Yesterday in Switzerland there was a vote on the so-called ‘marriage for all’: 51.9% of the voters at the polls. The outcome? The ‘yes’ reached 64.10%: 1,828,467 Swiss not only declared themselves in favor of ‘gay marriage’, but also of the adoption by the members of this emotional combination and the possibility for loving couples to access to the (centralized) ‘sperm bank’ to acquire the sperm needed for a pregnancy. That is: for almost two thirds of the voters that a child grows up with mom and dad becomes a optional… in short, a broad sharing emerges, made with a public act, towards the transformation by law of the father’s role from fundamental educator to pure and supplier of organic compound, whose name remains unknown at least until the son’s 18 years. Who will answer for the social failures caused by a wicked sharing account?
Yesterday in San Marino there was a vote on the legalization of abortion: 41.1% of the voters (60.30% of internal citizens, 5.69% of foreigners) at the polls. The outcome? The ‘yes’ reached 77.30%: 11,119 San Marino citizens (out of 14,558 voters) declared themselves in favor not only of the legalization of abortion up to the twelfth week, but also in fact to eugenic abortion “subsequently“(Adverb used in the referendum question regarding”anomalies and malformations of the fetus“that”pose a serious risk to the physical and psychological health of the woman“, Spelling that covers every abomination in that context)
It is appropriate to say: Quem Juppiter vult lose, dementat prius (in the Christian context: Quos Deus perduta vult, dementat prius).
The two electoral results brutally confront a dramatic reality (especially that of San Marino): we now live in a post-Christian society dominated by indifference (and increasingly also by hostility) towards the religious fact, in particular towards a Church Catholic in a state of alarming confusion (and whose present is punctuated by shameful and disruptive scandals such as that of the parish priest of Prato, a lover of feasts and cocaine, which the diocese has sought – for the usual unfortunate reasons of ‘image’ – in a first half cover). Dramatic is also the fact that opinions are now formed much more social that through the concrete personal relationships. Why in the social the immediacy of emotions triumphs at the expense of a rational approach to the issues under discussion. Dramatic is the linguistic scam in progress, propagated at every level and in the media (sometimes even ecclesial) based on two political terms, ‘rights’ and ‘freedom’ which are distorted in their original meanings and disjointed from ‘responsibility’. .
There is a lot to meditate (and a lot) on the two results, even within a Catholic Church whose future in our Western society is foreshadowing – unless a shock as healthy as it is necessary – as characterized by social irrelevance.
SWITZERLAND: A FEW NOTES ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE VOTE ON ‘MARRIAGE FOR ALL’
We dealt with the subject last week in https://www.rossoporpora.org/rubriche/swiss/1035-swiss-voting-nozze-gay-no-ascoltando-anche-ratzinger.html
. 52.60% of those registered in the catalog voted (a percentage in the good average).
. The yeses were 1,828,427 (64.10%), the ‘no’ 1,024,167 (35.90%)
. All 20 cantons and 6 semi-cantons have approved the amendments to the civil code (voted by Parliament on 18 December 2020). No real linguistic-religious gaps have emerged within the country; differences yes – in the amplitude of the gap between for and against – for example in the Alpine areas and in the Italian-speaking areas where the resistance to ‘gay marriage’ and their connected ones has made itself felt in a consistent way.
. The most favorable cantons? Basel-city (73.96%), Zurich (69.11%), Basel-country (67.11%), Lucerne (66.17%), Solothurn (66.16%), Zug (66.11%) ).
. It is noted that the more favorable cantons generally also show a higher participation. Apart from the case of Schaffhausen (voting obligation), Zug (61.15%) is in second place, followed by Basel-city (58.67%), while Zurich (54.61%) and Lucerne (54, 52%) are in good position, a couple of points higher than the national average.
. As can easily be seen from the results, cities were found to be more favorable than non-urban areas. This is where the greatest opposition is found, especially in the Bernese Oberland, in the Bernese Jura, in some famous Valais towns such as Crans Montana and Evolène or Flums in the canton of St. Gallen. As well as (we will deal with it in a little more closely) in the Italian-speaking parts of the country.
. Which cantons are less favorable (but where the ‘yes’ has still won)? Appenzell Innerrhoden (49.18% of ‘no’), Ticino (47.08% of ‘no’), Valais (44.49% of ‘no’).
MORE RESISTANCE IN ITALIAN SWITZERLAND
. In the Canton of Ticino, with a participation of 47.95%, there were 55,303 ‘yes’ and 49,203 ‘no’. In the Grisons, with a participation of 37.25%, the ‘yes’ were 41,341 and the ‘no’ 24,536 (a bad result both for participation and for the outcome also for the diocese of Chur, headed by the new and controversial bishop Bonnemain).
