"The positions of the KKE on the civil marriage of same-sex couples and its effects on the rights of children"
29 Jan 2024
1. The KE of the KKE discussed the Party's position regarding the government's bill given on 25 January 2024 in the public consultation on "Equality in civil marriage, amendment of the Civil Code and other provisions". The provisions of the draft law highlight what the main issue is sought to be resolved.
The draft law does not concern the social recognition of the possibility of same-sex couples to choose a form of cohabitation and the law regulates some personal, financial and social relations between them. It does not concern the need to break the social prejudice against them, which may make it difficult for them to choose cohabitation, for example the difficulties to rent a house, to get a job, etc.
Without any doubt, now, the institutionalization of the civil marriage of same-sex couples comes to advance the recognition of their joint parental responsibility, as we already predicted in 2015, when the Cohabitation Agreement was extended to same-sex couples. However, this recognition of the joint parental responsibility of same-sex couples can only come about by bypassing the objective complementarity of woman - man in the reproduction of the species, in procreation.
Article 10 legalizes the commercialization of procreation and procreation in order to circumvent the motherhood-paternity relationship. By enacting the recognition of the commercialized use of "surrogacy" by same-sex male couples in another country, as well as the recognition of in vitro fertilization through a sperm bank for same-sex female couples, the bill essentially further fuels the commercialization of the process of having children.
The same applies to childbearing (adoption). Given that the applications for adoption by couples or individuals are many times more than the children who are up for adoption in child protection structures, the way is essentially opened for the trafficking of refugee children, but also from countries that are starving, that do not have or do not apply contraceptive measures and human life in general, especially infant and child life, is trivialized.
Therefore, the first main reason for the KKE's refusal to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples, which enshrines joint parental care, is the commercialization of procreation and adoption.
A second, equally basic and interrelated, reason is that in practice, the articles of the bill bypass the child's social right to the mother-paternity relationship, as an evolving bio-social relationship.
2. Our Party considers that parenthood is the relationship between the parent and the child, which on an individual level reflects the existing social relationships. The basis of the position of the KKE is the rights of the child, i.e. his social need to have ties with his mother and father. This need has an objective basis: The bilateral relationship of motherhood - fatherhood, resulting from the complementary function of man - woman in the procreation process. Laws enacted must support this right and not subvert it.
The dialectical-materialist approach to the motherhood-paternity relationship does not mean either absolute biology, but neither does it deny this complementarity. The relationship between motherhood and fatherhood is exclusively human, beyond the instinctive protection that every mammal provides to its young. This complementary relationship has a natural basis - because man reproduces naturally - and from the first moment acquires a social character.
Man is a social natural being, i.e. the satisfaction of his natural needs, as well as social needs, can be achieved exclusively in a social way. So human motherhood and human fatherhood are inscribed in the species 'man'. Man is the totality of his social relations, a fact that does not negate the biological being, but includes it. This means that fatherhood and motherhood cannot be seen detached from both biological background and social relations.
As man develops socially, the more consciously he has to deal with the individual responsibility in procreation, to realize his responsibility for the new life, which is objectively dependent on the parents and especially on the mother for a significant period of time. The exclusion of human-social motherhood means that motherhood is removed as a conquest of man's centuries-long development.
We are not referring to the concepts of motherhood and fatherhood as social roles, which are certainly different depending on the character of each society, depending on the level of development of the productive forces, which also determines the way of material production. It is also reflected in the forms of social coexistence, such as in the family, therefore also in the social, legal, cultural relations that surround procreation. From the slave society to capitalism, the social position of the woman was limited to the role of the wife, only to have children and take care of them, to deal with the close family tasks and not with the wider social work. It is about the subjugation of women to men for thousands of years (an issue that also concerned the exploiting ruling class or the free individual producer). Of course, modern capitalist society also reproduces female inequality in modern forms.
