The Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale) has said yes to Arengo Instance 47, opening the way to a San Marino law on the rectification of gender in civil registers and official documents. But the vote has also produced a political understanding that extends well beyond the ruling majority: Pdcs, Alleanza Riformista, Libera, Psd, Repubblica Futura and independent councillors Giovanna Cecchetti and Michela Pelliccioni have signed a joint motion (ordine del giorno) spelling out how the future legislation should be framed. Left outside the agreement is Rete, which backs the Instance but firmly opposes the motion.
The starting point is the current legal vacuum in San Marino. State Secretary Andrea Belluzzi, announcing the government’s favourable opinion, explained that there is currently no organic legislative framework and that cases handled so far have required recourse to the courts. In some instances, citizens holding a second nationality completed the process abroad and subsequently obtained recognition of the foreign ruling in San Marino.
The Instance therefore calls for rules to be defined for rectifying male and female gender in civil status registers and documents for those who have undergone a gender-affirmation process. The Council approved this request at the end of a debate that revealed differing sensitivities but also fairly broad political consensus on the need to act.
It is the motion, however, that shifts the discussion onto more strictly political ground. The document is the result of cross-party work and was signed by both majority and opposition forces. It builds on precedents already set, in cases where the Civil Status Office amended the documents of citizens who had completed their transition abroad on the basis of medical documentation, a foreign court ruling and subsequent recognition (delibazione) by San Marino’s Single Court (Tribunale Unico).
From there, the motion sets out the path toward the new law. The government will have to open a working table between the State Secretariats for Internal Affairs, Justice and Health, first reviewing the criteria, methods and procedures used to date. By February 2027, the necessary legislative amendments to regulate the transition process must be drafted.
The path outlined in the motion envisages that a change of gender could be officially recognised on the basis of medical documentation certifying the completion of the process, followed by a step before a judicial authority, which would be responsible for authorising the change of gender. At that point, the Civil Status Office would proceed with the transcription. The document also introduces another substantial point: coverage of healthcare costs for those undergoing the process, including the possibility of entering into agreements with healthcare services in Italian regions.
The political rationale behind the approach was outlined by Manuel Ciavatta of Pdcs, who said the goal was to build a rigorous procedure, with clearly defined medical and legal conditions and the backing of the public healthcare system. Matteo Rossi of Psd described the outcome as the result of intense negotiation and an “excellent mediation,” highlighting how differing political sensitivities – Catholic, Socialist and Liberal – managed to find common ground.
Support for the motion indeed cuts across party lines. Repubblica Futura backs both the Instance and the motion, while calling for particular attention to the criteria to be included in the future legislation. Antonella Mularoni stressed the need for medical certification and clear rules, while Sara Conti called for a law that is “rigorous” in verifying the stability of the choice while remaining respectful of the individual.
Libera is also among the signatories of the motion. During the debate, Dalibor Riccardi warned that he would not support documents designed to “delay, water down or shelve the issue through watered-down political compromises,” while Giulia Muratori insisted on the need to move beyond the current limbo and establish clear rules, equal for everyone, accompanied by the necessary healthcare, psychological and privacy safeguards.
Alleanza Riformista also firmly defended the value of the motion. Maria Luisa Berti claimed the party’s direct contribution to drafting it and rejected the idea that it amounted to an unnecessary step: for Ar, the document serves to chart an operational path and turn the yes vote on the Instance into a concrete legislative measure.
The clear dissenting voice comes from Rete. The movement voted in favour of the Instance but did not sign or support the motion. According to Emanuele Santi, citizens’ request is already sufficiently clear, and the motion risks setting further “constraints,” turning implementation into an “obstacle course.”
Even harsher was Gian Matteo Zeppa, who described the motion as an “improper appropriation,” reading into its presentation an attempt to “smooth over internal disagreements” and strike a political balance between differing positions. According to Rete, once the Instance was approved, it would have been enough to work directly on the implementing law, without adding a further political document.
The debate also featured more cautious positions on the substance of the matter. Domani – Motus Liberi gave its councillors a free vote. Gaetano Troina personally announced he would vote against, calling for a closer examination of the legal consequences of the rectification, while Fabio Righi raised a long series of questions on the preservation of original data, privacy, databases, health and statistical effects, and the need to guarantee both personal dignity and legal certainty.
In the end, Instance 47 was approved by majority vote. Immediately afterward, the motion was also passed, again by majority.
The political outcome is therefore twofold: the Council has given the green light to the request to provide San Marino with rules on gender rectification, and a large part of the Chamber has already indicated the framework within which it should be built. A law by February 2027, medical certification of the completed process, judicial authorisation, transcription at the Civil Status Office and coverage of healthcare costs are the points set out in the motion. And it is precisely over these conditions that the main political divide plays out: for the signatories, they represent the way to turn the vote into concrete action; for Rete, they risk complicating a request that should have been implemented directly.
