Italy overrules Church with green light for gay unions


Italy on Wednesday joined the rest of the Western world in extending legal recognition to same-sex relationships with parliament overwhelmingly backing gay civil unions after a long battle to overcome opposition led by the Catholic church.


Good. The church should have no say in civil law. In doing so it discriminates against anyone whose not a follower of that particular church.


I thought the Vatican was it’s own state? The word “overrules” makes it sound like Italy’s a theocracy. What is the relationship?


There is still one nation with part of its roots in the West that doesn’t legally recognize same-sex civil unions or marriages and that’s Israel.

So that opening sentence of the Yahoo news story quoted in the OP is not a true statement.

Marriage is an exclusively religious institution in Israel, with separate religious authorities for Jews and Muslims, Christians and Druze. For Israeli Jews, marriage policy is dictated by the Chief Rabbinate, which is under the exclusive control of the Orthodox—and firmly opposed to gay marriage. Since the country has no civil marriage, gay couples seeking to marry within the borders of Israel are out of luck (as are any Jewish Israelis seeking a non-Orthodox marriage ceremony)

See also:

I’m glad that there is still one country in the Greater Western World that still recognizes that two male or female friends can’t get married and that the discrimination argument is more Benthamism in action.

If we can’t be discriminated against and we are all equal, how come Henry Ford II still gets a bigger paycheck than I do?


If we can’t be discriminated against and we are all equal, how come Henry Ford II still gets a bigger paycheck than I do?

That goes under the flawed principle of equal rights, great theory. but in practical application seriously flawed. :slight_smile: We’re still working out the details.


The Church on this issue as on other issues speaks for a lot of people in Italy. It should have the right to speak on all issues.


The Church should have no say in civil law? What if civil law determined that people of a particular race were not legal persons? Should the Church have a say in protecting the rights of those people?
The word “discriminate” means to differentiate or distinguish; it’s not intrinsically evil. When I’m driving I discriminate between the red light and the green light; and I can only go if the light is green.
Unjust discrimination is wrong.
Marriage can only be between one man and one woman. It’s embedded in human nature. To proclaim this is not unjust discrimination, but to speak truth.


Actually, they did not allow them to adopt children. So, this law is more of a compromise.


The Church may have a voice but the Church is not a political entity…It’s a family of God.


I would hesitate to call that a compromise. They will be back for the rest later.


We only need to look at what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah as a result of this type of sinning over a long enough time period, to predict what is going to come eventually…God will not allow this to go on forever. Those nations, cities, etc that recognize and accept this behavior will be destroyed.


Unfortunately this will lead to full fledged gay marriage and eventually gay adoptions. This law should have been opposed forcefully by the Italian bishops and Pope Francis, but now it is too late.

I know some bishops spoke out against the law, but a more definitive statement from Pope Francis would have helped. Just don’t complain about it later when the gay rights activists come back for more.


I have no doubts. That’s exactly what happened here in the US. The rest of the western world is going to follow suit. We’re so open minded that our brains are falling out.


I appreciate what the pope said, clarifying that voting with a right conscience involves voting with the Church. “[A] Catholic in Parliament must vote according to his or her well-formed conscience… I say ‘well-formed’ because the conscience is not ‘whatever I think’. I remember when same-sex marriage was voted on in Buenos Aires, there was a vote, and at the end one said to the other… ‘if we reach a quorum, we’ll give the vote to [same-sex marriage]!’, and the other [said]: ‘I would rather give the vote to [same-sex marriage] than to Bergoglio!’, and so forth. This is not a well-formed conscience! And regarding people of the same sex, I repeat…what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” source

That comment seems to have gone underreported in the media, because it directly connects voting on “same-sex marriage” in modern times with Pope Francis’s strong opposition when he was bishop of Argentina, and with the teaching of the Catechism. The pope criticizes politicians who voted for “same-sex marriage” because they did not vote with a well-formed conscience, and he says we have a duty to vote with a well-formed conscience. I don’t remember either Pope Benedict or St. John Paul 2 speaking about the limitations of conscience with such clarity. But clarity isn’t gonna do it if the media doesn’t report it, and that seems to be what happened on this issue.



And Pope Francis also condemned gay marriage and LGBTQ ideology in his most recent document.


We are ready to give everyone who comes with a sword to the sacred land a “warm welcome”. :wink:


Well, back when he visited the US and had the perfect chance to address US lawmakers about recently legalizing it at the federal level, instead, he chose not to mention it at all, and I believe he spoke mainly about climate change…???


Australia does not recognize same sex marriage…the Federal Marriage Act states that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman…individual states may allow what is referred to as de-facto relationships…but not marriage


Yes, only our virulently secularist, atheistic and humanistic overlords should have a say…


I thought the same thing. “overrule” only seems to be applicable if the Vatican was ruling over Italy.

I think it would be necessary to first convince Parliment that the events of Sodom and Gomorrah happened.

Perhaps he was trying to only speak where he thought he might more effectively make a difference ( ? ).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit