Top comment: “Labour says that it does not recognise the right of a child to have a female mother and a male father. The Nationalist Party says it does.”
Sent in by H. P. Baxxter:
A free vote would have been wrong. Here’s why.
The Nationalist Party’s core belief is human rights.
At the heart of this bill, now passed into law, are two rights.
1. The right of homosexual couples to marry. Whether this is actually a right, or a privilege, or even no right at all, is a moot point. That’s the civil union bit.
2. The right of children to have parents. That’s the adoption bit. This is where the “liberal”/Labour/progressives/TaghnaLkoll have it entirely and fundamentally wrong.
This is not and should not be about the right of adults to adopt, for such a right does not exist.
Adoption is the process by which the right of the child is granted to him or her. It is not the process by which the adult couple enjoy their presumed right.
There is a well-known and neat formula which states that your right stops as soon as it infringes on mine.
In this case, the right of homosexual couples to marry (let’s avoid that “civil union” euphemism rubbish, and let us not pretend that more than a handful of heterosexuals will decide to marry someone of the same sex) does not include the whole set of privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples, because the right of a child to have a male and female parent, a father and a mother, is violated by same-sex adoption.
This is the point upon which Labour disagrees with the Nationalist Party. I have boiled down the argument to its essence, and it is this.
Labour says that it does not recognise the right of a child to have a female mother and a male father.
The Nationalist Party says it does. I happen to agree with it on this point.
So a free vote is out. This is a matter of principle.
Because one right was violated here (that of the child), the Nationalist Party should have voted against the bill. And presented its own, minus adoption, thus pulling the rug from under that poser Joseph Muscat.
31 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Many good points, Baxxter. As I read your comment, a thought came to mind.
How would a boy, adopted by two gay guys, cope in Malta’s mainly homophobic environment?
How would he cope anywhere?
Let’s be honest with ourselves here. It’s bad enough that our parents never asked us for permission to bring us into this world. Now imagine growing up and slowly realising your parents are two men, or two women. Did a century of psychoanalysis not teach us anything?
Oh yes. It taught us that it’s natural to be gay. It also taught us that it’s natural to have a mother who’s a woman and a father who’s a man.
Just like any other boy would cope. I was bullied mercilessly by boys and girls throughout my life and my parents were straight.
That’s life. Some people have everything and some people have nothing .. at least these orphans would have parents.
How about changing the homophobic environment?
What I didn’t understand about this law is why they keep talking about equality when the law is so discriminatory.
With this bill a heterosexual couple could now choose between marriage or civil union whereas a homosexual couple cannot marry but has to enjoy a civil union.
Then when it comes to adoptions there is no mention of rights for a hetero couple but a specific mention that gay couples won’t be discriminated against.
To me that’s not liberal, that’s amateurish.
”Labour says that it does not recognise the right of a child to have a female mother and a male father”.
I think that Adolf Hitler would have been very pleased with Joe and his legislation.
The Nazis had some sort of scheme about bringing up children away from the presence of their biological parents and handed on to others to bring up including communal families run by , naturally, diehard Nazi men and women.
Will being a staunch Labourite work in one’s favour when it comes to exercising the right to adopt available children in true Nazi Fascist fashion?
You don’t know much about Nazis or about German/European history, do you?
The Labour Party does not give a rotten fig for anyone`s rights, let alone those of adopted children.
But it knows that gay men and women have votes, and they will be using them in four years` time. Children don`t.
I would think that there’s nothing else he can do for them now. So they can be as fickle as they like come next election. Especially if he’s busy violating the privacy rights of the children they have adopted. (and would have adopted anyway, civil union law or not)
Prosit! J Vella, you nailed it.
You’ve got a strong argument, Baxxter. In my opinion the Opposition was wrong in abstaining.
You have to take a stand in life not sit on both sides of the fence.
Abstaining is never an option. As a matter of principle the Nationalists should have voted against.
Instead they projected themselves as being weak and uncomfortable in dealing with the issue.
One fundamental element that many seem to be overseeing here, is the deceit operated by the PM.
Back in November 2012, on Bundy’s comedy talk show, Dr. Muscat, had categorically stated that same sex couples should not adopt.
In the PL’s electoral manifesto (chapter 6) there is no mention of gay adoptions but simply the introduction of Civil Unions.
What, or rather, who changed the PM’s mind after the election? Why did he dance to one tune before and to another after the election?
Furthermore, when such a law was introduced in France – a lay sate par excellence, over one million people protested on the streets. Among the protesters there were also members of the gay lobby who were divided on the issue.
