Debate Interview magazine about the book "Equal Marriage"
Bruno Bimbi, journalist and Argentina activist of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (FALGBT), imagine this dialogue futuristic compared to today could be on the law of divorce or the female vote. The adoption of equal marriage law, the July 14, 2010, made Argentina the tenth country to allow civil marriages between same sex. Equal rights with the same names.
But this punishment had a long history, documented in Bimbi
Equal Marriage. Intrigues, tensions and secrets on the road to the law , published by Planeta. Among the peculiarities of the debate that split the blocks as few Salta deputy Alfredo Olmedo-one of the tail closed " and yellow jacket, was catapulted to fame, Cynthia Hotton orange organized a crusade evangelist, children with signs of "Dear Mom and Dad" Elisa Carrio "pulled the closet" to a lesbian congresswoman your block without your permission, and Mauricio Macri went back and forth between support the law and its decision not to allow a marriage despite a court ruling. But the discussion also made speeches to the story, as the deputy Ricardo Cuccovillo, speaking as a parent of a gay son. And, in a talk with Debate , Bimbi highlights another memory "the only law was voted as a member Nestor Kirchner" .
What began to develop the idea of \u200b\u200bgoing for equal marriage?
A number of militant groups raised form a federation, which then grew and became what is now the FALGBT. These initial four or five groups agreed to a set of national priorities. Among them, the argument over marriage.
What year?
was more or less, in 2005, and was greatly influenced by the adoption of gay marriage in Spain. Until then, it was only legal in some countries very distant and different from ours, as the Netherlands. However, when it passed in Spain, we were talking about a country that, historically and culturally, has many ties with Argentina. Spain gave us another boost to think that if there might be, here as well. The FALGBT learned a lot from Pedro Zerolo and Beatriz Gimeno, English LGBT Federation.
Early in the debate, tried to settle the civil union alternative.
This created confusion, especially because the Comunidad Homosexual Argentina agreed. Why alleged that he was a segregationist project?
From the Federation always maintained that what was at issue was not the inheritance or pension, it was the joint adoption rights or concrete materials, beyond which were very important. What was at issue was something much deeper: equality. And, if you created a different institution with a different name, and there would be a loophole that survived from 1888, but the Argentine Congress in 2010, was to legislate saying that there were two categories of people: homosexuals and heterosexuals. It's like society to separate blacks and whites, Christians and Jews or Argentine-born and immigrants, and that "the Jews are entitled to this and Christians on this. " The idea of \u200b\u200bcivil unions as an alternative to marriage for gay couples is based on a doctrine that had great importance in the U.S., the "separate but equal." During the discussion of racial segregation laws in the groups, whites had to sit back later and blacks. A failure of justice upheld the law saying that while the seats were as comfortable there was no problem because it was guaranteeing equality. That is, equal but separate. This justified racism. Many of the arguments against gay marriage were modeled on those used in the U.S. against interracial marriage. That is the ideological and philosophical basis to propose two institutions with different names.
At first, the Government assessed that it was the political momentum to move forward with the law, but gives the feeling that, when released were really in depth. In the distance, "assesses that was a wise decision or should expect those conditions have opened the debate anyway?
three years ago would have said "I want to discuss it now." Today, the law already passed, I think it is counterfactual, I do not know what had happened. The political process was the way it was, had to be pushing. There were people in the government that from day one agreed with this and with us as Aníbal Fernández and María José Lubertino, who played an important role, and others who had to convince. Other politicians were against it until the end, as Gabriela Michetti or Liliana Negre de Alonso, because they believe in discrimination. And some were not sure or never have thought.
Some judges did rise to the protections of couples who wanted to marry, does that influenced the decision of Congress?
Absolutely. When we launched the campaign, first study how the discussion had been given in other countries. In some, it was legalized through Congress at the initiative of government, in others, the decision reached by way of justice. So we decided to go all the way at the same time: we went to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, to justice, with habeas corpus throughout the country with the intention of reaching the Supreme Court and, on the other hand, try to convince the Government. Lawmakers Vilma Ibarra, Silvia Augsburger and Eduardo Di Pollina were played and accompanied us with their projects when talking about gay marriage seemed crazy. We also talked with all opposition parties. At the time of the vote, and had spoken publicly in favor concerning as Néstor Kirchner, Ricardo Alfonsin, Mauricio Macri, Hermes Binner, Margarita Pino Solanas Stolbizer and beyond that after had some pretty deplorable attitudes
(NDR, went on to say that gay marriage "no one cares") .
then had couples who have married through the courts, as Alex Freyre and Joseph Di Bello, in Tierra del Fuego.
Yes, some had already been married by court decisions. There was a case
(NDR: Mary Rachel and Claudia Castro) reached the Supreme Court. The Court had the decision, but as it was debated in the Senate decided to wait. If you do not approve of the law, leaving the decision to endorse the marriage.
How were these audiences that Negre de Alonso called "festivals of democracy"?
When the bill passed the Senate, Negre de Alonso
(NDR: President of the General Law Committee , head of project) sought some form of treatment delay and win by attrition. Organized meetings in all provinces, which pompously called public hearings but were not, with the Catholic Church and evangelical churches. Most were meetings fan. It was as if in Buenos Aires did a meeting with the party of Alejandro Biondini and a group of ladies of Tradition, Family and Property and say that it is representative. She described them as "festivals of democracy" but said things were really atrocious, and that homosexuality was a disease, who were neurotic, perverse, sinful, we would go to hell, you had to exterminate.
The project divided the parties but there were two moments that seem to be aligned with good part of the Senate Committee: Jorge Bergoglio letter that spoke of "holy war" and the strong response of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner. Did you?
Absolutely. At one point, senators block of the Front for Victory was quite divided. Nestor and Cristina had taken the decision to go in depth with this topic. We recognize. Kirchner was even a tribute to the pride march last, a week after his death, with one minute followed by applause from more than one hundred thousand people. But beyond the support of the Government, many officers were pressured senators in their provinces by bishops, there was a strong campaign under the table. But Bergoglio made a grave political mistake: when his campaign was going well and was getting by threatening to turn a lot of votes, went above the table to say publicly that it was a war of God against the Devil and the Devil was Kirchner . In war, soldiers must be aligned with their commander in chief. There were many Senators of the Front for Victory who said "if a war against the Government, I will vote for what they say my President."
On the other hand, did legislators who saw the law as an official victory, and therefore voted against it?
Yes position much of the Radical Civic Union was shameful. Some key leaders of radicalism, as Ernesto Sanz, Gerardo Morales and Ricardo Alfonsin, had publicly supported the law and worked to get out, but they revolted much of the block. For senators and Luis Petcoff Naidenoff or Ramon Mestre for example, who had shameful attitudes, winning a political tug of war, circumstantial and situational Kirchner was more important than human rights of thousands of people.
What changed the law of equal marriage?
tangible and important thing is that there are thousands of people who are happier today. It was not as serious as it looked. They said that they would end the species that the Apocalypse was coming. But the sun still rises every day. The difference is those thousands of people who are happier today.
And in concrete terms?
All week I get an invitation to a wedding. This shows how the concrete daily life of thousands of people who are married and the parents, children, siblings. There are kids who do not had social work, and thanks to this law, now have or are unable to access social benefits, or an inheritance. But above all, there is a moral recognition. People who were illegal now legal, it stopped being an outcast to the law. The deeper we took a step towards being a more inclusive and less biased.
FB.init (fd962a4261c1dae2247ca386e8de2db6 ");
0 comments:
Post a Comment