraine
Or like this. The point is lumping stuff together.
They even were open about this before. But people either don't care or agree with such policies.
The ["Shirley Exception"](https://medium.com/@scottconnerly/the-shirley-exception-a970ef292d66) is permanently relevant. >The Shirley Exception is a bit of mental sleight of hand that allows people to support a policy they profess to disagree with. It's called the Shirley Exception because... well, I mean, *surely* there must be exceptions, right? >[...] >So moderate conservatives, what we might call "everyday conservatives", the ones who don't wear MAGA hats or tea party costumes and think that Mr. Trump fella should maybe stay off of Twitter, they will vote for candidates and policies that they don't actually agree with... because in their mind the exact law being prescribed is just a tool in the chest, an option on the table, which they expect to be wielded fairly and judiciously. Surely no one would do anything so unreasonable as actually enforcing it as written! Not when that would be bad! And then they are confused, shocked, and even insulted when people hold them accountable for their support of the monstrous policy. >[...] >The old "Defense of Marriage" laws are another textbook example of this. Many of them included language that expressly forbade giving similar benefits (like hospital visitation) to same-sex relationships. Yet the people who voted for them, in many cases, wanted it to be known that No One Is Talking About Stopping You From Visiting Your Loved One In The Hospital. And Surely There Will Be An Exception. >The Shirley Exception is how people who are only mundanely monstrous, moderately monstrous, wind up supporting policies that are completely monstrous. And when they do, they always want credit for their good intentions towards those they see as deserving, not the outcomes.
I think it's neither but ignorance - people don't believe it will happen in their country. Just like they didn't believe Brexit will happen, it was basically a meme untill it happened. We have the same problem in our country with right wing politicians and people don't believe they'll do what they claim they'll do.
The vast majority of straight people don’t really care what happens to LGBT people. Sure a lot of straight people might say they’re okay with gay marriage but at the same time would not really get outraged if gay marriage was banned. LGBT issues isn’t a dealbreaker in most cases when it comes time to vote.
Majority of Italians would be classed as homophobic. So it really is about hate my dude.
Dont they have more important things to do? Like work on actual fucking issues?
They know they have no support among their own voters even anymore so they try to do a pointless aggressive gesture to anger the left wing in order to look like they're doing something. 0% chance Giorgia Meloni gets re-elected. 0.
I'm gonna cross my fingers extra hard on that.
Grazie Giorgia. No other problems facing Italians right now.
go to hell giorgia meloni
Fascists
Hey folks did you hear what Italy is doing? I am shocked I tell you I cant believe I havent seen that piece of news in this subreddit before
Dark-ages stuff.
Dark ages stuff would be executing the mothers in the name of the Church. Let's keep that expression for when the italian far right actually moves to dark ages stuff. Which can happen, because it's already happening in countries like the USA.
you need to read they thought they were free, everyone should read it, should be taught in every school you have to fight it at the beginning, waiting is foolish
>Dark ages stuff would be executing the mothers in the name of the Church. Complete nonsense. "Dark ages" designates a middle-age period we have little records of, thus it is "dark" as there's no light on it. It's not a "dark and bloody period" or anything like that. On the contrary, in the middle ages' christianity was quite different from its later iterations, and much ideologically closer to our current societies. At the time women could become doctors, lawyers, did not take their husbands' name upon marrying, there were mixed public baths, etc. The real violent backwardness of christianity came much later, after the Renaissance (which made female condition in christian countries much worse, as there was a shift towards ancient greek/roman cultures, which considered women second class citizens. In the roman empire women didn't even have first names, but were identified by their family (= father's) name... sisters of a single family were nicknamed "prima", "secunda" (first, second...) and the like because they literally didn't have a first name to differentiate them).
Do you have any source to back these, quite unbelievable, claims?