And here, in this parochial island, no one protested, not even the Church, when the adoption clause was inserted behind the electorate’s back. Those who voted for the PL, voted for Civil Unions but not for adoption. They were, once again, deceived by the PM like they were deceived with regards the Sale-of-Passport-Shame-Scheme. And our journalists do not pick up (or are afraid to do so) what’s written between the lines and the traits of the PM’s behaviour. In France and Spain people took to the streets when such laws were introduced; in Malta everybody does what Jo and Gabby tal-LGBT dictate.
Popularity is everything with the PM. Soon after the enactment of the same-sex unions, he went on TV saying that the next challenge is the decriminalisation of some drugs. Again, not one word before the election and a promise absent from the PL’s manifesto. Now he wants to win over the drug-users lobby.
This PM is a very dangerous person. People are failing to see this. What next? Abortion, euthanasia?
Let us imagine for a moment that a gay couple, goes to the Ursuline sisters in Sliema and they ask to adopt a baby from that home, and the sisters, for obvious reasons will refuse them this adoption. Will the gay couple accuse the nuns of being discriminatory in their regards since this law is based on equality? And if this is not contemplated within the Law, will it be inserted so that the PM can satisfy Gabby and her lobby?
I agree completely with Baxxter: the PN should have voted against the law as proposed by Joey ta’ Kastilja. The PN’s action gave more leeway to the PM in his popularity stunt.
Finally, I am sure there homosexuals out there who are against adoption. I know a few and who my friends. It is about time that they should air their views and maybe set up a different lobby from the one done by the LGBT. Many hardly noticed that this Government gave them one law which made it popular but it did not put forward any law to safeguard homosexuals from discrimination on the place of work, at schools, at university and so on.
What a pity that all these arguments for common sense to prevail over alleged equality rights that trample over the fundamental different but complementary nature of the male and female species in the human race are being brought up now, after the law has been enacted.
But, coming to think of it, this has been the case in all countries, and when these arguments were brought forward, they were swamped by accusations of bigotry and discrimination, that led politicians to join the chorus lest they would be considered as not progressive enough.
Perhaps I’m being pedantic here, but just as adults do not have a “right” to children, nor do children have a “right” to parents of whatever gender.
What we have, as adults in a civilised world, is a sense of duty to provide the best for chldren in the circumstances they happen to find themselves in.
A question that I always ask myself is: Would a child get more love and attention while living in an institute with a number of other kids ran by same sex persons (nuns or priests) or in a house (avoiding the word “loving home” on purpose) irrespective of the sex of who is living in that house?
I understand both your points. However, I still believe that any person who is willing to go through the adoption process, which is quite a lenghty one (and this is how it should be), would be quite willing to invest in that relationship.
Any person/couple who wants to adopt, irrespective of whether it’s female/male; female/female; male/male; should go through rigorous processes to ensure they are fit to bring up a child in a loving home.
Let’s just think this one through. Before the passage of the Civil Unions Bill single gay people, like single heterosexual people had the right to adopt a child.
The reality probably was that the vast majority of the single gay people adopting a child were in a committed relationship with a same-sex partner.
Because the law did not allow gay people in committed relationships to marry the couple could not apply together to adopt a child.
Only one of them applied and the Adoption Board, presumably only conducted a background investigation into the person applying to adopt.
Now that same couple who have exercised their new right to marry both have to go through the background investigation.
So is the child being adopted not more protected under the new law than it was under the old law?
Under the old law the child could end up living in a home with a same-sex partner with serious problems – mental issues, criminal history, you name it – and because that partner was not the applicant the law did not provide for that partner to be investigated putting a child at risk.
Under the new law that problematic partner would have to be investigated as well and if found unsuitable the couple would be denied the right to adopt.
If anything the new law protects children more than the old law.
Curious about where IVF sits in all of this. Can anyone advise?
They are passing controversial laws as a divergence. It’s easy to pass laws but impossible for labour to create good work opportunities.
At least someone agrees with what I wrote on Facebook. The PN should have voted against!
U l-knisja baqghet halqha maghluq. Veru qal xi haga Mgr. Scicluna, li bhal ma jghid il-proverbju “nahqa ta’ hmar qatt ma telghet is-sema”.
U x’sar minnu l-isqof t’Ghawdex, Mons. Grech, li sa sena u nofs ilu kien jaghmel priedka fuq kollox u issa donnu stahba jew immuta.
Dwar Mgr. Cremona m’hemm ghalfejn nghidu xejn ghax rieqed kien u rieqed ghadu. U sadanittant lilna jitolbuna naghmlu s-sagrificcji. Halluna tridux.
