The Children of Padua
I think I have already written what the media strategy of the current Italian government is: the Cagnara. They don't know how to do it in Romagna? No problem: a big row about the commissioner's name (Bonaccini or not), then a row about the money (but do you trust him to give it to him?), and when something arrives in Romagna from Rome they will have already finished rebuilding and will be at the table with the flatbread.
The same happens with Mes, Cagnara which is created every time we talk about PNRR, and so on. A racket is created so as to occupy all the broadcasts and newspapers: the racket takes up all the space, while there is none left to talk about real problems.
And let it be clear, this is also convenient for the so-called "Opposition", who, having nothing to say on real issues, enjoy this recreation.
The latest uproar, made to avoid who knows what other discussion, is that of children raised by homoparental families, and by the so-called surrogate uterus.
Now, perhaps you expect me to explain what the state should do, what legislation should be made, or what the state should do about it. If you think this, I think you are wrong. Because I have a habit of tackling problems ab initio , and the point is that I do, I discover that the problem itself is a logical fallacy.
The problem is not whether or not the state should recognize families, which ones and when. The real problem is:
but what the fuck does the state have to do with the family?
Why does it have to be the state to recognize the family? If n people decide to live together, to raise children together, and to help each other in case of bad luck, what exactly does the state have to do with it?
A government that decides if and when a person can belong to a family is like a government that decides if you can support Juve, love your dog, or go on a diet. What the fuck does the government have to do with it?
As I see it, none of the decisions required to live together, raise children together, help each other, require the state to get in the way. And here is the point: if we see that the state has to discipline the family, it's only because it's doing it, and even too much.
Take for example the history of hospital visits, which are only allowed if you are a relative of the sick person. Tell me: what problem does it solve? Is there a problem with people who visit patients at random in life? Do we have the Visiting Brigades carrying out attacks by going to the hospital to celebrate the birthday of unsuspecting patients?
Even more ridiculous is the question of "who is going to pick up the child from school". Isn't it enough to ask that he is legally the guardian? Do we have the problem of braces that don't work because they're the wrong gender? What problem are we trying to solve by enforcing guardian gender?
Even the story that children need a family with a father and mother of different sexes – what problem is he trying to solve, exactly. Is there a problem of badly raised or badly educated children because the parents are gay? Which are the numbers? What happens, exactly, in practice, to these children?
But let's go to the basics: what does the state have to do with it?
So, I want to live with someone, and should I ask the state to acknowledge this fact? Why, exactly? What problems does it solve for me? You will tell me that then I will need the family certificate for this and that, and that I will need a marriage certificate for the family coefficient wanted by the taxman, but evidently you are forgetting that these two "problems" that I should solve thanks to the state, are problems that come from the state itself. I don't need any tax coefficient, nor do I need a family certificate: it is the state that needs it to do other things, many of which are not, in turn, the answer to my need.
And if we take away that the state forces you to do things that solve other problems of the state, the question remains unanswered:
because it is the state that decides what a family is,
when could it simply recognize whichever group it decides to be, assigning it a set of duties? (eg: raising children, mutual solidarity, coexistence) .
The problem of the children of Padua is not that the state should recognize the two guardians or not, the two parents or not, or whatever: the problem is that it is not clear why it is the state that has to do it, and not , I don't know, the SIAE, or the IEEE, or the Rinascente warehouses.
What makes the state the body that has to decide what a family is, exactly? What precise merit or quality does the state have to consider it the body that decides on what a family is?
People will now say that everything is done "for the good of the children".
But who do you want to fuck with?
If you ever gave a damn about children, you'd have enough nursery schools, enough places to socialize, enough schools, enough future . You wouldn't let them drown in the Mediterranean, and they wouldn't be sleeping in abandoned hotels in Florence, or begging on the street. If you gave a damn about children having the best parents, can you explain to me why you don't take the children away from criminals, mafiosi, tax evaders?
You never gave a shit about the good of the children. And you certainly didn't change your mind last night.
So, let's go back to the first point: since the state is unworthy of taking care of children, due to blatant carelessness, incompetence and sloppiness, why should the state decide what is a family and what is not?
Historically, it is a legacy of the Papal state. There are countries where they give a shit about it happily, like India, where if you're married you know it and the particular priest who married you knows it and the families know it, but the state doesn't know shit. (*)
And they live and reproduce just the same.
There is no logical reason why the state should deal with the relationship between adults and vaccinated individuals, and if we are talking about children, the state should intervene only if they are in material difficulty.
The problem with everything that is happening in Padua is not that the state is right or left, bigoted or progressive, modern or retrograde.
The problem is only one: that the state doesn't mind its own business.
(*) When you ask an Indian who wants to get married for a certificate stating that he is not already married in India, or you will receive a homemade piece of paper, or you will be told that the Indian state doesn't give a fuck about you .