In Italy today, if you have a child through non-traditional means, you can face prison time. This move is part of Giorgia Meloni’s agenda — Italy’s first female prime minister and leader of the most right-wing government since World War II, the Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia).
‘Yes to the natural family, no to the LGBT lobby,’ Meloni declared in a recent interview. ‘Children should only be raised by a man and a woman.’
These outdated beliefs have real and devastating consequences. In 2017, the city of Padua in Northern Italy began cancelling birth certificates issued to the children of same-sex couples. With the removal of non-biological parents came the removal of their rights. As one lesbian mother explained:
I won’t be able to take my daughter to school, make medical decisions for her, or travel abroad without her biological mother’s written permission. And if her biological mother were to die, my daughter would be declared an orphan and could be adopted.
It would be easy to read this, as a lesbian, and think, “That won’t affect me.” But as history has proven time and again, an attack on one marginalised group is an attack on all marginalised groups.
The United States: Threats to Marriage Equality
Next week, on November 7th, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to hear a case brought by former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, seeking to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling — the very case that guaranteed nationwide same-sex marriage rights in the United States.
Hillary Clinton warned about this back in August: “The Supreme Court might do to gay marriage what they did to abortion,” she said, urging “anybody in a committed relationship out there in the LGBTQ community to consider getting married before the nation’s highest court takes that right away.”
Whether the case is ultimately heard or not is almost beside the point; the fact that it has reached this stage is what matters. How, a decade after gay marriage was legalised in the U.S., are we seriously debating whether it should be revoked? The fact that it’s 2025 and we’re still arguing over whether love should be legal is nothing short of absurd.
The United Kingdom: Farage and the Normalisation of Prejudice
Closer to home, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage recently reignited debate over LGBTQ+ rights in Britain by declaring that legalising same-sex marriage was “wrong” during a live phone-in on LBC. Farage’s remarks come at a time when Reform UK is polling strongly ahead of the next general election, already controlling ten councils across England.
Like Meloni and Davis, Farage disguises prejudice as “concern” for children. Despite being twice divorced himself, he insists that “the most stable relationships are between men and women.” One can’t help but wonder whether figures like these have ever truly interacted with same-sex couples — or whether their hate blinds them to love itself.
Whatever their personal motives, far-right leaders share a common strategy: control through division. They frame their attacks on LGBTQ+ people as moral crusades against “woke ideology,” using scapegoats to distract from the real problems — inequality, economic decay, and systemic failures.
The problem is not with immigrants, or trans people, or gay people, or women. The problem lies with the system — and the conservative values that sustain it.
At the root of these values are money and religion: two forces that have long dictated what is considered “moral.” The U.S., where LGBTQ+ rights are again under threat, has the largest Christian population in the world. Similarly, Italy, another nation rolling back rights, remains overwhelmingly Catholic — with about 75–80% of its population identifying as such. The Catholic Church deems homosexual acts “intrinsically immoral” and “contrary to natural law,” defining morality strictly within the confines of a heterosexual marriage.
Religious teachings like these are designed to instil fear and discourage defiance. Even Pope Francis, often praised for his progressive tone, draws a sharp distinction between orientation and action: being gay, he says, is not sinful — acting on it is. This distinction reveals the core of the issue: control. As long as queer people remain invisible, celibate, and compliant, they are tolerated. The moment they live authentically, they become a threat.
The Family: The Frontline of Ideological Control
And where is that control most easily exerted? Within the family. The family is the first and most intimate social institution — the place where children absorb the values, norms, and beliefs that shape their worldview. From an early age, girls are handed dolls to nurture, while boys are given toy guns to dominate. These small acts of socialisation uphold patriarchal norms that ripple through generations.
Homosexuality threatens this structure. Two same-sex parents challenge gender stereotypes and blur the rigid roles that sustain the patriarchy. For conservatives, that’s terrifying. If people begin to question one traditional value — the “natural” family — what’s to stop them from questioning others?
That’s why nontraditional families, whether queer or blended, are viewed with suspicion. They symbolise freedom from the “cereal packet” model: the breadwinner father, stay-at-home mother, and two obedient children. For the far right, such freedom is dangerous — because it erodes the foundation of their control.
So why are LGBTQ+ rights reversing? Because the far right thrives on fear, obedience, and nostalgia for an imagined past. And as education, diversity, and liberalism rise, their grip on power weakens — prompting them to double down.
A recent YouGov survey on the 2024 general election revealed that Reform UK performed significantly better among those with lower levels of education — 23% of the vote — compared to just 8% among those with higher education. The opposite is true for progressive parties like the Greens.
Make of that what you will. But if history has taught us anything, it’s that blind compliance never leads to progress.
Portfolio of Hope 