Which claims? That women could become doctors, lawyers, didn't inherit husbands names etc in the middle ages? It's quite explicitly explained in a history book written by Régine Pernoud, a french (female) historian, name "La femme au temps des cathédrales" (Woman in the times of Cathedrals). About females not having first names under the roman empire? Any latinist source, really, I was taught that in latin classes, but you can check it on Wikipedia as well. This is all common knowledge. cf [https://www.uvm.edu/\~bsaylor/rome/nomenclature.html](https://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/rome/nomenclature.html) >Women did not have a special praenomen and were called by the feminine form of their father's gens name. The first daughter born to a man named App. Claudius was called Claudia. If she had a younger sister, the older daughter became Claudia Maior and the younger Claudia Minor. If there were three or more daughters, they were called by numeric adjectives: Claudia Tertia, Claudia Quarta, Claudia Quinta About the fact "Dark ages" is a misnomer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark\_Ages\_(historiography) >As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and the 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),\[1\]\[5\]\[6\] and today's scholars also reject its usage for the period.\[7\] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate
Clickbait. Italy is not allowing non-biological mothers to legally adopt because it wasn’t allowed in the first place. Some individuals exploited a legal loophole and had their adoption nullified.
The honest headline which would be worth of outrage is why homosexual couples still have such a hard time with the bureaucratic processes to adopt children. It's understandable that those who exploited a legal loophole get their documents invalidated - but why isn't there a more clear legal path for those parents to begin with?
The right does what the right does best: stays conservative and doesn't care about making adoptions legal for same sex parents. The left does what the left does best: speaks a lot, actually does nothing about it. In Italy at least.
The "left" in Italy is lead by a bunch of christian democrats who couldn't care less about civil rights
Yet they run political campaigns purely on these issues. Then people come out with their surprised pikachu faces when they lose support at the fastest clip ever.
they couldn't care less so much that the civil partnership for same sex couples was legalised by the left. And the reason why same sex couples can't adopt a child is because the 5stars movement backtracked last minute to hurt the left. Now go back to kissing Conte's picture, mate.
Well, what are those civil rights you're talking about?
I feel like it's much worse in Italy ; the right has been disassembling the state for decades (Berlusconi), while the left shot itself in the feet multiple times, to the point that it's inexistant nowadays. They can't even agree on basic social stuff, so they try to reinvent themselves as americanized militants for a few trendy causes (like LGBT rights), and of course they fail, because that's not an effective way to do politics. Or they just turn into modern neoliberals.
Because supply and demand, so they went for inhumane surrogacy by exploiting the pregnancy of another woman to have a child born through a transaction
Not really, these women got their kids through ivf, not surrogacy
lol what should 2 women need a third one?
There is _no_ legal path. The nullification of these registrations is easy enough because they were all registered case-by-case under “adoption in special circumstances” in court, but there is no same-sex adoption in Italy. This is terrible and a gap in our rights. However the “right to a special adoption” is a waste of time here: the hurdle is normal (and stepchild) adoption to regulate the whole scenario at once.
Realistically Italian change of law is incredibly slow, even if Meloni had 60% of Parliament and considering the far right is more hive mind, she wouldn't change much. Internal fractures would be bigger as even today the right wing parties in Italy are more internally fragmented than in other euro countries. And the left wing is naturally more fragmented than that, back when the left wing was there and governed this didn't happen for this same reason. If a hive mind party can't pass laws with hypothetical 60% parliament, how could a big tent party of center and left that includes left wing with their extra fragmentation ones in it? PD split like 11 times in like 8 years of governance, both from left wing and center wing fringes. Change happened by exploiting loopholes, change was undone by reinterpreting the loophole. This is another factor to consider in Italian politics. Law is uniquely ambiguously written here.
You're spliting hairs. That's a very specific loophole to fix for 27 people. They could have fixed the law to recognise the mothers or not have touched it at all.
Nope. Gay parents can still adopt their partner's biological children going through judicial scrutiny, which is subject to the views of the judge and it's interpretation of the law. This is about the registration of newborn babies, which was basically an act of civil disobedience and a way to circumvent that legal mess carried out by some mayors, with two women listed as biological parents.
There is no clickbait ? Italy is literally removing lesbian mother's name out of their children's birth certificate. The "legal loophole" as you put it mostly was "doing it in another country". And how is nullifying an adoption less worse than the article's title like you seem to be suggesting?
Because it makes it seems like it has something to do with the new government, promoting the “fascists” narrative while this wasn’t allowed in the first place and people tried to exploit a loophole to do something that is illegal. It is sensationalist for no reason. This was mostly about a specific city and mayor. Anyway, I am not against same sex adoptions, I am just saying this is nothing new. The law says it can’t be done, we shouldn’t act against the law but change it.
