It doesn’t settle the matter, but it does set out what the government must now do. After approving Motion 48 and rejecting Motion 49 on same-sex parent families, the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale) also passed, by majority vote, the agenda motion (ordine del giorno) presented by the PDCS, PSD, Alleanza Riformista, and independent councillors Giovanna Cecchetti and Michela Pelliccioni.
The document emerged as a point of compromise between differing political sensibilities and lays out, in writing, a series of reviews to be carried out by February 2027.
The motion starts from a clear principle: two separate levels must be kept distinct. On one side are the assessments San Marino’s legal system makes regarding how a parent-child relationship originated; on the other is the need to nonetheless guarantee the best interests of the child and legal certainty over their family relationships.
The first issue concerns birth and adoption records drawn up abroad. The government will have to clarify how San Marino’s laws on filiation, registration and transcription of such documents should be applied, also examining matters related to establishing biological parentage. This is the issue directly tied to Motion 48, which the Council approved.
The second chapter — and probably the more politically sensitive one — concerns “semiplena” adoption (a limited form of adoption under San Marino law). The motion calls for an assessment of whether this existing legal instrument is sufficient to protect the second parental figure and, above all, the child.
The review must cover four very concrete aspects: the child’s legal status, parental responsibility, inheritance rights and citizenship. If the review finds that the safeguards currently available are not enough, the government will have to consider further legislative measures to protect the child.
This is not, however, a blank slate. The document cites a ruling by the San Marino Court concerning an Italian judgment on the adoption of the child of a person in a civil union with a same-sex partner, achieved through the “semiplena” adoption instrument. It also notes that the Collegio Garante (the constitutional oversight body) has been called upon to rule on questions of legitimacy connected to the issues raised by the motions. These rulings, too, will have to feed into the preparatory work for any future legislation.
The matter will be handled by a working group involving the Secretariats of State for Internal Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Justice. Their mandate goes beyond San Marino’s existing laws: in drafting any proposals, they will also need to take into account the case law of the Court and the Collegio Garante, the Republic’s international obligations, and the effects of the association agreement with the European Union, particularly regarding the free movement of people and of legal situations established abroad.
Finally, there is a deadline. By February 2027, the government must report back to the relevant standing parliamentary committee, setting out the results of its review and any legislative proposals identified. No definitive legislative solution has therefore been decided today: the mandate is to examine the existing tools, assess their adequacy and, if necessary, propose new rules.
It is precisely on this point that the political rift emerged. For its sponsors, the motion offers a way to keep the issue alive after the rejection of Motion 49. Luca Lazzari of the PSD, presenting it, explained that the goal was to understand “how far it was possible to move forward today,” while keeping the door open to further legislative action.
Rete and Libera, however, see the document as a way of shelving the issue. Libera voted in favour of both motions but did not sign the agenda motion: Dalibor Riccardi called it a “watered-down political minimisation” and an “unacceptable compromise.”
The picture emerging from the Council chamber therefore remains split into two levels: with Motion 48, the Council gave the green light to the request to regulate the registration in San Marino of birth and adoption records drawn up abroad; by rejecting Motion 49, however, it did not approve the request to directly regulate parental responsibility and the registration of both parents in same-sex parent families.
Yet it is precisely the ground left open by Motion 49 that now enters the agenda motion: “semiplena” adoption, parental responsibility, the child’s legal status, inheritance and citizenship will be the subject of further political and legal review, with the first deadline set for February 2027.
