Same-sex marriage: let's put things into perspective, shall we?
Anglu's Empire Station: same-sex marriages became legal there today, but apparently the Maltese government is ta' wara l-muntanji because it didn't beat Manhattan to it.
New York City is the world’s most sophisticated city, the city where literally anything goes and nobody bats an eyelash.
But same-sex couples were unable to marry each other there right up until yesterday. Yes, yesterday.
Same-sex marriage became legal in New York state TODAY. Yes, today.
And back home in Malta, you have people throwing tantrums all over the place because the Nationalist Party hasn’t pronounced itself on same-sex marriage (but is pushing through a cohabitation law which will make a lot of difference).
Over on Facebook, groups of thoroughly uninformed people who have nothing in common with each other except that they’re all homosexual (and uninformed) are complaining non-stop and firing off all sorts of outrageous accusations.
Some people have even declared that they will not be voting for the PN and will instead vote for Labour – whose leader has pronounced himself on same-sex marriage, indeed. He has said, repeatedly, that he is AGAINST it, that he does not approve.
Go figure.
They condemn the party leader who hasn’t pronounced himself and instead champion the one who says he is absolutely against what they want – because he has held out the rotten carrot that he ‘might change his mind’.
How daft can they possibly be: Joseph Muscat will change his mind, yes, when the polls tell him that the majority of the population favours same-sex marriage. And that’s not going to happen any time soon.
94 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Well to be fair, New York have gay marriage as of yesterday simply because people have been complaining, campaigning and debated for gay marriage for numerous years. Waiting around doing nothing won’t bring gay marriage to Malta. Admittedly there are good and bad ways to push an agenda, but still.
And it’s still a very contentious issue even in New York and America in general.
Yes, gay marriage should be a long-term aim in Malta, but there’s much to do as of now to change the general negative mentality towards gay people and the destructive bullying many gay youngsters suffer in schools and in their social lives.
Unfortunately, it’s much easier to type away on comments-boards and Facebook talking about politicians but changing very little, if at all.
I might be wrong, but as far as I know gay marriage has been around for a long time in most countries, nearly all actually except a few nice ones like Iran and perhaps Afghanistan.
I doubt it is illegal even in the Philippines.
No, no, no. Same sex marriage is illegal is most countries. Only a few european countries and certain american states.
Matthew Vella,
It seems we are speaking about different things. I made no mention of same-sex marriage. That is indeed illegal in most countries (or perhaps ‘not possible’ is a better description) but is not what I wrote about.
I was responding to the comment by Patrik about to gay marriage.
Exactly! People need to complain and bitch about this as much as possible. Thats just the way things get done.
[Daphne – Rational arguments, the absence of hysteria and panic, and good presentation are far more effective. The pro-divorce legislation movement was a mess before Deborah Schembri came on the scene.]
Yes, Deborah Schembri, the labor supporter.
And obviously I am all for rational arguments and the absence of hysteria (you cannot judge these things using facebook) but I am also for insistence. The idea of working quietly behind the scenes isn’t always as effective.
[Daphne – On the contrary, Facebook is the perfect place to see a person’s IQ, reasoning and sense of judgement in action. Working behind the scenes is extremely effective. Ask Joseph Muscat, who has been targetting gay men individually behind the scenes for the last 18 months or so. And he targets them ALONE not as a group or lobby, so that he can turn on the full ‘to me you are the only gay in the village’ flood of charm, the appeal of which appears to work solely on gay men. I have yet to meet a woman who picks pheromones off him, and that includes lesbians.]
How come JPO has not yet presented a brand new private member’s bill , this time round about gay marriages?
He has nothing to benefit from it personally.
It seems that Cyrus Engerer has jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
I have a feeling he will soon make a major U-turn and return to the PN.
In Maltese we say: Bravu Cirillu.
Cirillu is Cyril, not Cyrus. Let’s stop this nonsense.
So what’s Cyrus in Maltese?