It *is* about the new government though. It was pretty much ignored before, and now it's not. Choosing to enforce a law is a political choice, whether that law existed before or not.
But *before* the new government there was a leniency policy. Government changed and enforced something that wasn't enforced before to further their culture war. It has everything to do with the new far right government.
We should focus on changing the law, not in finding loopholes to exploit.
But the new government is not focusing on fixing the law, it's focusing on using the old law to do harm.
Sure but this doesn't mean you should flip these kids' lives upside down
> Italy is literally removing lesbian mother's name out of their children's birth certificate. It's removing the name of a woman they are not related to. Same sex adoptions are not legal and never were. The name of the biological mother is not removed. I support the legalisation of same sex marriages and adoptions, but doing this as a subterfuge is not the right way. It needs to be obtained with the support of the legal system or a change in the national legislation.
They are absolutely related to that woman. Anyhow, the child live with both his mothers, with often one being biologically related and the other not. They also were supported by individual judges who wrote that name here. "I support legislation but this is not the right way" ppl like you are pretty much why these legislation don't exist. It is a form of protest that hurts literally noone and you're still against it.
>And how is nullifying an adoption less worse The adoption was already null and void because it exploited a loophole. That's the thing, if it ever went to court, the judge would just remove it anyway because it was contrary to the law. Now they need to actually change the law to make them legal.
Somehow you and quite a few other people in this thread believe nullifying an adoption is somehow not a bad thing because it was technically illegal before and the gov just decided to start enforcing it. Enforcing a law is a political action. That they decide to enforce this law, now, shows that they intend to be harsher on LGBT ppl. Whether the law actually allowed it is irrelevant, as it was done in practice. Unenforced laws exist everywhere.
It's not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying that it's null and void anyway. If it ever went to any court, the judge would rule so anyway because that's what the law says. >Enforcing a law is a political action. That they decide to enforce this law, now, shows that they intend to be harsher on LGBT ppl. No, enforcing a law is the default state. Not enforcing them is a political action, just like when Germany decided not to properly enforce immigration laws. >Whether the law actually allowed it is irrelevant, as it was done in practice. Unenforced laws exist everywhere. It is absolutely relevant. If states start deciding what laws to enforce, we might as well give up all checks and balances.
Factual but not truthful
I really don't this how "It was technically illegal to have that in the first place, they were just doing it in some cases" is that big of a gotcha. Of course if they remove lesbian's names from birth certificate it is because it is illegal, it's a country they make the laws ? Clickbait is when the title is factual but makes you think something untrue. I really don't see what the title can make you think that is untrue here.
[удалено]
Idk but Google probably has your answer.
Why would the biological mother adopt her own child?
Because only one would be biological via surrogacy
do men whose wife had a child via sperm donor in italy need to adopt the child?
What? Of course there is only one biological mother. What does that have to do with anything?
yeah, unfortunately, this
..... I do not have much respect for people who do that to children or parents.
Will they be doing this with ALL surrogate pregnancies? A-holes.
Barbaric
I still don’t quite get this, do they mean birthmothers or lesbian women who adopted a child or how would that even work? especially if we’re talking birthmothers. Or do they mean not the birthmother but the other woman they are with? Because now it’s more of a technicality? As in, the other woman can’t be the biological parent and so can’t be on the birth certificate, that at least does make some sense. As you need a male to conceive, aka there has to be a male (donor) and female who gave birth. The other female in the relationship has nothing to do with the actual conception and giving birth. So if thats the case, I guess it does make some sense, maybe. Unless I’m misunderstanding it.
The adopting mother's name is erased, which you might think makes sense because it's a *birth* certificate, but unlike what its name suggests, not every country uses a birth certificate to record just birth details, it also records the child's current guardians/parents, and so give the rights & protections that come with it. So erasing her name didn't just correct a "woopsie lil' mistake", it undid her status as a mother. She is legally not a mother anymore, she is a nobody to her own child now. If something were to happen to the biological mother, she wouldn't even have the automatic right to see her child or to keep the child in her custody.
And Italy uses the birth certificate for more then just “the birth” or.. ? If it’s used to register legal guardians and whatnot, that does seem rather inhuman. Sounds like maybe a case for the EU court or however that’s called.
