My thoughts EXACTLY, and I've written about it often
The proposed Cohabitation Bill is an act of utter insanity, the fruit of befuddled thinking, lack of logic and the immature desire to square circles.
Clear thinking can give you only one position on this, and it is what follows.
Mark-Anthony Falzon, Head of Sociology, University of Malta
– The Sunday Circle, today
I am dead set against the introduction of a cohabitation bill. It will solve nothing whatsoever. With respect to gay couples, any new legislation must be based on the principle of equality. Nothing less will do.
The choice is between saying that gay couples can get married like heterosexual ones, or to replicate a structural inequality that relegates gay couples to some sort of lesser ‘arrangement’. Since I am for equality, I choose the former.
With respect to men and women who live together but are not married, it’s their choice and one must respect it. There are, of course, many hundreds of couples who would like to get married but cannot, because they are trapped in previous marriages. The solution to that is simple and has been adopted the world over.
I am not so much worried by the proposed bill’s consequences as by its implications. I see such a bill as a serious intrusion into people’s privacy. We’re told there will be a register, for example. If registering is optional, that leaves couples who do not register unprotected (remember, the argument is ‘protection’ of cohabitees’ rights here).
If, on the other hand, cohabiting couples are registered regardless of their choice, we’re talking legislation of state voyeurism.
The argument is simple, really: people who want marital rights should get married; those who don’t, for whatever reason, should be free to stay unmarried.
The issue of whether the bill will also address the dissolution of cohabitation rights if a second relationship fails shows what a charade this would be.
You cannot get divorced, but you can register and de-register as many ‘partnerships’ as you please – while still married to your spouse. Need we say more?
14 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I agree completely with this article.
These cohabitation rights seem less like equality and more like our politicians pretending to be open-minded while at the same time favouring values that are no longer relevant to today and are seen as oppressive and dictatorial by many in Malta.
If people want a divorce then they should be able to get one, and it is called divorce, and sorts everything out properly.
If a gay couple wants to get married they should be able to, and it is called marriage. Full stop.
None of this, “no it’s not fair, marriage is for these types of people only and divorce is wrong” – rubbish.
If you do not agree with divorce then don’t get one. And if you do not agree with gay marriage then don’t have one. You will still be free to do so.
Many people are against these things because they feel that it threatens their identity. It’s almost as if, should their country agree to allow such things, then therefore everyone will think that the whole country agrees with them. I can understand that. Often, politics and identity are very much intertwined.
There is nothing terribly wrong with this, except when it means that others have to take on an identity that forces them to live in a way that oppresses them.
We live in a free world where we are all said to be free to make the choices we wish to make and live happy contented lives, provided our freedom does not limit someone else’s freedom. But it is that last part which many seem to have forgotten when it comes to issues like divorce and gay marriage.
What’s wrong with living in the country where our identity is freedom and equality for everyone, and no faffing about to favour one set of people over another?
I strongly believe that same-sex couples should be entitled to get married, and that homosexuals should be treated no differently than heterosexuals. It does not have to be called marriage; we can call it civil union, but whatever we call it, it defines a deeply personal commitment, a celebration of the ideals of mutuality.
What is at stake is respect for individual autonomy and equality under law. At stake is an individual freely choosing the partner with whom to share an exclusive commitment.
People need that social recognition and honour. Marriage/union should not be under any social institution. Let couples celebrate their unions in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want.
No government should be implicated. Why should marriage/union be in a real sense of three persons to every civil marriage in which the willing spouses and the approving state?
[Daphne – Because marriage is a contract not an emotion. And like all contracts it must be formalised, witnessed and registered. The whole point of marriage is to formalise a framework for rights and duties; otherwise you might as well not get married at all, unless the status is important to you for its own sake or for religious reasons.]
Think the government should disassociate itself from such union. Should it be a state function? Do they need a government stand of approval for same-sex union?
Why do we get married? Procreation is not an essential point and purpose for marriage. Fertility is not a condition for marriage, people on their dead-bed can get married. Most importantly is the permanent commitment of two consulting adults.
Moral and religious convictions should be ignored and contested, the principles for justice and rights should prevail.