Ciru. Except that it’s one of those made-up-on-the-spot words. Like ir-Re Alwig Sittax or Nerik Mizzi. Bleh. Rikotta’s about as far as Maltese can reach.
That should trigger the tsunami.
Cyrus is Ciru in Maltese.
The popular song referred to goes:
Bravu Cirillu
ghalhekk jghidulu hekk
h*ra f’qalzietu
mesah fil-glekk
to the music of Bizet’s Carmen.
How this fits Cyrus Engerer, I cannot fathom.
Why do you say made-up-on-the-spot, Baxxter?
You seem to me a know-it-all upstart.
I don’t think it’s in the standard Maltese dictionary, not being a typical Maltese name (like Mario and Pawlu and Byon and Charlon and Zak and Jake).
And yes I do know it all.
Does the P. in “H.P” stand for “prosopopoeia”?
No, it stands for Peter.
You are right. HP = Hocus Pocus.
I sense an alpha male challenge. The forum’s there for all to use. If you have a problem with me filling it up with punchy comments about a variety of subjects, interspersed with music videos, you’re free to do likewise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRKo07GiNe0
All gays take note. stop this gay marriage nonsense. It’s not helping your cause at all.
Don’t be silly. That is hardly true at all. In fact I see that as a pointless tactic to avoid having to address the issue: make them feel stupid about wanting it so that they won’t want it in the end.
Same-sex marriage is important for me since it proves that my country actual does see me as a normal human being who has normal hopes for the future, and more importantly it gives me the chance at a happy married life, a chance everyone else gets. Me marrying a woman will not make me happy- and that is NOT a choice.
Telling gay men and women to stop wanting to get married because they look stupid asking for it is EXACTLY the same as telling women that they are stupid for wanting to have a career.
In fact, that is what they used to tell women wasn’t it? “Why do you want to work and have a job? Work isn’t all that great in reality, so what’s the point of wanting it? ”
It didn’t work on women, and it sure as hell won’t work with me or any gay man and woman on the planet.
Huh? Its nonsense for me to want to get married?
It must also be pointed out that most countries, even many European countries, do not have “gay marriage”. I believe this latter expression is a contradiction in terms.
The crazy Norwegian right winger is reported to have written this;
“We (he refers to him and his followers”) demand that our national governments (EU Nations) should immediately and without delay pull their countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control their own borders nor their policies, and they don’t as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes.”
Is it just me who thinks that he sounds very much like KMB’s CNI?
So Dee, but is Oslo an EU city?!
It is an EV (Eurovision) city. Is that not good enough?
I’m in love with a fairytale…
Recently a Canadian Catholic church commission issued the following document on homosexual persons http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/ministry-ssa_en.pdf
Give me a decent co-habitation act – which safeguards the rights and duties of any cohabiting couples – any day.
I think it is the duty of the legislator to ensure all parties in a relationship are safeguarded at law.
Nevertheless I am strongly against same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption.
Nothing against homosexuals, actually hold many homosexual friends, but marriage and subsequent adoption rights I would strongly oppose.
I do not think it is fair to bring up children with mummy and mummy or daddy and daddy. I mean no offence to anyone but it is a thwarted version of natural law in my view. You’ll surely say ‘says who?’ but fact is the natural family is between heterosexual couples conceiving children (god willing) and whilst safeguarding the duties and rights of cohabiting couples we must also ensure to give our children to proper version of ‘family’.
What bloody nonsense! Guess what Anthony? Most fags and dykes walking around today had two heteros (yes, a mommy and a daddy) as parents! Shock – awe. By the same measure, I think hetero couples should be banned from raising a future fag, in case they give him a complex and drive him to commit suicide.
It’s amazing what passes for education in Malta these days.
