The denial of gay adoption from democracy
The project of Viviane Morales on the referendum against egalitarian adoption not only morally questions this phenomenon, but also puts in the debate, the democratic condition of the matter. Can the majorities decide the future of minorities?
Based on that question, this brief essay of opinion exposes some considerations about the arguments surrounding equal adoption from the democratic perspective. To do this, the appointments and opinions of the former congressman Vivian Morales and former Magistrate Carlos Gaviria, to reflect on global phenomenon.
Science understands homoparental adoption as a transformation to the paradigm related to the family ideal, which has traditionally been established, among minors (children) with parental hetero. In this way, among the traditions of Western culture, in recent decades homoparentality emerges as a process that renews the conceptions of human relations.
However, this process has had multiple tensions, concerns, distortions and in general, it has been linked to a taboo subject, where morals mediated by religious forms has led the way to form the family.
This allows us to question how so much the homoparental gets out of the western family dogma? International referents such as Argentina, the federal states of Mexico City, Coahuila, Michoacán, Campeche, Colima, and Morelos, in Mexico and Uruguay, have shown that egalitarian adoption is possible to conceive it without religious presumption; What does not come out of the constitutional rights of citizens.
As the main arguments in favor, in the first place, the recognition of human, sexual diversity, to relate; This is ratified by the Supreme Court of Colombia, granting the principle of equality as a regulatory guideline. It also allows the increase in adoption possibilities for a significant number of children in family abandonment. Finally, the sexual orientation of parents does not affect children, which has been corroborated by scientific studies.
The Constitutional Court confirms equality and supremacy in the best interests of the child, however, the debate on homoparental adoption has given green light not meaning that it has been exceeded, since Vivian Morales, promoter of the referendum against adoption, expresses it egalitarian, so, adoption is questioned as a democratic condition by denying the right to a family.
Meanwhile, Carlos Gaviria has expressed the Supreme Court is legitimate, which says that the High Court is the authorized interpreter of the fundamental and guardian rights that the Constitution is fulfilled. Therefore, the referendum indicated by Morales is an impertinent referendum, since the posteritarian adoption phenomenon is subtracted from the majority decision. The answers cannot come from the polls, nor the issues related to beliefs can prevail in the decision -making political decisions in national order.
Does a person have the right to govern the Colombian society based on religious precepts? This allows Gaviria to question about Morales’ considerations; putting in the debate, the legitimacy of the majorities oriented by religious precepts. Vivian Morales express, that in her condition as Christian and constitutional law professor she proposes through the polls the definition of adoption for parental hetero families; Faced with the homoparentals, she indicates that they do not lose what they do not have, what exists are the rights of children to be protected.
That is, Morales’ conception is based on sinful notions about non -heterosexual family union, assumed antinaturally, as parents of the same sex do not engendered.
These types of notions are traditional and mostly assumed by populations in Colombia, however, minorities have also coexisted, achieving social movements and the reaffirmation of constitutional principles to challenge causes and modify practices that have historically been repressed and reproved.
Thus, Colombia as a guarantor of constitutional rights, in the words of Gaviria already expressed more than a decade to deny a person the possibility of adopting or caring for a child, for the sole reason of being homosexual, would certainly constitute an opposite discriminatory act to the principles that inspire our Constitution (Colombian Constitutional Court, 1995).
In conclusion, as indicated in the previous paragraph, constitutional rights prevail over any moral construction of social phenomena. The foregoing allows to inquire about the different perspectives that have been created in the face of this issue, the truth is that they should be considered, the psychological, sociological, scientific that allow identify The development of this family form.
Based on Gaviria’s considerations, a ruling accepts or denies homoparental adoption, favors or disadvantages a majority and/or minority sector, which distorts the democratic feature of the matter. From there, to reflect on the function of the Constitutional Court and the Congress of the Republic based on the democratic principle.
Sources consulted
- Judgment no. T-290/95. Constitutional Court of Colombia. Recovered from: www.Constitutional court.GOV.CO/RELATORY/1995/T-290-95.htm
Leave feedback