Without the existence of divorce to precede it, the cohabitation law in the pipeline is a joke.
[Daphne – All cohabitation laws are jokes, where they exist. There is absolutely no purpose for any such law, and in fact, most cohabitation laws are just a form of second-class marriage for two people of the same gender.]
No offense to homosexual couples intended, but it is utter lunacy to place separated heterosexual couples who wish to remarry but can’t, ‘fl-istess borma’ with homosexual couples who desire legal recognition, protection and stability in their relationship.
Pass il-quddiem u sitta b’lura. Laqwa the dreaded ‘D’ word is not uttered.
Agreed 100%.
However, we do not live in a black and white ideal world. Cohabitation laws, albeit second-class marriages for same-sex couples, is better than nothing at all.
There is a chronological order to social development. Marriage, divorce, cohabitation laws, same-sex marriages.
In the world, there are very, very, few ‘progressive’ countries who have reached the same-sex marriage stage.
But Malta 2010 is so progressive, that with the cohabitation laws, same-sex couples (separated or otherwise) won’t even need to get married anymore to have rights and responsibilities at law !
The cohabitation laws planned are going to undermine the very institution – marriage – that the powers that be are trying to protect.
If Malta had divorce, and a heterosexual couple would wish to ‘register’ under any cohabitation law, then they would jolly well be told to bugger off and get married.
Kollox bil-maqlub ahna.
One wonders whether the notion of common law wife owes more to Equity than Law.
If it is like that, then it means that transplanting a common law notion into a civil law jurisdiction is misguided.
[Daphne – That there is such a thing as a ‘common-law wife’ in Britain is a complete fiction. The term was used to describe women who lived with men for years despite never marrying them, but there was and still is no concomitant legal status. Now the word ‘partner’ is used and you never hear ‘common-law wife’. It’s the same in Britain for heterosexual couples as it is in Malta. You are either married or you are not. There is no middle ground that gives rights and duties to people who live together without a marriage certificate.]
This is very much like the transplant of Swedish urban planning laws to Malta in the form of MEPA when the Jantelagen mentality – so characteristic of the Nordic peoples – is completely alien to Malta.
Vernadsky once said something which Guzeppi Schembri reported in his 1989 book on The Common Heritage of Mankind, relating to the importation of laws…
The original idea of this law as was explained by then prime minister Dr Fenech Adami was to regulate abuses in these relationships, for example introducing the right to maintenance as well as to protect the children born from this relationship.
[Daphne – That’s why marriage exists. It’s why marriage came into being. As for the children, they are protected regardless of the status of their parents in respect of each other. Children now have rights over their father that no longer derive from marriage to their mother.]
Now such a law can be considered as a second class marriage or a sort of half way house marriage.
I think many countries introduced similar laws for same sex couples as they did not want to introduce gay marriage. In the United Kingdom there is a law on civil partnerships for same-sex couples while other countries such as France and Australia have these unions for heterosexual couples also. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership)
In my opinion everyone should be allowed to do as one pleases as long as one does not impinge on my freedom, which is unlikely. There is no accounting for taste.
My only objection with a big O would be if the state then expects me to bankroll the fallout from these marriages, partnerships including zoophilic ones, love triangles, etc. Then I would certainly not be amused.
[Daphne – You’re already bankrolling the fall-out, Anthony. Marriages break up (or just don’t happen) with or without divorce and cohabitation laws.]
Yes, but now I have had enough of paying for other people’s whims and fancies. Besides I am a pensioner and can ill afford to stretch my budget any further. Issa daqshekk.
Can you blame me ?
I cannot understand why Anthony is paying, or thinks he is, for anyone’s whims and fancies in this regard! I totally agree that cohabitation laws, as described so far, are a joke.
I believe that in Maltese we say something like ‘if you cannot get in through the door try getting in through the window.’
Is cohabitation a la Maltaise to be designed as a euphemism for same sex marriage etc?
I totally agree with Mark-Anthony Falzon.
Co-habitation legislation is the result of befuddled, illogical thinking, and will serve to entrench and relegate registered co-habitees into a second-class arrangement.