In capitalism, with the mass inclusion of women in wage labor or self-employment, which objectively brought about the relative economic independence of women from male family members (father, brother, husband), with the corresponding legal modernization, the social content also evolved of motherhood, but also of fatherhood: Motherhood as the main social role of women was receding, while paternal responsibility was being upgraded, especially for the working class and the popular sections of the middle classes of the city.
These developments were reflected in substantial changes in Law (Family, Labor, etc.), such as the abolition of laws enshrining women's inequality in marriage (adultery on her part, dowry, obligation to acquire the husband's surname, etc.), but also in the delayed institutionalization of joint parental care even for parents with free cohabitation. These were reserved in the Soviet Union, much later in the capitalist countries, as in Greece.
The formal joint right of men and women to work, the progressive changes in the Law - albeit with a greater delay in attitudes - rightly brought about the expansion of the responsibilities of fatherhood not narrowly to financial responsibility for children, but to all matters of daily care . There is a tendency for the contribution of both parents in raising children. Of course, the objective changes in working and living conditions (hours, generalization of flexible labor relations) also had an effect, especially during the period of the previous capitalist economic crisis.
3. We consider that the main issue connected with civil marriage today is the social responsibility of motherhood and fatherhood, legally enshrined as joint parental responsibility. As the economic motivation of marriage weakens, as it relies more and more on the free choice of cohabitation (especially for the working, popular forces), only the institutional regulation of joint parental care remains as a necessity at the core of marriage. Parental care refers to overall responsibility for the child (upbringing, education, health, housing and includes the administration of the child's property, if there is such a separate one), either in the form of the natural parents or in their substitution by adoption (i.e. by legal act which transfers parental care of motherhood or fatherhood or both to adoptive parents).
The KKE is against the civil marriage of same-sex couples, because it guarantees parenthood to persons of the same sex, it leads to the exclusion of either motherhood or fatherhood. It establishes dual parental maternity or dual parental paternity respectively. The concept of dual same-sex parenthood essentially cuts off the concept of parental responsibility from its objective social and biological basis. That is why in 2015 the KKE criticized, objected and voted against the cohabitation agreement for same-sex couples, predicting that it would be a prelude to civil marriage and childbearing.
The non-institutionalization of civil marriage for same-sex couples does not constitute inequality, since the transfer of parental care of one of the divorced to the new spouse of the other does not apply to the children of divorced heterosexual couples, even if they live together, even if the child receives feelings or substantial care from him/her. In the case of a separated heterosexual couple with children, the children's relationships with their parents' new partners does not result in either an exclusion of motherhood or paternity, or parentage 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. The child's relationship with his mother and father should not be hindered by dysfunctional relationships between them when they are not living together. But this too is not a matter of exclusively interpersonal relationships, because they also reflect social ones. The state must shape the conditions (economic, wider social, legal, cultural) to ensure the essential implementation of maternal and paternal responsibility. Therefore, even in procreation there are certain social criteria in each time period and country.
In the case of procreation by a single person - a woman or a man and not a couple - the substitution of the biological mother or biological father is certainly presented unilaterally, therefore incomplete. But it does not lead to double motherhood, double fatherhood or even triple or even multiple parenthood - parent 1, parent 2, parent 3, etc. - which is already the case in some states.
This possibility was also promoted by the recent decision of the European Parliament (14/12/2023) on the so-called "European Certificate of Parental Relationship", which recognizes the parental relationship of the child with more than two parents, even with "persons who claim to be his parents'.
It is a great simplification to suggest that the social development, as well as the emotional state of the child, depend only on the given love of the same-sex partners, or to present their relationship as idealized, free from pathogenic elements, such as friction and even violence, which characterize heterosexual couples. These views consciously or unconsciously involve denigration of one sex, denigration of either fatherhood or motherhood.
