Same Sex Marriage

Despite its apparent gay friendliness, Japanese society has witnessed few public debates or social movements in support of same-sex marriage. It seems that Japanese scholars and activists are only just beginning to advocate the legal protection of homosexual couples. Although Japan has witnessed a few recent developments toward same-sex marriage, an anti-same sex marriage perspective seems to dominate, even among Japanese scholars and activists who are gay and lesbian themselves.In order to understand Japans slow progress toward same-sex marriage, this article examines the legality of same-sex marriage in Japan, Japans apparent lack of the political and historical progress of same-sex marriage in the West, and Japanese societal and cultural features including gay adoption, invisibility and heterosexism at work and in academia. This article also compares the current debates on the legal protection of same-sex couples in Japan and Japanese feminist criticism of the Japanese family, to explain the prevalence of the anti-same sex marriage position. Further, with the notion of familial homophobia by Shulman (2009), the traditional Japanese family is defined as the grounds for homophobia. Lastly, the possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage in Japan is discussed.

This article proposes a re-examination of the institution of marriage in light of the eschatology of the Eastern Church and the theological discourse on the topic developed by three thinkers of the Reformed tradition, namely Kierkegaard, Barth, and Bonhoeffer. In doing so, I take into consideration the relationship of marriage with: (1) sacramental theology; (2) philosophical anthropology; (3) politics; and (4) the question of human sexuality. Such a re-examination of marriage has been made highly urgent and relevant today in the wake of the recent debate on same-sex marriage. This fourfold examination illustrates marriage’s ambivalent position within the Christian tradition insofar as, if taken as normative, marriage diminishes the subversive claim of Christian eschatology. Furthermore, Christian theology refuses marriage an absolute merit, by demanding that it is always qualified in relation to the Church’s eschatological vision.
An earlier version of this article was given as the keynote presentation at the Avioliiton Teologia Enne Ja Nyt (Joint Symposium organized by the Lutheran and Orthodox dioceses of Helsinki, March 2, 2015).

I re-examine the traditional gender requirement for morally endorsed and ecclesially blessed Christian sex and marriage, and suggest it may be “a time to throw [it] away” (cf. Eccl. 3:6). After defining the question, I survey arguments for and against this gender requirement from three Christian ethical approaches: divine commands in Scripture, natural law, and theologies of the body, and suggest the revisionist arguments stronger in each case. Firstly, the best way to make sense of the Scriptural material on gender norms is a ‘trajectory’ hermeneutic, which Christians already apply in many situations. The Bible’s trajectory on gender points away from gender-based restrictions on social, ecclesial, and familial roles. Secondly, common rationalist natural law arguments against homosexuality, based on the procreative end, reduce to an inconsistent rule based on gender essentialism, abstracted from real procreation. The classic natural law method re-applied today can support the removal of the gender requirement, especially if brought into dialogue with newer insights from the observation of nature. Thirdly, ‘gender complementarity’ is an inadequate account of, and norm for, the bodily experience of real people, especially LGBTIQ people. Examining real embodied experiences of human flourishing and suffering provides strong arguments against the traditional gender requirement.

South Africa recognizes a multiplicity of marriage forms: common law
marriage, customary marriage, and same-sex marriage. The South African
Constitution has a high sensibility related to issues of human dignity, equality,
and freedom. Respect for both cultural identity and non-discrimination is
related to this trinity of values. In an axiologic perspective, however, these
values can sometimes conflict, as it happens in the customary marriage- a plural
marriage practiced in the form polygyny. In South Africa, coexisting forms of
marriage relate in a critical way to problems concerning non-traditional
concepts of marriage. Oftentimes, when discussing the possibility of
recognizing same-sex marriage, it is suggested that this would force states to
recognize polygamy as well. In actuality, these two forms of marriage are easily
distinguishable according to their structure and function. They only share one
characteristic: the contrast with the traditional concept of marriage as “union
of one man and one woman.”