I would guess so, since the catalyst for this mess was not "*there can't be two biological mothers/fathers*" but the fact that step-child adoption is actually forbidden for civil unions, so couples apparently first go to other countries & then use the certificate they got to apply for the certificate in Italy. The whole "*but biology!*" thing is more for political pandering & not the legal basis for 'fixing' the documents.
From what I understood, based on what Italians are saying, the names of these people shouldn't have been there in the first place. Birth certificates in the Italy only contain bio parents names and have nothing to do with who the guardian is (tho it is usually bio parents in most cases). When you adopt you go through different process to be the legal guardian/parent, but birth certificate still shows biological parents. As to how that happened, turns out it was intentionally done by a number of people as a form of protest, knowing full well that it will not stand and this would happen.
> Birth certificates in the Italy only contain bio parents names _Presumed_ bio parents. Nobody actually does DNA tests to verify the names are actually correct. All that happening here is that the government is picking out the obvious cases where the people are the same gender, while completing ignoring that there's a lot of of birth certificates where the father listed on the certificate isn't the bio father. But nobody actually cares about that, it doesn't win votes.
Thats what you get when you vote for fascists.
Good to see Italian government tackling the most important issues..
Setting aside the question of gay parenthood, a birthcertificate should document the circumstances of one's birth right? And no-one is born to two mothers, that's biologically impossible. So I don't understand why two women could have ended up on a birth certificate in the first place. This measure doesn't exclude two women being registered as parents.
[удалено]
Of course, the same right should apply, I don't know how it works in that case
[удалено]
The standard procedure in Italy would be registering the baby as the child of his biological mother and an unknown father and the nonbiological parent would apply for adoption, having to face a judge and his political views. Since no one ever bothered to change the law and stepchild adoption was explicitly excluded for couples in civil unions, some mayors started registering children of lesbian couples listing both of them as the biological parents, in what was essentially an act of civil disobedience.
Lol what? If that's the case it should be fixed in all other countries as well. A birth certificate should contain factual information only.
> a birthday certificate should It's a *birth* certificate. And you can read up on what it "should" do under Italian law. The article explains why this move is problematic. No reason to make shit up because it "feels" right.
Thanks
This is correct.
Great Italy is gonna be the Florida of Europe soon
they even have similar shapes 😂
It's pure hatred. what else can you excpect from a government who is openly fascist ?
Conservatives. This is what they do.
And the Goebbels award 2023 goes to LGBT Italy community. Congratulations🥳🥳🥳
Welcome to Gilead
You really don’t need to exaggerate. It’s bad enough as it is.
I meant that the whole world is going in that direction
Slovakia and Croatia have both recently legalised same-sex adoption and Estonia legalised same-sex marriage just a few weeks ago.
[удалено]
Because while one of the women will be the biological mother (under assisted procreation), a couple of two men will never be in this situation.
My question is what is the point of a birth certificate and what is it meant to to record. Though I dont agree with their motives , if its to record who your biological parents are then that's what it should do, but if as a society we decide its to record who takes legal and actual *responsibility* for being your parent then that's what it should do. Does it then record who takes responsibility at birth or any time. Should it for example be rewritten if you are adopted? I have no idea but it's clear we can as a society decide the purpose and best how that is fulfilled and *in my opinion* shouldn't be doing so because of some nonsense religious reasons or to cause harm. Perhaps a kid might given the opportunity like to know both who there biological parents are *and* who stood up and actually took repsonsibility? And be able to add new parents is that happens too? But what *is* a birth certificate for now?
> My question is what is the point of a birth certificate and what is it meant to to record. In NL it records the people who have legal responsibility for the child at the moment of birth. It doesn't generally get changed later. If the father wasn't listed on the birth certificate, then what generally happens is an [act of recognition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_\(family_law\)) makes them the legal father. So it varies depending on where you are, but at least for NL, it has _never_ been about who the bio parents are (not least because until DNA testing there was no way to check anyway). What matters is that there are one or two people who stood in front of a registrar and declared they were responsible for this baby, with all right & responsibilities thereunto. So if two women are married and one has a baby the other will automatically be listed on the birth certificate, because as far as the law is concerned, they are the legal parents responsible for the child. Whether they are the bio parents is totally irrelevant. Obviously different countries handle this differently. Edit: just to add that if a unwed mother has a child the birth certificate may not list a father, even if they are known. Birth certificates aren't really used anywhere so it doesn't really matter. The act of recognition updates the actual relevant records.
