This article analyses the Italian parliamentary debate on the Same-sex Civil Partnerships (SSP) bill, highlighting a 'traditionalist' pattern in Italy's morality politics. It investigates the multifaceted arguments brought to the debate, revealing a range of stances within and across parties. The study emphasizes a shift from religious justifications to post-materialist argumentative frames deployed by MPs to influence the highly conflictual negotiation process in a context of external and internal pressures. It posits that the traditionalist model in Italian morality politics is defined by a complex array of argumentative framing strategies that transcend party lines. This approach is pivotal in understanding the nuanced legislative outcome of the SSP bill – falling, strictly speaking, neither into the category of success nor into the category of failure – which recognized same-sex partnerships but fell short of equating them with marriage (notably excluding same-sex parenting and filiation rights) and preventing them from being recognized as families.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Massimo Prearo (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: