[ad_1]
“Social change has now also reached the Council of States,” say the initiators. The decision was made strict, and after 7 years.
Man and man, woman and woman, all. The Council of States says yes to marriage for all.
Photo: Getty Images
Almost exactly seven years ago, on December 5, 2013, Kathrin Bertschy of Green Liberals submitted a proposal. It had the prosaic title “Marriage for All” and the number 13,468.
On Tuesday, December 1, 2020, the President of the Council of States Alex Kuprecht looked around for the last time. Are there requests to speak? That does not seem to be the case. So he decided. We come to the final vote. “
Uff. Seven years! The content-related discussion wasn’t all that grueling, Bertschy says after the vote in the Council of States. “It was problematic how various circles repeatedly postponed and delayed the discussion.”
Is it necessary to change the constitution?
These “different circles” tried to do this to the end. After clear approval from the National Council in the summer (“That was the best moment in the last seven years,” says Bertschy), a dispute arose in the Council of States over whether marriage would require a constitutional change for everyone. or if a simple law would suffice – just as the National Council had already decided.
A regulation in the constitution would have meant an additional delay of filing of about a year and a half. – and a major obstacle in a referendum (ptichwort: Standemstime). “Personally, I want marriage for everyone, and fast, “said Heidi Z’graggen (CVP), a member of the Council of States of Uri,” but out of respect for the constitution, this wish should be left in the background. “
Z’graggen had already spoken in favor of changing the constitution in the preliminary consultation committee. To do this, she relied on a report by Isabelle Häner, a law professor from Zurich. In it, Häner argued that the concept of marriage in the constitution is neutral (“The right to marriage and family is guaranteed”, it says there), the materialIwould suggest, however, that marriage as an institute intended exclusively for men and women be. Thus secondsmoking mandatory marriage for all a constitutional amendment (Read here: «The secret document»).
Arguing with Scalia
Like Häner and Z’graggen, the men from the conservative cantons debated beforehand in the Council of States. All in advance Beat Rieder (CVP) of the Valais, who goes back to the 1870s and tries to deduce from the history of the concept of marriage in the federal constitution that it should be understood as heterosexual.
Rieder used the arguments of Antonin Scalia, the arch-conservative US judge who died in 2016 (should have been the first for the Council of States) Supreme Court. Scalia, an opponent of abortion, was a supporter of “originalism” and interpreted the constitution literally: The deciding factor is not how the constitution is interpreted according to current standards, but what intentions its authors were pursuing at the time. would havein. Therefore, and with that, Rieder ended his political-state colloquiumyouTo return to the here and now, a change in the constitutional text is imperative to anchor marriage for all in current law.
This view of the constitution is, you guessed it, controversial among jurists. Andrea Caroni (FDP, AR) recalled during the debate that until the 1980s patriarchy was considered with the man as the “head of the family”. The abolition of this model supposed a much greater interference in the coexistence of people – and yet, it could only be regulated in the civil code. “Today, however, it is a brush makeover.”
«What word would you like to add to the constitutional text? It’s perfect as it is today. “
The left, an ally of liberalism on this issue, sees it in the same way. Marriage for All expands and supports the marriage institute, said Lisa Mazzone (Greens, GE). And anyway: what word would you like to add to the constitutional text? It’s perfect as it is today. “
Mazzone and Caroni’s point of view narrowly prevailed in the end. There is still a difference with the National Council on the question of sperm donation by womenPaaren. According to the Council of States, joint paternity would only apply from birth if couples use Swiss sperm banks. Furthermore, there is still a lack of regulation for private sperm donation. “That was a step in the right direction today,” says SP National Counselor Tamara Funiciello. “But the fact is, lesbian women are not the same.”
Twenty years later
Kathrin Bertschy hopes that this inequality will be eliminated this December. And then: done! It was seven years for Bertschy, for others it was even longer. More than twenty years ago, Ruth Genner, a former member of the National Council of the Greens, presented a first marriage proposal for all and clearly failed. Since then, society and politics have fundamentally changed on this socio-political issue. “And today this change has even reached the Council of States,” says Bertschy. “Even if it’s pretty tight.”