Dans la foulée du séminaire "Sociologie des homosexualités" (1998-2004) dirigé par Françoise Gaspard et Didier Éribon, une nouvelle génération de chercheuses et chercheurs s'est engagée avec résolution sur le voie des études gays et lesbiennes. Par son choix de l'homosexualité, elle confronte les sciences humaines et sociales à leurs impensés catégoriels et plaide pour "une autre dimension de connaissance" (Monique Wittig). Aux côtés de quelques-uns des meilleurs spécialistes français et étrangers, ces jeunes universitaires donnent ainsi l'occasion de découvrir des terrains aussi divers que fascinants : de l'amitié chrétienne médiévale au lesbianisme dans le mouvement des Femmes en noir en Israël, du cinéma militant des années soixante-dix au vécu des familles homoparentales, des catégories sexuelles antiques à la géographie commerciale parisienne, des comportements sexuels masculins dans le contexte du VIH aux modalités d'enregistrement du PACS, etc.

Perkawinan sesama jenis (gay dan lesbian) merupakan bentuk menyalahi ketentuan hukum positif dan hukum Islam dalam suatu hidup bersama antara seorang laki-laki dan seorang perempuan yang memenuhi syarat-syarat dalam peraturan perundang-undangan maupun agama. Sebagaimana tujuan perkawinan adalah untuk mencapai kebahagiaan suami isteri, untuk mendapatkan keturunan dan menegakkan ajaran agama, dalam kesatuan kelurga yang bersifat parental. Sementara itu agama, menekankan esensi perkawinan untuk mencegah maksiat atau terjadinya perzinahan maupun pelacuran. Namun, tujuan tersebut mulai tidak berlaku bagi kaum gay dan lesbian dalam menuntut hak asasi manusia atau HAM atas kesetaraan gender, yakni dengan menuntut agar keinginan berpasangan untuk membentuk keluarga melalui perkawinan yang sah.

This was a research paper for a course entitled Feminist and Multicultural Theologies. I unpack what gender complementarianism is, examine its history, and compare it to how Scripture and earlier Christian Tradition understood gender. This allows me to establish that gender complementarianism is a recent innovation in secular and Christian thinking about gender, and that it can be described as a "trajectory" from Scripture and Tradition on gender, influenced by social, ideological, and intellectual developments in secular societies. I then pursue a critique of gender complementarianism, arguing that it is an "unsatisfactory trajectory" because it has troubling implications for orthodox theology, is not borne out by empirical experience and observation, and has harmful effects on human beings and societies and on ethical development.

The essay offers a critical point of view of the contents of the recent italian law on same-sex couples relationship and on the more uxorio relationship. With regard to the same-sex couples relationship, it highlights the convergent and divergent aspects compared to marriage legal system; concerning the more uxorio relationship, the focus is on the limits of the interference of the State in private and family life and on the private autonomy in defining the relationship.

Il saggio propone una lettura critica dei contenuti della recente legge sulle unioni civili fra persone dello stesso sesso e sulla disciplina delle convivenze di fatto. Con riguardo alle prime, se ne pone in luce i tratti convergenti e divergenti rispetto alle unioni coniugali; in relazione alle seconde, l’attenzione è rivolta ai limiti di ammissibilità dell’ingerenza dello Stato nei rapporti fra privati in relazione al rispetto della loro vita privata e familiare e alla autonomia nella definizione dei loro rapporti.

Los trabajos que componen el presente libro son el resultado de más de un año de estudio y reflexión realizado por diversas iglesias de la Iglesia Evangélica Española (en adelante IEE), pertenecientes a los presbiterios de Cataluña, Madrid, Levante y Andalucía; así como de la reunión anual de los pastores de la IEE (en adelante Pastoral) celebrada en la casa Mamré de Jaca (Huesca) en mayo de 2015. Estos estudios han sido expuestos, tanto en las iglesias como en la Pastoral, por Juan Sánchez Núñez, profesor de Ética teológica en la Facultad SEUT; y como responsable final de los mismos creo que debo manifestar que recogen las aporta-ciones y sugerencias que en los diálogos posteriores a su exposición se llevaban a cabo.
Este trabajo, que con tanto gusto he realizado, tiene su origen en un encargo que recibí de la Comisión Permanente de la IEE, que poco después del Sínodo de 2013 de la IEE me invitó a profundizar en el conocimiento de las bases teológicas, bíblicas y éticas sobre las que poder llegar a establecer una posición eclesial y pastoral respecto a las personas homo-sexuales. Esta posición se encuentra en el primer documento que encontrarás en este libro; es la Declaración de Mamré, y debe su nombre al lugar en el que fue elaborada, la Casa Mamré de Jaca (Huesca). Fue, precisamente, en la correspondiente a mayo de 2015, donde los pastores y pastoras allí presentes, después de dos días de intenso trabajo de estudio y discernimiento espiritual, procedieron a su redacción; siendo presentada a su aproba-ción eclesial en el siguiente Sínodo de la IEE que se celebró en octubre de 2015 en Madrid.

The current political structure of the Ecuadorian State and its recent Constitutional Reformation paved a way for greater equality and inclusion of LGBT rights. This post-neoliberal Latin American country is shaping the sexual identities and the queered citizen statuses of LGBT people in a remarkable way as Ecuador governs its country in a paradoxical way by using a hegemonic strategy of both transphobic violence and homoprotectionism.
This literature review aimed to deconstruct the sexual politics – performed through practices of repression and exclusion, but also through resistance and resilience – in Ecuador to grasp the local ideologies on gender identity and normative sexual orientation. Although the Correa administration appears to be progressive and LGBT-friendly, the Ecuadorian law can still be considered as a symbolic violation to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) rights as it manifests heteronormative ideologies through its ‘pinkwedging’ policies.
The challenge that Ecuador faces now is to translate its positive intentions towards greater recognition of all people – regardless from their gender or sexual preference – and to continue the Citizen Revolution to advocate for equal rights to all her citizens. 

Key words: sexual politics, LGBT, homoprotectionism, heteronormativity, citizenship, Ecuador

Quand il est à Rome, le pape François déjeune chaque jour au milieu de bonnes soeurs dont il partage le modeste repas. Signe de la vie simple qu’il s’est choisie en référence à François d’Assise, dont il fut le premier pape à adopter le patronyme comme pour inaugurer une ère nouvelle. Mais aussi, dit-on, façon de conjurer le risque d’un empoisonnement, tant sa volonté de réforme heurterait les puissants du Vatican… Pour autant, en faire un pape révolutionnaire reviendrait à ne pas saisir à quel point son action est limitée par la doctrine, le fonctionnement des structures de l’Église et les difficultés contemporaines du catholicisme. Si François, professionnel de la communication et habile jésuite, tient tant à un aggiornamento, c’est avant tout pour tenter d'enrayer le recul, aussi rapide que profond, de la foi romaine partout en Occident.

This paper defends a legal and political conception of sexual relations grounded in Kant's Doctrine of Right. First, I argue that only a lack of consent can make a sexual deed wrong in a legal sense. Second, I propose that all other legal constraints on sexual practices in a just society are legal constraints on seemingly unrelated public institutions. I explain the way in which the just state acts as a civil guardian for domestic relations and as a civil guarantor for private property and contract relations--and thereby enables the existence of legally enforceable claims. Throughout the aim is to demonstrate that Kant's relational conception of justice entails that legally enforceable claims regarding sexual deeds are fully justifiable only insofar as they are determined and enforced by a public authority that we may refer to as a liberal democratic welfare state.