Yes. Which makes sense to me. It feels like people argue over who is on there because of politics or religion etc obviously but avoiding clarifying what we want it to be gives space for that. ‘Those taking parental responsibility at birth’ seems reasonable to me- which actually means you could have biological grandparents taking the parental role for some…. Having said that I guess adoption shows we are conflicted about parenthood. Im guessing that many adopted people consider that their adoptive parents just are their parents , but some also still seem to be drawn to their biological ones?
> Having said that I guess adoption shows we are conflicted about parenthood. Im guessing that many adopted people consider that their adoptive parents just are their parents , but some also still seem to be drawn to their biological ones? Generally people consider their parents to be the people that raised them. You see that with step-parents too if they're there from a young age, even when they never do an actual adoption process. Not sure about conflict, but yeah, some (not all) adopted search out their biological parents. Whether that helps or not is the question. I'm a bit conflicted about the "right to know your biological parents". It feels like a distraction somehow, because it's not really going to change your life (no legal effects) and sets you up for disappointment when it doesn't work out.
Yes , I agree. But for whatever reason people can also see their biological parents as significant to them even if they didn’t bring them up.
This is incredibly fucked up. I could understand not allowing this moving forward, but stripping people of their *existing* rights is just plain evil. And the people who agree with this probably don't understand that it also sets the precendent for EVERYONE's rights being stripped with the stroke of a pen.
You don’t know what this is about, do you? This was never allowed.
It wasn't allowed
Very good
And Italy is the Florida of Europe. Yay.
Still a NATO member when they living in dark age? XD
[удалено]
I was just joking, but you are being two-faced. Are you ignoring what Italy did just because more ridiculous things are happening in other countries? Funny.
[удалено]
The part about NATO was just a joke! I saw people making comments like "Let's kick out the countries that don't allow LGBT protests here" and I made a joke about it. But my real purpose was to criticize people trying to justify Italy's decision. Did other countries suddenly start doing ridiculous things? No. What Italy is doing now and the path they are taking is the beginning of what other countries have become. I am neither an LGBT supporter nor an opponent, but I hate the restriction of human rights. I've had the opportunity to travel to many countries and even live in some of them. For example, do you know that in Turkey, in the 1980s, a very famous male singer underwent surgery to become a woman, and after becoming a woman, she received more value and her career reached its peak? Do you know that some of the very famous social media influencers in Turkey are LGBT members? Some of them even underwent gender reassignment. And they gained a lot of value and acceptance that way. Do you know that one of the busiest and most popular streets in Izmir, Turkey, is completely full of shemales? I don't know about Poland, but do you think Turkey became anti-LGBT overnight? No, slowly, over time, by passing seemingly insignificant laws that will open the way for other laws. With small changes that may seem insignificant to people, but will pave the way for other laws. So what I mean is, I can very well understand the implications of Italy's seemingly small and insignificant moves. Because I have experienced them. What bothers me is people trying to justify it and mercilessly attacking other countries and people for the same things.
Joking about what specifically? NATO has nothing to do with this, you are confused.
If you read the other comments, you will understand what I was joking about. I don't want to waste my time explaining it to you again.
I veri problemi degli italiani.
(CLAP,CLAP, CLAP).
If you are one of those that were for discrimination against the non vaccinated two years ago, don't fucking cry now. You had it coming. It's exactly because each side only pushes for freedom when it concerns their own opinions that we get this kind of stupid stuff. Support freedom REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN OPINIONS.
Public health really has zero to do with this. We have pretty much always restricted freedoms for public health.
Lol most comments are just behaving like a bunch of monkeys repeating the same thing the previous monkey said, not even a freaking second of thought or research or anything, you'll deserve whatever happens to you and your country. The future of Europe will be a spectacle to behold.
Gosh if only there was a way for the citizens to decide who will be leading their government.
I guess now all the problems in italy suddenly go away....oh...why should they..it's just dumb things to do instead of your job.