Note: I haven’t found any english sources on this yet, and this is the clearest traslation I was able to get with google translate, so please excuse the imperfect English! 
–Scott, GMW
Original Article from QueerBlog.it
It all started around 11:00 this morning, when the Constitutional Court opened the public session to discuss the constitutional eligibility of marriage between persons of the same sex. They spend a few minutes and the Court retreats to closed session, must decide on the admissibility of the intervention of the pairs of applicants and of the Radical certain rights: in practice, the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in Italy. Did not take long and after about fifteen minutes of deliberations, the Court considers inadmissible the intervention. You start to tremble and someone begins to fear the worst. Is declared inadmissible the intervention of lawyers in court and certain rights of an unmarried couple homosexual.
In examining the appeal judges said that the ban violates the constitutional principle of equality between citizens and is contrary to European standards. The result would also “unreasonable difference in treatment” between homosexuals and transsexuals since the latter – after gender reassignment – allowed marriage between persons of the same sex as their origin.
In an appearance for the Presidency of the Council is the advocacy of state that is fighting for the inadmissibility on all fronts. As stated before the court of consultation: it would produce a “transaction manipolatura tissue statement” it is for the legislature.
The hearing lasts several hours, then the decision: the judges of the Constitutional Court, chaired by Francesco Amirante, will meet in closed session at 17.00. It will come out with a sentence. Meanwhile, at 15.00 the National Committee for the recognition of marriage between same sex Yes, I want it, announce a press conference at the Press Room of the Chamber of Deputies. Are: Imma Battaglia, Maurizio Cecconi, Enzo Cucco, Paolo Patanè, Francesca Polo.
Back to 17.30 to meet the Consulta, but you can see almost immediately that there will be a decision day. Meanwhile, come the first policy statements.
Renata Polverini Pdl candidate for president of the Lazio region:
“I’ve already told the basis of marriage is the difference between the sexes. Civil rights are individual and non-record.”
Emma Bonino, the center-left candidate for the presidency Lazio:
“What I will say the Constitutional Court will be a constraint for all, full stop. Precisely for this reason there are institutions in a democratic country, and I think that these are the judgments that must be respected.”
Franco Grillini:
“Whatever the orientation of the Constitutional Court on same-sex marriage, the debate today is an event of historic significance because she points to a de facto discrimination: one is people who can marry the other citizens who can not marry.”
Carlo Giovanardi:
“The consultation can not reject the Italian Constitution. Article 29 is clear, the family is a natural society formed by marriage. And the family is made up of a man and a woman, our constituents had not the slightest doubt that marriage was the union between a man and a woman. So I expect the Consulta mouth appeal.”
Lawyers are also involved in the discussion of the couples who have turned to the courts before and today the consultation. Clarify the Advocate Vittorio Angiolini:
“It is arguable that it should be only the legislature to recognize the social evolution of the family as a natural society founded on marriage because it may be only the legislature, then it would have more sense to speak of natural society. Furthermore, there is no infringement of freedom of others, neither the children nor any third party. Whether therefore the Constitutional Court to take contezza that society has changed.”
He is echoed by the lawyer Vincenzo Zeno Zencovich:
“It is not Parliament but the Constitutional Court to be called to recognize certain rights. La Consulta often anticipate these awards even before the intervention of the legislature as in the past has happened for example the reform of family law.”
Tomorrow, we’ll see how it will end!