This article will map both the openness Buddhism expressed as well as the prejudices to which it was subjected towards sexual diversity, from the days of the Buddha to the present. In this 2500 year history, Buddhism did spread to widely different cultures with different sensitivities on family life, sexual orientation and gender identity. It also became doctrinally extremely diverse, stretching from soteriological Pure Land Buddhism to atheist secular Buddhism.
Throughout this diversification process, some scholars have tried to incorporate local prejudices rather than fighting them. But only in Tibet did homo-negativity become included in mainstream Buddhist teachings (although never leading to violence or persecution).  Buddhism has also shown flexibility to adjust marriage to local needs (including same-sex marriage with adoption). It did so again when the LGBTI-community in the West asked for the recognition of same-sex marriage in the second half of the 20th century. Buddhists have replied positively to this request, decades before the first legalization of secular same-sex marriage.

The article tries to take stock of the evolution of legal marriage, the family and filiation. The reform of the Italian parentage (2102/2013) and some interventions of the italian jurisprudence and Courts supranational induce to think not only on specific issues but also, more generally, on the foundation of marriage and filiation.
The rights of homosexual couples, the importance of same-sex marriage contracted abroad, the importance of the so-called social parent, the rights and protections of the cohabitant more uxorio and some issues raised by medically assisted procreation create internal tensions to fundamental institutions of civil society.
The tension becomes a valuable opportunity to gain insight into an institution and, where appropriate, to extend the content.

This article has been superseded by my book, MARRIAGE, SCRIPTURE, AND THE CHURCH: THEOLOGICAL DISCERNMENT ON THE QUESTION OF SAME-SEX UNION (Baker Academic 2021). An except from the book is available in the book section above on this Academia page.

This article explores the ways in which coupledom is promoted through contemporary family policy in the UK. It does this in the context of dominant political discourses suggesting that broken relationships are a major political problem and the cause of almost all that is wrong with British society today. The paper performs an analysis of recent family policies, revealing narratives claiming that stable coupled relationships are the foundation of a strong nation. The reverse of this narrative, therefore, is that to not be in—or even worse, to not even aspire to be in—a coupled relationship is not just a personal failure, but a failure for the nation as a whole. The article therefore argues that the UK government encourages a particular type of intimate relationship, despite an increasing recognition of ’diverse’ family forms. Build- ing upon Rich’s notion of compulsory heterosexuality, the article concludes that what we are witnessing in current British society is not compulsory heterosexuality, but compulsory coupledom.

Yaoi/BL Fandom Survey (only takes 10 mins to complete): https://leeds.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/blfandomsurvey

The aim of this study is to compare Sinophone and Anglophone fan fiction consisting of female-oriented male-male romance: danmei and slash, respectively. To increase comparability, we analysed Harry Potter fan fiction in which the characters Harry and Draco are married. Male-male marriage was selected because our online Sinophone and Anglophone BL fandom surveys indicate this to be the most popular story element of the nine options we provided. We analysed five stories originally written in Chinese and five originally written in English which subsequently had been fan-translated into Chinese. Using Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) we found some robust patterns. In contrast to the Anglophone fiction, the Sinophone tended to: stress the importance of family approval for the marriage; incorporate a wedding ceremony; employ clearly gendered roles between partners; utilise extended, as opposed to nuclear, families; and showed the couple to produce children, particularly boys. Hence, the stories mirror the relative social conservatism and social liberalism of their cultures of origin. However, in reading and writing such danmei young Chinese women are still pushing at the boundaries of the traditional family.

Malgré le renouvellement méthodologique que connaît le droit international privé des Etats européens et américains ces dernières années, les techniques actuelles semblent insuffisantes à assurer une coordination satisfaisante des ordres juridiques nationaux face à l’ouverture parcellaire du mariage aux personnes de même sexe et, partant, rendent la circulation de ces unions plus qu’hypothétique. Pour autant, la mobilité et l’exigence de sécurité juridique ne varient pas en fonction de l’orientation sexuelle ; le point de rupture tient ici à l’atteinte aux valeurs fondamentales du for dont fait partie la condition de différence de sexe des époux. Le recours à l’exception d’ordre public international n’a alors plus rien d’exceptionnel et l’objectif coordinateur du droit international privé est neutralisé. Cet article tend ainsi à démontrer que le recours aux droits fondamentaux, comme mécanisme de protection des intérêts individuels, pourrait venir contrebalancer la prééminence des intérêts étatiques et s’opposer dans certains cas aux particularismes étatiques. Il permettrait l’émergence d’un ordre public supranational favorable à la reconnaissance de tels mariages par la consécration et la protection d’un droit subjectif au respect de son identité. L’influence exercée par les droits de l’Homme sur l’ordre public international des Etats européens et américains pourrait ainsi participer à la continuité des situations personnelles de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique.