The government is pushing this kind of thing to distract us from:
1. the ongoing affair with the LNG tanker and the new power station;
2. the smart meters scandal, and who those corrupt businessmen might possibly be;
3. the sale of Maltese passports, and what’s happening there;
4. the mess at the state general hospital;
5. the Minister of Education’s data-mining powers over pupils, students and their parents.
You got it right while most people, including many PN voters, have been taken in by Muscat’s Orwellian double-speak.
That is why as soon as the gay thing was over he went straight ahead into the drug issue, so that we would not have the tie to revert back to the real issues on hand which are what you have listed but not only.
The most serious and real issue is the government’s financial situation which is floundering fast.
I know from the horse’s friend’s mouth that the finance minister has instructed his top-managers to try to delay payments to contractors as late as possible. Notice also the fact that our roads are not being maintained and new school buildings are out of the window and no new government capital projects are seen on the horizon.
So Joseph Muscat is trying to hide the real issues until the EP elections, with the ‘imbaghad naraw’ (then we’ll see what we can do) policy on hand.
The future beckons.
When adopted children having both parents of the same sex grow up, can they sue the government for not giving them a female mother and male father, same as other adopted children?
There’s no accepted scientific evidence suggesting that the psychological, intellectual and sexual development of a child raised by a same sex couple is any different, on average, than that of a child raised by a female and a male. And there’s, in fact, no such right as “the right of a child to have a female mother and a male father” and no mention, or even allusion, to the gender or sexual orientation of the child’s (adoptive/foster) parents in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Malta is signatory.
The Convention does stress, however, that “the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding”, an environment that homosexual parents can provide as equally well as their heterosexual counterparts.
So no children’s rights are at stake here, there’s no need for “further studies” and the public’s concern on the matter of same sex adoption is, frankly, irrelevant. The Nationalist Party shouldn’t have risen to Labour’s bait and should have voted for the bill in its entirety. Of course, there are probably reasons other than the ones quoted by Simon Busuttil why it didn’t.
Who said anything about the UN? These are rights as I see them. And perhaps as nature intended. I know I sound politically incorrect but then I never was.
The purpose of adoption is to provide parents for the child, not to provide children for the couple (or for a single adult, gay couple, polyamorous couple, or three or more adults joined in union).
The Nationalist Party couldn’t vote against the bill. It would go against the orders it receives from Brussels. When it comes to the EU directives the PN always obeys. Especially now with Simon is at the helm. For the PN orders from above come before children’s rights or the Maltese nation’s rights or anybody’s rights for that matter. What matters is that the EU gravy train continues beyond local political life for our precious MPs. A very principled lot we have elected in parliament! We need them like we need a hole in the head.
That should read “diversion”
The right to have a female mother and a male father would be a silly right.
What would be the consequence of that right being not fulfilled, for example if a child is born to a widow or a single mother? Would the law force her to marry someone else? Or send a substitute father? Or take the child away?
Andreas, you are brilliant. The solution according to you to put everyone on the same level, the lowest possible, that way no one would be ‘lucky’ enough to have a normal mother and a normal father. Typical socialist of you.
Yes, the PN lost a huge opportunity here to make sound, intelligent and, most importantly, legally and morally sound arguments.
It is going the same way many parties have gone, most fresh to my mind being New Labour in the UK, the UMP in France and the Partido Popular in Spain. Interestingly, the PP has now regained that lost identity.
The Australian Labor Party, for example, which is now set to be eclipsed by an extremist Green party in the polls and which now depends on their preferences in the counting, is a perfect example of how, once a party has abandoned its voters, they will go elsewhere.
Essentially, in Australia diehard Labour supporters have switched to the Liberal, Green and National parties. The ALP is more concerned with appealing to the fringe instead of appealing to the worker – after all, they ARE a Labour party.
Now the PN has to understand that if it abandons Christian Democracy and its Judaeo Christian roots and its commitment to Liberalism, its voters will abandon it in droves. Where they will go in an intellectually vacuous political environment such as Malta is hard to say.
I’ll probably get a torrent of negative response for this, but I think the Nationalist Party should give up that Christian Democrat rubbish.
Whatever Christian Democrat principles I held were lost after 1987 in the headlong rush to make money the new national narrative.
That is not Christian Democracy. Nor is the NP’s brand of Socialism, which rewards clientelism instead of merit, and which killed off what remained of the notion of personal empowerment through the creation of a massive nanny state. The NP is an anti-liberal party.
So enough with the hypocrisy.
Let Nationalist Party decide which way it wants history to evolve. Then it will know itself.
I suspect the results will be a shock to many of us. For the NP, it turns out, is a Left Wing party. They are the Socialists. Labour are the Fascists.
What the NP would need then, is a good dose of Right Wing Liberalism.
But I’m not holding my breath.