[Daphne – You’re right about that, Erable. Some meagre but significant consolation: gay (male) teenagers in socio-economic group AB in Malta have no problem coming out to their parents and friends nowadays. Education must have helped there – their schools and the fact that parents in that category tend to be more exposed to different ways of life. It’s still tough in other socio-economic/socio-cultural groups, I’m told. Unfortunately, those are the very social groups that make duttrina such a big part of a child’s life. And strangely, lesbians in all social sectors are still more or less invisible. Gay men are far more prominent, visible and vociferous in Malta than gay women.]
I simply don’t understand this. First and foremost same-sex marriage does not necessarily mean gay adoption would be legal. In many countries where one is legal the other isn’t. Its not an argument against gay marriage.
Secondly the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities have all said that the children raised by gay families are just as likely to be well adjusted the those raised by traditional families. There is no real problem!
So, yes, when you say gay adoption is bad for kids I will ask, says who? Thats such an intense statement which affects so many that you can’t justify it with ‘thats what happens in nature’. SHOW me the research which in any way shows that gay adoption is harmful. Cos I’ve got quite a few psychological associations to back me up, do you?
Is this Malta Today’s Matthew Vella?
[Daphne – No.]
No, its the most common name and surname in Malta, there are plenty of Matthew Vellas (unoriginal parents lol)
Our leaders are failing us. One doesn’t even vote in favor of a bill that the people voted for, and the other spends too much time lying about his agenda and manipulating us into believing that he is some sort of Liberal when his party doesn’t take an official stand on divorce, thinks we should do as Italy does with it’s asylum seekers, and is waiting to be convinced on Same Sex marriage by Cyrus Engerer.
We need to stop supporting any politician in Malta and start holding them accountable for their words and actions. They need to be put on the spot and questioned so that we can fully understand the situation the country is in today
What also needs to end is the way politicians rope everyday malcontents into their agendas and getting them to create a stir.
Enough with the petty issues and grudges. We have no choice when it comes to the election.
We have no choice, because the current government doesn’t think like to majority of the population and doesn’t even know much about it, and the Opposition says its Liberal but clearly isn’t.
It’s like the student union elections at 6th form.
Joseph Muscat’s position on marriage equality is disappointing in my view.
I like to use the term ‘marriage equality’ as even calling it ‘gay marriage’ makes it no better than calling something a ‘civil union’, a ‘civil partnership’ or a ‘domestic partnership’. Portugal has ‘gay marriage’ with less rights than a UK ‘civil partnership’.
However, how can Joseph Muscat’s position on civil union with full marriage rights bar adoption be considered as inferior to a cohabition law which puts two gay or lesbian indiividuals living together in the same basket as two siblings? One must also pinpoint that Joseph Muscat’s position on this is more or less the same as what far more socially liberal Germany has right now.
And how can I believe that the PN is more liberal on this issue when we have had two prominent government ministers equate gay marriage to abortion and euthanasia?
From an LGBT standpoint, the party which gets the vote next time round is the party which offers the best in terms of LGBT rights. Anything else is of secondary importance.
With what stretch of imagination am I to believe that PN is the more favourable option for LGBT rights?
You’re in for a big surprise, my dear friend.
Yes, it became legal today in NYC with all the major businesses, banks and department stores fully supporting this by parading in the Gay Pride held over a month ago here. Goes to show how different the mentality is as in gay marriage has been supported by lots of people, way before they actually made it legal.
And oh by the way in some other states, gay marriage has been legal for the past 6 or 7 years.
And when the gay marriage bill went through last month, the city lit up the Empire State building in rainbow colours … goes to show the gap in mentalities.. far from the
pn’s cohabitation law which will put siblings and gay couples in the same category.
[Daphne – Yes, and in other states, gay men are kidnapped and mutilated or killed because, lest you forget (if you even knew in the first place), New York City is the world’s most sophisticated place, but the United States also accounts for the world’s most backward places and the worst of the Christian fundamentalist religious right.]
I think I know that better than you, cause I live here and you don’t. And no, I don’t go to Maltese clubs, just in case you were gonna say that.
