Abstract
L’A. ricostruisce il percorso argomentativo delle recenti pronunce della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti in materia di unioni omosessuali sottolineando come il loro thema decidendum non riguardi soltanto il riconoscimento di diritti civili a persone omosessuali, ma, soprattutto, il principio della separazione dei poteri. Sul presupposto che la Costituzione americana – come, del resto, la Costituzione italiana – non garantisce il diritto di sposarsi con una persona dello stesso sesso, la materia deve essere disciplinata dagli organi democraticamente eletti.
The A. reconstructs the arguments set out by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Windsor and in Hollingsworth v. Perry, and she underlines that they concern not only same-sex persons’ rights, but above all the power of people to govern themselves and the power of courts to pronounce the law. When constitutions don’t speak to the issue of same-sex marriage, a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials
«The Constitution, however, does not dictate that choice. It leaves the choice to the people, acting through their elected representatives at both the federal and state levels (…). Same-sex marriage presents a highly emotional and important question of public policy – but not a difficult question of constitutional law. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue (…). What Windsor and the United States seek, therefore, is not the protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges. Faced with such a request, judges have cause for both caution and humility (…). The silence of the Constitution on this question should be enough to end the matter as far as the judiciary is concerned».