Le sexe est chose mentale. Il colore notre vision du monde, il transforme la connaissance que nous en avons, et en partie même il la fonde. La sexualité implique un rapport spécifique au vrai, au beau, au bien, autrement dit, un savoir, une esthétique, une éthique, une politique.
Or, quand le désir change, la vision du monde en est changée. Que sait un gai sur le monde ? Quelle expérience en a-t-il ? Qu’en ignore-t-il ? Trois mille ans de littérature occidentale ont exploré l’intellect hétérosexuel et la vision du monde qui l’accompagne. Il est temps d’explorer une autre face, celle du savoir gai, celle de l’étrangement.
Il ne sera pas seulement question d’amour, de drague, de fantasmes, de pornographie et de taille du pénis, mais aussi de Platon, Vélasquez, Proust, Oshima et Cat Stevens, des chauffeurs de taxi, des colonies de vacances, du mariage pour tous, de la longévité des chats et des baleines bleues. De la vie érotique de l’auteur, et de celle de Jésus également. Bref, de la vie tout court.
Lecteur, tu en apprendras ici beaucoup sur l’homosexualité, sur l’hétérosexualité, mais d’abord et surtout sur toi-même. Tu es le sujet de ce livre, toi et ton désir.

C’est dans le contexte d’une visibilité croissante des modes de vie homosexuels que s’inscrit cette approche de la conjugalité homosexuelle masculine. Voilà un objet que l’on croit souvent connaître tant il est présent sur le plan médiatique depuis près de dix ans, mais dont les contours se révèlent, lorsqu’on s’en approche, moins précis que l’on ne l’attendait. Le couple homosexuel, sans que l’on soit certain qu’il soit d’une nouveauté absolue, est une question essentiellement contemporaine. En France, les couples homosexuels, du fait de la similarité de sexe des individus qui les composent, se sont vus proposer d’accéder à un dispositif juridique nouveau. Et dans le même temps, ce dispositif a également été ouvert aux couples hétérosexuels. Les couples de même sexe se caractérisent-ils alors par leur spécificité ou par leur ressemblance avec les couples de sexe différent ? L’exploration ethnographique des liens conjugaux entre hommes dessine les contours de la conjugalité contemporaine. La manière d’habiter ensemble, d’investir l’espace de la maison ou de garder deux domiciles, la façon dont l’argent circule au sein du couple et dont il est géré, les raisons qui président au choix de signer un pacte civil de solidarité éclairent la manière dont les hommes en couple avec un autre homme se représentent et investissent la conjugalité : choisissent-ils de s’investir dans la vie de couple sur le modèle de la fusion conjugale ou bien cherchent-ils au contraire à préserver une part importante d’autonomie individuelle ? Quelles incidences l’appartenance des deux membres du couple au sexe masculin a-t-elle sur les faits conjugaux et sur leurs représentations de la masculinité ?

Debates about lesbian and gay ‘marriage’ both within and outside of the lesbian and
gay community have been sharply polarized. According to anti-lesbian/gay commentators, homosexuality is abnormal (and there can be no equality between normality and abnormality), unnatural and a sin. Lesbians and gay men are enemies of the family and lesbian and gay marriage is a threat to the family, marriage and morality.
The ‘non-negotiable truth’ (Smith and Windes, 2000: 158) of marriage is that it is a heterosexual institution: the (legal) union of one man and woman as man and wife.
When arguing with the right-wing, supporters of lesbian and gay marriage typically
either answer them on their own terms (e.g. defending the normality and naturalness
of homosexuality) or advance an equality argument: marriage is a human good that
lesbians and gay men have the right to share in.

