A yes, a no, and a motion attempting to chart a third way. That is the outcome of the lengthy debate in the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale) on same-sex parent families, with Popular Initiatives (Istanze d’Arengo) 48 and 49 discussed together but ending up, when it came to the vote, on two very different tracks.
Instance 48 was approved by a majority. The request concerns establishing rules for registering in San Marino birth or adoption certificates issued abroad for families with same-sex parents. Instance 49, however, did not pass. It goes further into the territory of parental responsibility, calling for rules governing the registration of both parents in same-sex parent families. Here the Chamber’s verdict was clear-cut: 14 in favour, 23 against and 14 abstentions.
Two closely related requests, but politically very different — and it is precisely this distinction that shaped much of the debate.
The government, through Secretary of State Andrea Belluzzi, had expressed support for both proposals, placing the condition of minors at the centre of its reasoning. The executive’s argument starts from the idea of “children who exist regardless” of political judgments on the choices made by adults, and who, for that very reason, must be able to count on a clear legal status. On Instance 48, the issue concerns validly formed foreign acts that face obstacles when incorporated into San Marino’s legal system; Instance 49, on the other hand, moves into recognition of the second parental figure and the question of stepchild adoption.
And this is where the Chamber began to split.
The compromise position was put in writing in a motion co-signed by the PDCS, PSD, Alleanza Riformista, and independent councillors Giovanna Cecchetti and Michela Pelliccioni. Presenting it was Luca Lazzari of the PSD: the approach separates judgment on the means by which filiation came about from the need to protect the child who already exists regardless.
The motion therefore does not immediately give the green light to recognising dual parenthood, but instead tasks the government with a series of assessments. It must examine the registration of acts formed abroad, evaluate the institution of “semi-full” adoption (adozione semiplena), determine whether further legislative measures are needed, and finally report to the competent parliamentary committee by February 2027.
A path that convinces part of the Chamber and irritates another.
Michela Pelliccioni clearly marked the difference between the two requests: yes to Instance 48, but greater reservations on Instance 49, which she considered more binding than the review process envisaged by the motion. Manuel Ciavatta also clarified the PDCS position: in favour of Instance 48, against Instance 49, and in favour of the motion. The party is open to building a future San Marino framework, but asks that several elements be considered together: biological filiation, court rulings, and an assessment of the suitability of semi-full adoption.
On the opposite side stand Rete and Libera, who supported both Instances and opposed the motion.
For Emanuele Santi, the document is “strongly dilatory” and risks postponing a solution to the problem once again. Gian Matteo Zeppa attacked what he called “watered-down compromises” and accused part of the Chamber of hiding behind “rules, technicalities and rights” without putting “love” at the centre. Rete’s position therefore remained straightforward: yes to Instance 48, yes to Instance 49, no to the motion.
Libera held a similar position, though with different arguments. Dalibor Riccardi spoke of an “unacceptable compromise“, while Luca Della Balda specifically challenged the reference to semi-full adoption, reading the document as a vague postponement. Giuseppe Maria Morganti, by contrast, brought the discussion back to concrete consequences, speaking of “flesh-and-blood children” whose rights, he argued, must be legally protected.
Defending the compromise were Giovanna Cecchetti, who argued that a minor cannot “pay the price for differences between various legal systems”, and Silvia Cecchetti of the PSD, who also raised the balance of power within the Council: without a point of synthesis, she noted, some requests would not have gained the necessary votes. “The numbers in the Chamber are what they are.”
Alleanza Riformista, through Denise Bronzetti, also defended the compromise reached. When positions are far apart, she argued, politics must seek a synthesis, keeping “the exclusive and paramount interest of children” as its guiding principle.
In the middle lies the issue that, more than any other, inflamed the debate: surrogacy. The topic repeatedly resurfaced in the discussion on Instance 49, making it far harder to build a favourable majority.
Aida Maria Adele Selva of the PDCS recalled the Council’s previous stance against surrogate motherhood and insisted that the rights of the child must always come before the choices made by adults. Antonella Mularoni of Repubblica Futura urged colleagues to consider the rulings of the Court and the Guarantor Panel, and to carefully weigh the implications tied to surrogacy before drafting new legislation.
Within Repubblica Futura itself, differing sensitivities emerged. Sara Conti voted in favour of Instance 48 but expressed reservations about Instance 49 due to possible links with surrogacy, while stating she remained open to adoption by same-sex couples. Andrea Menicucci, by contrast, announced support for both and urged politicians to focus on the legal certainty owed to minors rather than on “chasing consensus”.
On the Domani – Motus Liberi side, Mirko Dolcini drew a distinction between two situations: on one hand, adoption of a child by two people of the same sex, and on the other, adoption of a partner’s child. In the latter case, he pointed to semi-full adoption as an institution already worth considering. Fabio Righi, meanwhile, insisted on the need to distinguish between formal and substantive equality, warning against automatically incorporating into San Marino’s legal system acts formed under the rules of other jurisdictions.
Bringing the debate back to real-world cases was Giulia Muratori of Libera: the issue, she argued, concerns children who already live within these families, and the legal responsibility of the adults raising them. Leaving the framework unregulated, in her view, means continuing to offload onto judges decisions that ought to be made by lawmakers.
Tomaso Rossini of the PSD backed both Instances, summing up his position this way: “The focal point of this debate should not be the sexual orientation of adults, but the best interests of the child.” Miriam Farinelli of Repubblica Futura, meanwhile, raised the specific case of couples made up of two women, in which one provides the genetic material and the other carries the pregnancy, questioning what legal recognition should be given to each figure.
Religion and Church social doctrine also entered the debate. Gaetano Troina of Domani – Motus Liberi objected to invoking the words of Popes to support political positions on the Instances, calling for the discussion to remain strictly political and legal.
In the end, though, it is the numbers that best capture the distance between the two issues, more than any speech. Instance 48 passed, opening the way to rules for birth and adoption certificates formed abroad. Instance 49 stopped at 14 votes in favour, against 23 opposed and 14 abstentions: the Council therefore did not accept the request to directly regulate parental responsibility and the registration of both parents in same-sex parent families.
The motion put forward by the PDCS, PSD, Alleanza Riformista, Giovanna Cecchetti and Michela Pelliccioni passed as well. And it is on that document that the real contest now shifts: foreign-formed acts, semi-full adoption, protections for minors and possible legislative amendments will have to be examined further by the government, with a report to committee due by February 2027.
The Council, in short, opened a door with Instance 48 but stopped short on Instance 49, choosing instead the path of further review for the rest. For its supporters, this compromise keeps the process open and allows for a shared legal solution to be sought; for Rete and Libera, however, it postpones an answer that should already have come with the vote on the Instances.