The mental and physical-spiritual health and social development of children clearly cannot be ensured by a system that measures the needs of workers and children, as well as pensioners, on the basis of "cost-benefit" from the point of view of capitalist competitiveness . Therefore, in these circumstances we cannot make comparisons between "happy and balanced" children of heterosexual couples and "unhappy" ones living with same-sex couples, and vice versa. On the contrary, what urban-oriented research also confirms is the fact that successive deep and globally synchronized economic crises - and not only - are accompanied by an increase in adolescent prostitution, boys and girls, violence and delinquency, drug addiction, alcoholism, various other kinds of addictions (eg gambling, internet).
4. Nowadays, scientific achievements, the possibility of intervention in the egg and the sperm, in the DNA, bring to the social-political level new bioethical dilemmas. As with all new scientific knowledge and the corresponding technological achievements, they can be used to rapidly increase social well-being or to hinder or even destroy it: Questions are already being raised about the possibility of fully technologically reproducing humans in laboratory conditions as and issues of intervention in the genetic code, pre-determination of characteristics, etc., i.e. with elements of eugenics. In this sense, Medically Assisted Reproduction (MART) can, on the one hand, be used to combat infertility, to fulfill motherhood - paternity, but, on the other hand, to exploit, motivated by capitalist profit, the which leads to the egg-sperm trade, to the commercialization of artificial insemination, mainly to the commercialized use of the "surrogate mother", one of the most extreme forms of exploitation of the female body.
This is a profitable field with global networking. Within the framework of the capitalist market no rules can be introduced into this process. It is characteristic that in Greece certain insurance diclides of 2002 were also abolished with successive legislative provisions, which we also voted against for heterosexual couples. In fact, with these laws the state fueled and continues to fuel the profits of the respective business giants, reproductive medical tourism in Greece.
This process can lead to its uncontrolled use and fuel the consciously intended rupture of the motherhood-paternity dialectical relationship, which is based on the biological complementarity of woman-man in the reproductive process.
We consider that "surrogate motherhood", only as an exception, can be followed, with a set of very strict conditions and specifications (medical reasons, family ties with the woman carrying the child, judicial permission, protection of the health of the surrogate woman and the child, scientific, social research on the path of emotional and social development of the child, but also of the surrogate woman). Of course, as long as commercialization dominates in Health and IHA, these conditions, unfortunately, cannot be guaranteed.
5. A special issue is the arrangements for the relationships of children with their parents' partners (in heterosexual and same-sex couples):
The Party monitors modern developments in cohabitation relationships between people who have children. According to the current legal framework, the father and the mother have joint parental responsibility for the children born in marriage, in a cohabitation agreement or recognized either voluntarily by the father, or after a court decision, which is issued after treatment. In the case of adoption of a child by a single person, the future spouse acquires joint parental responsibility only if he subsequently adopts the child himself. At the same time, the child's relationships are formed with people who do not exercise parental care, but are in daily contact with him. These are the new partners of divorced parents (either married or living together, or simply living together) or the partners of adoptive or foster parents, who may have a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation.
In these cases, in order to solve a series of issues of everyday life and the needs of the child, the cooperation of the cohabitants is required, both with each other and with the natural parents. These are actions that to a large extent are already being implemented in practice. For example, for the regulation of parental care after the death of the natural or adoptive parent - if there is no second natural parent - his or her partner can take over the guardianship, which is essentially no different from taking over parental care, if the a parent designates him for this purpose either by will, or by his statement to a justice of the peace or to a notary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code on the Commission (c. 2 art. 1592 AK). The trustee has the duties of custody of the child (1603AK) just like the natural parent. In the counter-argument that "it is an additional legal process", we argue that it is necessary, from the point of view of the rights of the protection of the child which do not always coincide with the wishes of the one claiming parental care.
Based on the above, it appears that a number of existing legislative arrangements that are in force solve in practice issues raised by parties, media and MKD. At the same time, the KKE clarifies that where issues of regulation of everyday life are identified in the coexistence of children - natural or adopted - and partners/cohabitants of their parents in same-sex couples, such situations can be addressed by improving the relevant legislative regulations, without bypassing or to negate the principle of joint parental care of motherhood - fatherhood, produced by the biological relationship of man - woman in the reproductive process.
