Italy: activist judges subvert law to legalize adoption by sodomite couples

Once again we have reason to note that the biggest danger for the Rule of Law emanates from judges – from activist judges.

In Florence, the Tribunale dei Minorenni has issued a decision according which the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple in England must automatically be recognized in Italy, where the law does not (yet) allow two sodomites to play “family”. According to the decision, which however has been appealed, Italy is obliged to recognize the English act of adoption, because the latter “is not in contradiction to the public order in Italy”.

This is patent nonsense, and there is no doubt that the judges are fully aware of this.

The concept of “public order” really is not that difficult to understand. But for the benefit of the benighted Florentine judgment we explain it here:

If the recognition of a legal act stemming from abroad would render nugatory an important legal provision belonging to the domestic legal order, then that foreign decision must be deemed incompatible with the domestic public order. This is clearly the case here: if the English deed of adoption must be recognized, then there is nothing to prevent Italian sodomites to circumvent Italian law, simply by travelling to England and adopting a child there, which they then can bring home to Italy. The Italian law, which prevents sodomite couples from jointly adopting and thus leaves no room for the legal fiction of a “homosexual parenthood”, would thus be rendered nugatory. Therefore, the English sodo-adoption is contrary to the Italian order.

Article 29 of the Italian Constitution provides, furthermore, that the State recognizes the rights of the Family as “a natural society based on marriage”. The emphasis is on natural.

The activist judges cite as decisive reason for their activist decision the “overriding interests of the child”, quoting lavishly from the (equally activist) case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which in a series of recent decisions, all of them highly controversial, has used a similar reasoning to give an appearance of justification to the abominable practice of gestational surrogacy. However, it fails to cite the ECtHR’s most recent decision in this regard, the case of Paradiso and Campanelli, in which the ECtHR had set aside these alleged “best interests”, instead recognizing the wide appreciation enjoyed by States in matters such as Family Law.

Given the danger that judicial activism such as in this case represents for the Rule of Law and the social order, judges who willingly and knowingly adopt decisions that contradict the law should be criminally persecuted for the abuse of power.