. Let’s stay with the Grisons. In the Italian-speaking valleys there are several contrary municipalities, such as Poschiavo (58.13% of ‘no’), Brusio, Roveredo, Soazza, Lostallo and others.
. In Ticino there were thirty municipalities against. In others the difference in favor of the ‘yes’ was of a few units, as in the Lugano ‘belt’ in Massagno (774 to 767), Savosa (347 to 342), Lamone (215 to 212) and in the Mendrisiotto, at Riva San Vitale (443 to 442). Even in Biasca the gap was minimal: 662 ‘yes’ and 656 ‘no’. As for the cities: in Bellinzona (which now also includes Giubiasco and other municipalities) 6698 ‘yes’ and 5334 ‘no’, in Lugano 8178 ‘yes’ and 7732 ‘no’, in Locarno (whose town hall with a shameful act of institutional bullying had displayed the rainbow flag from the balcony during the election campaign) 2205 i ‘yes’ and 1790 i ‘no’.
. It is worth mentioning with praise the municipalities in which the proposal did not pass: these are situations in particular in the Leventina and Blenio valleys, in the Maggia Valley, but also in other areas such as the ‘belt’ of Locarno – see Muralto, Brione sopra Minusio, Brissago – and Lugano – see Canobbio, Cureglia, Grancia, Porza, Collina d’Oro: Cadenazzo (50.35%), Isone (64.03%), Acquarossa (54.43%), Blenio (66.14% ), Serravalle (54.24%), Airolo (60.54%), Bedretto (75.00%), Dalpe (58.70%), Faido (51.02%), Giornico (61.40%), Prato Leventina (51.47%), Quinto (50.92%), Brione Sopra Minusio (52.82%), Brissago (51.20%), Muralto (52.69%), Brusino Arsizio (50.86%) ), Canobbio (52.72%), Cureglia (56.65%), Grancia (53.79%), Mezzovico-Vira (51.46%), Morcote (52.48%), Porza (50.92%) ), Collina d’Oro (52.49%), Monteceneri (50.62%), Tresa (53.73%), Morbio Inferiore (50.07%), Riviera (50.79%), Bosco Gurin (68 , 18%), Linescio (57.89), Lavizzara (66.67%).
SAN MARINO: A DEFEAT? NO, ONE BATOSTA.
We dealt with the subject last week in https://www.rossoporpora.org/rubriche/vaticano/1036-aborto-san-marino-al-voto-parla-don-mangiarotti.html .
. There were 35,411 registered in the catalog: 22,970 internal voters and 12,441 foreign voters, not resident in San Marino.
. 41.11% of those registered in the catalog voted, or 14,558 out of 35411 (60.30% of internal and 5.69% of residents abroad).
. The ‘yes’ to the referendum question were 11,119 (77.30%), the ‘no’ 3,265 (22.70%).
. In the 9 districts, the ‘yes’ are included between 72.95% of Chiesanuova and 81.76% of Faetano. Domestic voters voted ‘yes’ at 77.26%, foreign voters at 78.06%. Overall, the ‘yes’ results were 77.30%: this means that the esters accounted for 0.04% on the final result, contrary to what the well-known paper product titled this morning and on line master in media lynchings (aka The Republic): “The votes of young emigrants are decisive”.
. It is striking that, on such an important matter, only 60.30% of the interns went to the polls. From what has been observed, if the influx of women and young people (‘educated’ by social and therefore children of fluid times), there was a great lack of voters over forty, indifferent to the flow of history. Of course the overall outcome would not have changed, but at least it would have been less indecent.
. The final result suggests that the opponents also lacked the votes of several self-defined Catholics and / or Christian Democrats (the party of relative to San Marino, lined up for the ‘no’): a certain laziness (guilty) of some parishes seems to emerge , despite the great work of priests such as Don Gabriele Mangiarotti and the final appeal of Bishop Andrea Turazzi. And it is not a pretty sight for those who are Catholics (and not cattofluido).
. There is only one aspect of the referendum campaign that is positive: the continuous and total commitment of the Committee members One of us, which could give some hope for future opportunities. The first deadline is already upon us. Within six months, the State Congress (executive of San Marino) will have to draft a bill on the subject, in the sense approved by the electorate. Among the most important, fundamental issues, that of eugenic abortion, that of abortion of minors without parental consent, the recognition of conscientious objection. There the Committee will be able to continue to exercise information and persuasion, so that whoever is called to decide does so according to humanity and reason.