In addition, we note that in general, in today's conditions of a large increase in divorces and estranged spouses, the issues of regulating the child's relationships both with the people who exercise parental care and with those who live with the child, but do not exercise parental care or even guardianship, are complex and not all can be solved mainly by permanent legislative regulations. This was also confirmed in the case of the "compulsory co-custody" of children by their natural parents after divorce or termination of cohabitation, which created more problems than it solved in the way it was institutionalized. There are many issues of "abuse" of custody (neglect, abuse and even sexual violence) by people who legally or de facto have custody responsibilities.
All these issues are not narrowly "individual - family", as often perceived by natural or adoptive parents, but are social based on the independent interest of the child. However, the operation of the social welfare services falls far short in terms of the structures and means of support for parental care and custody, control over its exercise from the birth of the child or its adoption, through all structures of Preschool Education and Education, of Health and especially Psychiatric Centers, with specialized services for infants, children and adolescents.
6. In the positions of both representatives of the government and the social democratic parties, there is a great distortion in what constitutes a real right to marriage and procreation. We consider the claim that the different regulation of different situations violates the equal rights of citizens to be misleading.
Marriage constituted the institutional matrix of procreation. The satisfaction of human sexuality is not identical with procreation. In this sense, it was not the main motive behind the institutionalization of marriage in any socio-economic formation, originally involving the propertied classes. Then, from late feudalism to late capitalism, it gradually extended to the labor-people forces. Marriage - family as a social unit that included the reproduction of the species, was an institution that was determined - and to a significant extent still continues today - by the circumstances and needs of social production - distribution, the character of social relations.
That is why the KKE's refusal to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples is not related to the sexual orientation of each and every one, to their attitude towards homosexuality or bisexuality as an expression of sexuality. We remind you, after all, that the KKE has made legislative proposals and developed political actions, in order to abolish any form of isolation, condemning all forms of racism towards people of same-sex sexual orientation. We oppose the exclusion of homosexuals from apprenticeship, work, housing, access to any social - cultural - sporting or other activity. The KKE opposes any kind of division based on race, gender, color, religion, nation, sexual orientation, with the basic criterion being the need for class unity of the working class, the common interests of the great majority of the Greek people, of all peoples of the world. This essential position of our Party is attempted to be misinterpreted, to appear as contradictory, because of our objection to same-sex couples through civil marriage acquiring the right to have children together, etc.
An abyss separates the position of the KKE from "homophobic" perceptions and corresponding practices, from the medieval ecclesiastical perception of extramarital sexuality - especially for women - as well as homosexuality.
The Church's opposition to the civil marriage of same-sex couples is done from the point of view that it considers homosexuality a "sin", arguing that it "contradicts" the "God-given" complementarity of man-woman and the "God-given" institution of marriage, to form, as he says, conditions of love and balance between the spouses and also in their relationship with the children.
But the disagreements of civil forces in the relevant law are also expressed, to defend marriage as the "institutional cocoon" of the nuclear family as a fundamental economic-social unit.
The KKE, as a revolutionary labor party, in its 105 years of history has proven that in a general direction it fought strongly ideologically - politically but also practically through its forces for the formation of the new man, who conquers communist ethics - and not only ideology - who fights against his weaknesses, who does not theorize his individual particularity (even in relation to his sexuality) and does not develop his "I" at the expense of the class and revolutionary collectivity.
The KKE achieved its greatest such conquests in conditions of sharpening of the class struggle, such as in the period of the DSE, in prisons and exiles, making an incision on the issue of respect and the promotion of women in social action, in the class, political struggle, protection of the children. Such conquests are a legacy for the class struggle in today's new complex and contradictory conditions, a source of communist awareness and morality for young men and women, for the defense and development of the Party's revolutionary workers' identity.