After the Supreme Court's decision to extend marriage benefits to LGBTQ couples across the country, prominent
brands turned to social networks to share their support and enthusiasm. Images of same-sex couples, equality, and traditional LGBTQ symbols promoted positive brand associations with current events and the larger American
culture. Social media users made sense of these politicized messages by engaging in communication with the brands, and with each other. Discursive themes centered around the opportunistic versus authentic nature of the campaign relative to personal values, civics, and religious beliefs.

This is the first study evaluating the desire to marry and attitudes toward same-sex family legalization in an Italian sample of lesbians and gay males from 18 to 35 years of age. Even though the majority of participants reported a positive attitude toward same-sex family legalization, gay men expressed a lower desire to marry than lesbian participants. Participants with a high level of internalized sexual stigma were less likely to want to marry and to recognize the positive effects of the legal recognition of the same-sex family. Regression analyses showed the relevance of internalized sexual stigma, self-disclosure to family, political progressivism, and higher education to predict a desire to marry and a more positive attitude toward same-sex family legalization. The results point to the necessity of social policy reform to eliminate social and structural inequalities surrounding the pursuit of intimacy to reduce disparities in intimacy-related stressors of lesbians and gay men.

This article provides an analysis of the arguments against same-sex marriage as they crystallised in the “No” campaign. The campaign tapped into 'six factors for change' in an attempt to hinder social equality and reverse shifts in the dominant social imaginary in a unique way: the “No” campaign hardly focused its arguments on the union of marriage, and instead focused on the (alleged) direct causal consequences of legal change, which marks a new trajectory in anti-queer advocacy. To some extent these tactics were successful, as reflected by a dip in support for same-sex marriage during the campaign period. This matters because arguments such as those produced by the Coalition for Marriage nonetheless inhibit the equal regard that the queer community are owed, even if these arguments convince only a minority of people.

