Monday 19 February 2018

Lesbian wedding threatens to break up heterosexual marriage.


Marlene Vella has  Something to Say about the new cohabitation law


Maryanne and Peter have been living together for 20 years and have two children, ages 8 and 10.

Paul and Alexander have been living together for seven years.

Claire has adopted a two year old girl and is raising her with her partner Angela with whom she has lived for four years.

Francesca and Peter have a three year old son but prefer not to get married for the time being.

I have learnt a thing or two about the current government since I wrote this:

The above groups of people are not families.

Tomato fighting is culture and worthy of central government funding and much pomp.

Consultation on 9 pages of uneven and unequal dung called the Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants’ Act, 2012 is open until 30 September 2012.

After reading the proposed law and press release, my initial reaction was as if the government had opened a new grocery store and you showed up with your same (or opposite) sex partner but are only allowed to ask for 200g of the right to family.  Yet your tax bill remains unchanged.

There are no two ways about human rights, you either stand for them or you don’t.  There is no such thing as having a right to family without having the equal choice and legal provisions of setting up one.  And just to make the painfully obvious clear – human rights belong to humans not the ‘state’ or the ‘country’ or the ‘majority’ or the ‘minority’ for that matter.  Human rights exist precisely to protect us as individuals from such groups or entities, including political parties and governments.

James Debono provides a thorough analysis as to why this law will institutionalise inequality further.  I would only add that what the government’s statement effectively says is that those heterosexual couples who out of choice have been living together for 25 years and have children who are minors are not a family either.  Are you seriously telling us this is what we have been waiting for?  What a way to articulate the future of family policy.

The very guiding spirit behind this law is prejudiced and classist to say the least.  It’s another prime example of the kind of agendas dictated by crass ignorance and fear. Following in the pattern of the opposition to divorce and the other highly restrictive Embryo Protection Act, it does nothing but stigmatise further those families that do not conform to the conventional model of man-woman-biological-children.

But perhaps the worse part of it all is that it’s all shallow and cheap electioneering tactics pandering to that sector of society where homophobia is alive and well.   The government has once more given in to common ignorance and shown itself to be weak by being so meticulously calculating with the right to family, despite all its rhetoric on strengthening families.  The same arguments against gay marriage have been used and failed against inter-racial marriage.  The truth is that gay marriage will not lead to weakening marriage as much as it will not lead to Armageddon or global warming.  How can two men or women weaken the relationship between another man and woman by marrying?

Whether or not a family unit is composed entirely of Maltese or European citizens, as things stand it will remain easier to bring a cat or dog to Malta and have peace of mind for their canine welfare than if you had to bring over a child.  It is a fact that animals and fridges enjoy far more freedom of movement in the European Union.  This cohabitation act doesn’t provide anything a couple (who may not even live together in the same dwelling) can’t already access by mutual will at their notary’s office.  This is why this law reduces relationships and family units to a mere contractual transaction while they will continue funding through their taxes the privileges of those who are worthy in the eyes of a prejudiced state.  What is everybody’s right continues to be transformed into a privilege.

If the minister were sport, I wouldn’t mind dissing my waste conscious efforts for a day and toss a few rotten pseudo cultural tomatoes around.  It’s nothing compared to the low grade manure on offer from the world at large on a daily basis for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons.  Article 12 of the proposed law includes a clause stating that the registered ‘civil cohabitation partnership’ would cease when one of the cohabitants marries a third party.  I am not quite sure whether this means that it would be perfectly legal to go off and marry someone else without notifying your ‘registered cohabitant’.  In the case of gay couples it’s not like they will rush off and marry someone of the opposite sex in Malta now will they?  This is also the first time I have come across the term ‘civil cohabitation partnership’.  Generally civil partnerships provide the same rights and obligations as marriage (less having access to the institution of marriage), and the last thing you’re allowed to do is go off and marry a third party.

Furthermore why do we continue to oppose adoption of one’s partner’s children – in life – when protection is being sought in the case of one partner’s death or end of the relationship?  The draft law does not even go into or refer to joint tax computations.  More to the first class families.

