The letter is intended, say the Forum's members to the MPs, to "call you back to the primary responsibility of protecting the common good and the still very current position of the Constitution, which sees the family as a natural society, the central and indispensable block of our social fabric, the active subject of solidarity and social cohesion, for the promotion and protection of each person's freedom and equal dignity, as well as the training ground of active citizenship and social values for the younger generation, in which our national community recognizes itself." According to the Forum, "the subjective rights of all individuals, regardless of their family status, must receive peaceful recognition. Everyone's freedom to love and the protection of each person in such relations is a must, but that does not mean attributing or extending an alleged 'right to marriage for all'." Consequently, together with the "regulation of the rights of persons living in de facto unions, the prerogatives, the quality and the rights of the 'family based on marriage between a man and a woman', an institution of public importance, must also be respected and preserved."

"To this end—the letter says—certain basic principles are guaranteed: effective distinction and difference of discipline between the family based on marriage and de facto unions, such as the right to the survivor's pension, access to legal succession, and alimony to the former spouse. With respect to these rights, an appropriate solution for civil unions, distinct from that provided for spouses, will be found." The letter expressed its "very negative" opinion about the Cirinnà bill, which equates unions between persons of the same sex to the family based on marriage and contains a clear reference to the so-called "stepchild adoption" that opens the way for procedures—inevitable in same-sex couples—such as male gamete donation or even surrogacy.

There is also a reference to fast divorce: "Whoever voted in favor of fast divorce—write the members of the Forum—should ask himself: What measures have been approved, along with fast divorce, to help the family, rather than encouraging its implosion? Then, when the time comes to discuss the Cirinnà text, one should ask: How many measures have we voted to support the family, before granting this false right to 'marriage for all'? When will politics be able to give back to the family what the family gives to society on a daily basis? The country's future and the social cohesion of our people are at stake."