-
The Civil Union Law in Buenos Aires: Notes on the Arguments by the Opposition
- University of Pittsburgh Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
The Civil Union Law in Buenos Aires Notes on the Arguments by the Opposition Renata Hiller Translated by Christina Martínez D legislative session, the City of Buenos Aires approved the legalization of civil unions, becoming the first city in South America to grant same- and opposite-sex couples treatment similar to that afforded to married couples,₁ and conferring upon them some social benefits. [. . .] The parliamentary debate that accompanied the sanction of the law offers some keys to understanding the nature of the discourse concerning sexual diversity, the family, citizenship, and the role of the state in politics. [. . .] Discourses [. . .] We can distinguish different discourses, variously employed by opponents and advocates of this change. One discourse appeals to particularistic demands, emphasizing the disadvantageous condition of a segregated social group.Another argument is articulated in terms of human rights, [. . .] and a third set of arguments coming from gay, lesbian, transsexual, transvestite, bisexual, and intersex () groups opposes the legislation of same-sex unions because their proponents oppose the in212 stitution of marriage and/or want to preserve an anarchic-autonomist position vis- à-vis the state. Thus, encompassing more than a single discourse, the debate about and among citizens over [. . .] the Buenos Aires Civil Union Law must be thought of as [. . .] a dispute among heterogeneous organizations (in terms of their arguments, practices, and strategies). [. . .] Furthermore, it is also [. . .] important to analyze hostile arguments in order to better understand the arguments of organizations. [. . .] I draw from legislative documents (commission dispatches, observations of representatives , and transcripts of parliamentary debate) to make my analysis. [. . .] The Context The debate over the Civil Union Law can be thought of as an instance of state-society interaction over themes related to sexuality. [. . .] [T]his debate [. . .] is part of a prior dialogue: the entry into the legislative arena of demands by the community and the organizations. Arguably, these groups became political actors in the legislative institutions of BuenosAires in ,when the new Constitution of the city was approved.² [...] Legislators from various parties created a channel of communication with organizations, which made it possible to propose a Civil Union Law in August . [. . .] The bill was introduced by leaders of these organizations and was sponsored by two legislators.The bill was debated,voted on,and approved in December of ,and with it came the creation of new state organ: the Public Register of Civil Unions. First Argument Against Civil Unions: Definitions [. . .] The Argentine legal system [. . .] accepts the possibility of giving every province (or the autonomous city of Buenos Aires) its own laws, provided that they do not contravene fundamental national legislation. Consequently, one of the arguments against the change was that the local Buenos Aires legislature did not have the right to address an issue that would fall under the scope of the National Civil Code, and thus, the matter ought to have been left to the National Congress. [. . .] This discussion at first appears to be a technicality, argued to postpone the question or transfer it to the national arena, in which the correlation of forces would be different. However, this argument was more than a pretext. It addresses the issue of definitions, which are always critical in any debate over public policy. [. . .] Most policy debates come burdened with a prior dispute over the definitions of the terms on which the problem will be formulated; the definition of the question determines the relevant actors of the debate as much as the range of possible state responses. [. . .] The Civil Union Law in Buenos Aires / 213 [44.197.114.92] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 15:43 GMT) In this case, the opponents of the Civil Union bill wanted to frame the question as a “family issue” in order to make any ruling dependant on the National Civil Code, so that the ruling would fall under the authority of the National Congress rather than the local legislature. Their position forced advocates of the Civil Union bill to frame the issue not as a family issue, but as a matter of “affection” (Rep. Ripoll, Legislature of the City of Buenos Aires , )“love,”“sexuality,”and even of “rules of relationship ” (Rep. Campolongo, Legislature of the City of Buenos Aires , ). [. . .] [T]hose representatives that raised the discussion of the law as a family matter [. . .], arguing that nonheterosexual couples are “another type of family” and highlighting the historic and variable character of this institution, found themselves in a bind. [. . .] organizations advocate the recognition of types of families other than those...