Let's take a specific case. At the city hall in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, on June 11, Pierangelo Bucci married Jaco Rozendaal. There were tears from relatives, witnesses, rings, and a wedding cake. Yet the union of Pierangelo and Jaco—the former an Italian citizen, the latter a Dutch citizen, and both European citizens—valid for all intents and purposes as a common marriage in the Netherlands, is not recognized by Italy or other EU member states.
So much for our common homeland and the mobility of citizens. Yet a few months ago, the European Parliament approved, in the first instance, a resolution on the free movement of citizens among the fifteen EU member states. This represents a step forward in legislative recognition of the changes that have occurred in recent decades within the traditional institution of the family. The bill was hailed as a political and moral victory by advocates for equal opportunities between heterosexual married couples and de facto couples, including same-sex couples. But it now risks becoming a halved victory, as the approved document—a draft EU law that will become binding upon completion of the legislative process—has been returned to the Commission for review, which has deemed some of the changes made by parliamentarians to the original text inadmissible.
Equal rights advocates, including Socialist MEPs Gianni Vattimo, Michael Cashman, and Joke Swiebel, aimed to broaden the definition of "family member," especially that of spouse and cohabitant, to prevent discrimination based on sex. The Commission, however, backtracked, stating that the MEPs' request to harmonize residence conditions at the European level cannot require some Member States to make legislative changes to their family law, a matter that falls outside the Union's competence. The deletion is significant: it eliminates the Parliament's proposal to equate the situation of de facto couples with that of married couples, based on the principle that the right to family life should not be impeded by either a different sexual orientation or an individual's choice not to marry. "This is a revision," Cashman states, "which Parliament must address with new and substantial changes, exerting moral and authoritative pressure against discrimination." Otherwise, the risk is that the Commission's motivations reveal Europe's inability to develop a policy of minority recognition common to all national realities. It also demonstrates an inability to respond to the complaints of those whose rights are recognized in one member state and see them trampled upon in another host country. There is no doubt that this argument against equal rights is simply crafted to avoid touching or offending certain national sensibilities.
Indeed, while most European countries have protective laws recognizing the human rights of de facto couples, including same-sex couples, in other countries, such as Italy, there is a complete lack of political interest in developing a legislative framework that provides for their equal recognition. This political aspiration also faces resistance from the European Court of Human Rights, which deems the differences that states create between categories of people with different sexual orientations to be non-discriminatory. This legislative caution nullifies the added value that Europe has always claimed to possess over individual member states, anchored in national cultures and policies. However, when de facto couples, including same-sex couples, are no longer treated equally with married couples, society as a whole loses out in terms of respect for rights. Because Vattimo maintains, "as always, but especially in this political moment, the defense of gay and lesbian rights in Italian and European society coincides with the defense of all minorities and in general with the reaffirmation of the secular nature of the state and its institutions.".
Thus, while the spotlight lingers saccharically on the days of homosexual pride, which, unsatisfied and increasingly demanding, demands, the substantial discrimination between married and de facto couples, especially in tax, welfare, and inheritance matters, is passed over in silence. "Furthermore," Vattimo continues, "we must not forget that the rights gays demand have to do first and foremost with the freedom to practice their sexual choices, against taboos and entrenched prejudices, for a more pleasant and happier life." It is therefore essential to prevent important issues such as de facto unions and family law from being resolved or not resolved through a mixture of hypocrisy and discrimination, cloaked in the appeal of rights and laws of nature that only the Church and right-wing parties recognize and which conflict with civil liberties. It's paradoxical that the Church accuses gays of lobbying European institutions for the legal recognition of homosexual couples when in fact—Cashman emphasizes—"it is the Churches and religious associations in general that deny basic human rights and civil liberties. In fact, the Churches, and especially the Vatican, have abused their power of persuasion over the years and, more shamefully, acting as a veritable lobby, have somehow put strong pressure on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to thwart the Brazilian government's motion on non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. "It was," Cashman recalls, "a Holy Alliance between the Vatican and Islamic states to defeat the motion presented by Brazil and reconfirm the right to discrimination." Currently, nine European states (the Netherlands, Germany, France, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Luxembourg, and some regions of Spain) recognize gay relationships, albeit in various forms, ranging from marriage to the so-called French civil unions.
And as the number of gays and lesbians tying the knot increases (10 percent of marriages celebrated in the Netherlands last year), many same-sex couples are being denied family reunification permits due to a lack of marital ties. And this, among countries within the same Union, is increasingly unacceptable.