LGBTI people are valued elsewhere, so what’s wrong with Malta?  What have or will LGBTI persons rob from anyone if the institution of marriage was opened to same sex couples in Malta?









  • Ethelbert Schembri

    I’ve been married with my wife for 12 years and have two kids, and I can’t understand how the union in whatever for it may come, of other couples ( being of the same sex or not is irrelevant for me!!) may effect me, my wife and our marriage!!! On the other hand if these people are free to express their love and to unite in marriage we all may be effected in positive not in negative.
    It seems that freedom for some part of our political spectrum is only the freedom for them to do and say whatever they feel like disregarding everyone and everything else !! And to be democratic and free is to do whatever they say to the letter… yes sure!
    Dear bigots, we went out of the cave, at first the light blinded us but we soon realised what a wonderful world we are living in, and when we returned to try free you from your bigot chains you opposed and said that it’s not true as we all predicted. So if you want to stay chained in your bigotry, feel free to do so but don’t try to impose on us your ignorance. Thanks from a free mind !

  • John Wayne Borg

    Recently I followed many discussions on Xarabank etc and also read various newspapers to which readers had been noted of saying “How does this God who is so loving and compassionate simply push a homosexual person away from His arms?”.

    This reminds me also of what Cardinal Adam Maida, Archbishop of Detroit, said: “I think what the behavioral scientists are telling us is that its not truly a paedophilia’s-type problem but a homosexual-type problem”. [Time, dated 5th May, 2002] So was this Gods’ actual plan of human dignity and his actual attitude towards such persons and what are our responsibilities in this respect – are they being followed by humans or are we just twisting things to our needs? For this reason, I would like you to research further such comments and what we are to do regarding this matter.

    Well, first and foremost we must all agree that “when God created men and women, He instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. So its members are persons (men and women) with equal dignity. Therefore, the common good of its members and that of society must be noted. The family has manifold responsibilities with rights and duties” (CCC refs: 2203) – So are we all actually observing these responsibilities within us, or within our society or our families? Therefore the family is the real foundation of our community in this society.

    When we say “a family” we understand that this consists of man and woman (not man and man or woman and woman) which is actually and originally the cell of social life, no less and no more. The husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life, authority, stability and a life of relationship within the family which constitute the foundations for freedom, security and fraternity within society. In such families from childhood one should learn the moral values, beginning first to honor God and make proper and good use of freedom.

    If one is acting under the situation of adultery, divorced, polygamy, or under free union, we know that all these are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage. If one takes only the act of homosexuality as experienced by some men and women. This act even locally had recently taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures, so its psychological genesis remained unexplained. Yet the Holy scripture presents such acts as a grave depravity (as explained in Congregation for the doctrine of the faith – Persona humana 8) The sacred doctrine of the faith issued in Rome on the 29th December, 1975, as approved by Pope Paul VI,

    The local Church present teaching on marriage through the Cana Movement needs to be updated to modern times and with modern means, also through a vast coverage in the media. One expect that all Marriage programme on the media (radio or television) such as RTK or Radio Maria should not be first transmitted in the morning only, but their first transmission should all be in the afternoon when the men are also at home. If one sees the large amount of only women callers’ and the very few men callers, then this indicates that men are not being given the chance or opportunity to participation in such programmes. If they would be still at work in the morning, such programmes by on married couples have to be transmitted in the evening when men can also take part. Therefore, one notes that on the complementarity of the sexes it reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purposes [Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes – 48] that the nature truth about Marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements if the Creator’s plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

    In the first place, man was created in the image of God, both were created as Male and Female [Geneses Chapter 1: Verse 27] So both Men and Women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female [but not in this particular programme]. As regarding to their sexuality is something that pertains to the physical biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – this concerning where nature and spirit are united. [see Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith (section 3 para 1 and 2 ) – Considerations and Proposals during an Audience by Pope John Paul II on 28 March, 2003]

Powered by