While same-sex marriage is visibly gaining momentum (see Australia, Austria, Germany and Malta this year), many countries have not fully recognised the rights of same-sex couples. This usually takes the form of civil unions (e.g. Italy and Greece) or of no recognition (e.g. Poland and Lithuania). However, other solutions are also possible. For instance, some countries recognise only same-sex marriages celebrated abroad (e.g. Armenia and Estonia).
In Northern Ireland, adoption has been available to same-sex couples since 2013, even though the Northern Ireland Assembly voted against same-sex marriage (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Re Judicial Review [2013] NICA 37). However, in many countries where there is no same-sex marriage, these couples cannot access adoption. This is the case in Italy, even though the case that is commented here brings some good news.
In Italy, the Adoptions Act (Legge No 183/1984) allows only married couples to adopt a minor. Since only heterosexual couples can get married, same-sex couples are de facto excluded from the adoption. However, this regime applies only to internal situations (e.g. two women domiciled in Italy adopting a minor in Italy). Different rules apply to the adoption by same-sex couples in other countries, once the couple asks the Italian authorities (ufficiale di stato civile) the recognition of the effects of the adoption. This is the topic recently clarified by the Court of Appeals of Genoa, with ordinanza No 1319 of 1 September 2017.
The Court of Appeal rejects all the defenses put forward by the civil servant and holds that same-sex adoptions celebrated abroad should be automatically regognised in Italy by the competent civil servants, without any need for a judicial scrutiny.
The main reason is that even though Italian unmarried couples cannot adopt in Italy, there is no public policy or ordre public (ordine pubblico) consideration preventing the full recognition of the effects of foreign same-sex adoptions.
Con ordinanza n. 1319 del 1 Settembre 2017, la Corte d’Appello di Genova si è pronunciata in tema di trascrizione della sentenza straniera concedente l’adozione a una coppia di coniugi del medesimo sesso e trascrizione del certificato di nascita del minore adottato. Il collegio genovese dichiara l’efficacia della sentenza straniera e ordina la trascrizione della stessa e del certificato di nascita nei registri dell’Ufficio di Stato Civile sulla base di tre considerazioni. Innanzitutto la vicenda è regolata dalla legge n. 218/1995 (nel prosieguo anche ‘legge sul diritto internazionale privato’ o ‘legge d.i.p.’) e non dalla legge n. 184/1983 (nel prosieguo anche ‘legge sulle adozioni’). Ne segue che la regola è il riconoscimento automatico dell’adozione da parte dell’ufficiale dello stato civile, mentre il vaglio del Tribunale dei Minorenni previsto dalla legge sulle adozioni è eccezionale e limitato alla c.d. adozione internazionale. Quest’ultima si ha quando una coppia residente in Italia adotta un minore in stato di abbandono e residente all’estero. In secondo luogo, i provvedimenti de quibus vanno obbligatoriamente riconosciuti al ricorrere di quattro condizioni: competenza dell’autorità che li ha emessi, efficacia nell’ordinamento estero considerato, non contrarietà all’ordine pubblico e rispetto dei diritti di difesa. La detta non contrarietà è la condizione principale è sul punto la Corte d’Appello è cristallina nello statuire che la limitazione dell’adozione alle coppie unite in matrimonio non è una norma fondamentale, di talché la sua violazione non attiva il limite dell’ordine pubblico internazionale, il quale negli anni è andato significativamente erodendosi per via pretoria. Il nucleo di questo limite è nel rispetto dei diritti fondamentali dell’uomo, che, in subiecta materia, prendono il volto del prevalente interesse del minore. In quest’ultimo si sostanzia il terzo ordine di considerazioni del collegio. L’interesse del minore deve valutarsi in concreto, alla luce del diritto alla continuità delle relazioni affettive e al tranquillo godimento dello status filiationis. L’importanza dell’interesse del minore è tale che, un provvedimento che potrebbe prima facie sembrare in contrasto con l’ordine pubblico, non è da considerarsi tale perché riflette l’interesse del minore. In conclusione, l’ordinanza annotata consolida e chiarifica il diritto vivente sotto almeno tre profili. Anzitutto, le coppie omogenitoriali integrano a pieno titolo il concetto di famiglia, il che si riverbera sul fatto che è nell’interesse del minore crescere nel suddesto consesso familiare. Un secondo profilo attiene alla conferma dell’ordine pubblico internazionale come norma ad applicazione eccezionale e interpretata in modo tale da assicurare la massima apertura possibile agli ordinamenti stranieri. Terzo, con più diretto riguardo al caso di specie, si conferma quanto statuito dalla Corte d’Appello di Milano con ordinanza del 5 Ottobre 2016 in tema di riconoscimento e trascrizione di provvedimenti stranieri di adozione a favore di coppie omogenitoriali (v. M.M. Winkler, Riconoscimento e trascrizione di un’adozione straniera da parte di una coppia same-sex: la pronuncia della Corte d’Appello di Milano). In pari tempo, la sentenza può essere vista come un passo avanti rispetto al decreto del Tribunale per i Minorenni di Firenze che, il 7 Marzo 2017, pur riconoscendo l’efficacia di un’adozione omogenitoriale di due cittadini italiani residenti nel Regno Unito, non aveva riconosciuto la natura schiettamente internazionalprivatistica della vicenda, applicando invece il meno favorevole regime dell’art. 36, comma 4 legge sulle adozioni (v. il commento di A. Schillaci, “Una vera e propria famiglia”: da Firenze un nuovo passo avanti per il riconoscimento dell’omogenitoritalità).
PLEASE CITE AS Guido Noto La Diega, 'Corte d'appello di Genova: riconoscimento automatico di adozione omogenitoriale nazionale straniera' (Articolo 29, 4 December 2017) <http://www.articolo29.it/2017/corte-dappello-genova-riconoscimento-automatico-adozione-omogenitoriale-nazionale-straniera/>