The only logical arrangement is to respect the principles of equality and fairness, and to endorse the concept of marriage choice for straight or same-sex couples, and the availability of divorce for those marriages which fail.
Befuddled, illogical thinking by the last labour government in economic affairs resulted in their doomed attempt to reinvent the wheel by conjuring up CET, when there was the universally accepted availability of VAT as used by the rest of the world.
I fear that any co-habitation legislation will be the current government’s CET social equivalent; a debacle easily seen as a desperate attempt to sweep up all untidy and inconvenient social loose ends into a badly thought out and ill considered bit of social engineering.
[Daphne – You’re right about the CET analogy. It’s an accurate one.]
I agree that such a law will create a ‘second class’ marriage situation and will not create the level playing field desired.
The first problem, as I see it, is the non-tangible connotations attached to the word ‘marriage’ inherited from the religious aspect of the joining.
The state should concern itself with the tangible rights and duties of what is essentially a legal contract between two consenting adults. It should abandon the word ‘marriage’ completely, leaving its use to the various religions and create a well researched and thought out civil union law which would be applicable to all those adults who are not already in a legally recognised union with someone else, irrespective of their sexuality.
Dissolution of such a civil union contract (and not a religious marriage) can be made possible, obviously subject to the required obligations already entered to and resulting from the previous union. Those wishing also to marry by any particular religious right should of course be entitled to do so and there also having to abide by that religion’s rules which should be of no concern to the State unless these rules are unlawful.
I think it unwise to seek or encourage a number of ‘piecemeal’ legal patches that will further complicate matters when they clash with each other and with previous legislation. For those who ask what will happen to those already married and to all existing laws and regulations including the word ‘marriage’, I believe there is a particular type of legislation whereby the word ‘marriage’ will be interpreted from that time on to ‘civil union’ or whatever term is chosen to name it.
Comparisons tend to be made with the UK in these cases, for understandable reasons, but there are places where a successful (and popular) half-way contract between marriage and ‘nothing’ do exist.
Any thoughts on the French ‘pacte civil de solidarité (PACS) for instance, Daphne et al? See http://www.kentingtons.com/blog/index.php/tax-planning/the-pacs-pacte-civil-de-solidarite/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarit%C3%A9.
Although originally conceived to provide marriage-type benefits to homosexual couples (which I would agree is the wrong approach), it is now popular as a way for any two people who live at the same address to formalise and organise their joint household, taxes and so on. In other words, you can for example get ‘PACSed’ with your heterosexual best friend, if you so wished.
Its popularity and increasing take-up by people of all nationalities, faiths and sexes, even in a country where divorce is as commonplace as marriage is the natural way to go, and where secular politics are proudly upheld as the norm, are perhaps signs that there is a place for a third option.
This is all a farce. People with failed marriages should not contend with their situation and avoid having to go through the trauma of getting involved in further legal implications.
While the divorce issue remains pending, there is always the option of a civil annulment which will allow one to re-marry civilly, if one really must. But no: people brag about the absence of divorce and try to blame it on the Catholic Church as if one were to say that divorce has not yet been introduced because our politicians are being pressured by the Church.
This cannot be further from the truth. The reality of the situation is that wherever divorce has been introduced, social problems have multiplied exponentially with numeric marriages and multiple families, alimony implications endless lawsuits and criminal proceedings for those men/women who are no longer in a position to sustain their divorce commitments.
While people argue that people cohabit and bear children out of wedlock anyway, the introduction of divorce will institutionalize this practice and these isolated cases will simply become the norm.
Marriage is a vow and breaking a vow, like any other legal obligation automatically induces implications be it legal or moral or a combination of both. Cohabitation rights are simply intended to cushion homosexual couples or women who have broken up their partner’s marriage and now want security especially if we have a love child in their midst!
I fail to see the direct link between cohabitation rights and same-sex marriages.
I think these are two separate issues which deserve a different piece of legislation each.
While the government has been committed on the cohabitation law for many years now, same-sex marriages have not yet made it to any of the political movement’s agenda.
So I beg to differ that any legislator should jump the gun and introduce the two-in-one package. As for divorce, this is now part of the political debate but even though it could be introduced in the near future one should not prolong the cohabitation rights legislation any further.