7. In the direction of misinterpretation of the position of the KKE, forces are leading the way, which in the name of "individual rights" obscure the relationship between individual and social rights, and deny the social content of every individual right. No individual right can be detached from exploitative, capitalist relations. All civil institutions, including the legal ones, are based on the capitalist economy of class inequality.
At the same time, these views are used to cultivate at the individual level a "blurred", fluid, classless identity of the individual without any objective basis.
The social democratic forces, which present themselves as defenders of "individual rights", in practice legitimize the extreme exploitation of women and the commercialization of the body through commercial surrogacy, as confirmed by the relevant SYRIZA law proposal. At the same time, from government positions they even contributed to the cover-up of police abuses against people of same-sex sexual orientation.
SYRIZA and PASOK, New Left, as they have supported the ND government on key issues (memorandums, Recovery Fund, US-NATO-EU imperialist plans in Ukraine, Israel's support for the massacre of the Palestinian people, etc.) that is how they are playing now the role of the "left" supporter of government policy, replicating the dominant direction of the commercialization of human reproduction, established in the USA, in the EU on the backs of NATO. As for the far-right formations, recycling anachronistic views on the family, they are a "useful alibi" for the ND.
8. Based on the above, questions are raised about the intensity of misinformation in relation to these issues on the part of politicians, parliamentarians, former or current ministers: Why is objective positioning not attempted based on existing legislation/jurisprudence/regulations, etc.? Why is their improvement not sought? Why do forces that lead the infringement of social and individual rights appear today as defenders of "rights" and so-called "equality"? Why is this debate deliberately chosen by the government to be almost single-issue at this time?
We believe that this discussion not only does not contribute to the elimination of reprehensible social practices against people with homosexual or bisexual sexuality (alienation, violence, etc.), but on the contrary it can even lead to the intensity of disgusting homophobic, racist attacks. Essentially, what is being sought is the disorientation in relation to class rights, their assertion by the organized movement, the deconstruction of the social characteristics of the personality, negatively affecting the social composition of the young, tomorrow's workers. In this way men and women can be more easily manipulated by the capitalist system. It is the other side of the promotion of new anti-work - anti-people regulations in all economic and wider social issues (Education, Health, Welfare, protection from natural phenomena, safety in water supply, Energy, transport infrastructures, etc.).
We also consider problematic the dominant line of the system connecting the assertion of dual same-sex parenthood with the generalized promotion of theories - and through the educational system - that downplay or even deny the objective biological difference of men and women, i.e. theories of "social construction of gender". We clarify that the idealistic-metaphysical view that gender is socially constructed is one thing, and the dialectical-materialist explanation of the social position and behavior of men and women and the perceptions of their social role, which are formed in each historically given economic organization of society, is another. . Another thing is gender dysphoria, intersex children, in which there are objective characteristics, and another is the theories about "broad gender spectrum".
Such views, promoted by the self-proclaimed LGBTI leadership, attempt to lump together people with different class interests and political positions, with different expressions of sexuality, etc.
These irrational, unscientific theories serve the goals of capital manifold. They cultivate the disconnection of man from any objective determination (eg gender, class, etc.) and facilitate his manipulation within the system. They present as an individual right even the acceptance of the transformation of the human body by adding implants to connect it with other workers, with the internet and other "intelligent machines", for capitalist profitability. That is, in modern conditions they serve to expand the commercialization of changes in the human body, while it does not exist as a need for medical reasons. In this direction, the modern capitalist power uses the new scientific and technological achievements, not to reduce the general working time and improve working and living conditions, but also to deconstruct the social class consciousness.
The new scientific-technological possibilities, instead of being used for the well-being of the workers, are exploited in a perverse - anti-social direction, in order to serve the interests of capital. For example, faced with the lack of substantial social support for childbearing at the most fertile age, egg cryopreservation or the prospect of laboratory pregnancy are presented as a "solution" to the woman's stay at work and the intensity of her exploitation.
It is no coincidence that all this is channeled, tested, promoted by the most powerful centers of the international imperialist system, such as the EU, the USA, the UK. They are embedded in a whole nexus of big financial interests, funding, propaganda, which embraces all spheres of economic, political, cultural, intellectual life, with the aim of integration, disorientation and manipulation. On the other hand, in the emerging imperialist Eurasian bloc, Russia follows the opposite direction, under the ideological guise of "defending traditional values".
It is noteworthy that government officials, in order to promote the bill, resort to crude anti-Sovietism and anti-communism, linking its promotion with the further integration of our country into the "camp" of Euro-Atlanticism. They implicitly recognize that a fierce intra-imperialist contest is underway around these issues, linked both to capitalist interests in the global biotechnology market and to the ideological cover by which capitalist interests are promoted.
All this is accompanied by ideas that systematically obscure the capitalist motive, present "black and white", the maintenance and the new reactionization of capitalism as progress, in order to achieve the manipulation of the working-people masses, especially the youth, who lack deeper historical knowledge but also class experience.
At the same time, private and state bodies do not orient the public debate, the corresponding interest in contemporary problems in the relations of the two sexes, which are also connected with the generalized participation of women in social work, which has a progressive character, but objectively shapes new needs in the work-maternity/paternity relationship. Much more since there is no corresponding social support policy, the corresponding economic, social conditions so that young women and young men do not avoid having children at their most fertile age.
A deeper investigation of the relevant political and scientific debate within the EU and internationally, their concern with the crisis of the "heterosexual nuclear family" is definitely needed. The capitalist system still needs her to take care of children almost entirely, covering the lack of comprehensive and diverse free social support structures for parents and children.
In the 21st century, children generally do not need "caregivers". The modern worker - woman and man - should not be deprived of the happiness of the new life, because he is condemned to chase degrees and certificates for life in order to have a job without hours, without holidays, not being able to leave the house of of his parents and to supplement his income from his parents until he is 30 years old and above.
9. Conclusions about the specific draft law:
--We do not agree with the draft law of the government of ND, as well as with the proposal of law submitted by SYRIZA on the civil marriage of same-sex couples. We will vote against it on principle.
--The ND's proposals not only do not solve the critical issues of the commercialization of procreation and procreation by same-sex couples, which de facto leads to the abolition of the child's right to motherhood - paternity, but on the contrary they obscure and reproduce them to a superlative degree. With different reasoning and different escalation steps, they lead to the implementation of the Kasselakis proposal, since they pave the way for child trafficking (through adoption, etc.), for recourse to illegal methods of surrogacy or to recourse to foreign countries where the procedure is permitted, with all that this implies, opening the pouch of Aeolus, even reaching eugenics. Finally, in addition to the above, we must point out that the institutionalization of civil marriage for same-sex couples is a condition for future appeals to Greek courts and the European Court (ECHR), in order to implement the whole agenda in the name of eliminating discrimination.
--So, speaking of marriage in its current development, the axis of the KKE policy is the institutionalized regulation of joint parental care based on the interests of the child and not on the narrow individual wishes of the parents.
--We continue to fight for the necessary state, social protection of children, for the development of a network of state, free social services with a focus on prevention, with the recruitment of permanent psychologists, social workers in school units, university faculties, workplaces, sports and cultural structures. Particular importance must be given to childhood and adolescence, with the development of a special social service staffed with a team of scientists to monitor the psycho-intellectual and physical development of children, adolescents and young people.
--We claim arrangements that will improve the relationship of the child with the partner of the natural or adoptive parent in everyday life.
--We raise a shield of protection within the collective, organized struggle of the labor, popular, student, student movement against any social isolation and racist attack of people based on gender, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation and other personal traits, highlighting the class root of social inequalities.
The Central Committee of the KKE
26/1/2024
https://www-kke-gr.translate.goog/artic ... r_pto=wapp