[Daphne – Know what better, John? That people are really progressive in Mississippi and Georgia? That intelligent design is taught instead of evolution? That the Ku Klux Klan is extinct? That peoplein a farm-town in the mid-west are more cosmopolitan and enlightened than people in, say, Sliema?]
This article shows me, Daphne is more concerned with her party staying in power than she with gay rights. Over and over again she denounces people and groups based on class, or her notion of class. How unclassy!!! Rant, rant seems to be the line of journalism in malta.
[Daphne – I have denounced nobody on the basis of class. I am merely pointing out that Mr Stewart is unwise to get facts and opinions about me SOLELY from working-class Labour-voting homosexual men who do not know me from Adam. If he were to ask around in different circles, he would find that ‘Daphne is homophobic’ is beyond ridiculous.]
There are no such thing as gay rights, as there are no such thing as women’s rights – there are only civil and fundamental human rights.
[Daphne – Thank you for that, Etienne.]
Dr Calleja is right.
I would add that the focus of the argument is wrong. Gays are arguing that they want rights.
But, as Dr Calleja and Daphne have pointed out, they are not being discriminated against.
What they are clamouring for in reality – if we are to call a spade a spade – is a radical shift in the definition of marriage: from a monogamic heterosexual union to a monogamic homosexual or heterosexual union.
[Daphne – Ah, this is where we part company. When two people get married, it’s no skin off my nose whether they are two men, two women, or a man and a woman. And it’s no skin off anyone else’s nose, either. Two people want to get married? They’re over 18? They’re not married to anyone else and are of sound mind (and so legally able to enter into a contract)? Then let them. Who cares. The arguments against same-sex marriage are even weaker (nonexistent, really) than the arguments against divorce legislation.]
I have included the monogamic element, because others – for instance Muslims – could campaign for a change to a polygamic heterosexual union.
[Daphne – I think you will find that there are laws which militate against that, and they’re not the laws on marriage, either. Polygamy is not linked to Islam per se but to ignorance, anyway. The Muslims I know regard polygamy is exactly the same way that I do.]
My only conclusion is: just like a Maltese man who wants a polygamic heterosexual union has to migrate to the Arab world, so a Maltese citizen who wants a monogamic homosexual union has to migrate where such unions are legalized.
[Daphne – Not everywhere in the ‘Arab world’. Saudi Arabia, perhaps, the Gulf states.]
If a Maltese citizen wants a polygamic homosexual union, I’m sorry to announce there is not a single jurisdiction which allows it.
What gays are clamouring for is a radical redefinition of marriage, not rights.
Do they have the right to clamour for such a redefinition?
Yes, indeed. It is called the right to freedom of expression.
Is obtaining the redefinition of marriage a right? I cannot see how it could be deemed a right.
“When two people get married, it’s no skin off my nose whether they are two men, two women, or a man and a woman.”
Yet, the reason why has to be explicitated if one wants radically to change the nature of the matrimonial contract (MATRI = MATER = mother).
Otherwise, one day siblings will want to marry each other. What will hold them then?
[Daphne – Siblings are prevented from marrying for biological reasons (genetic defects), not moral ones. The law dates back to when people had children only in marriage. There is nothing, now, to stop siblings having children together – but then, of course, the children are taken away at birth by social services, because it is assumed that somebody who is sick enough to mate with a sibling is going to be a thoroughly unfit parent.]
Moreover, if same-sex marriages are allowed, such spouses will be able to adopt (otherwise they would be discriminated against).
What about the children? Don’t all children have the right to have a mother and a father? Wouldn’t the children of same-sex couples be discriminated against?
The biological reason seems to be a myth. Nothing is said of physical or mental defects in this case:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3841016.ece
I can never understand why people who claim they have nothing against different forms of marriage still freak out at the word ‘polygamy’ or call polygamists ignorant.
If three or more CONSENTING ADULTS want to practise polygamy, polyandry or group marriage, then why the hell not?
[Daphne – Social services and pension cheques, I think you’ll find. It’s one thing paying out one widow’s pension for every man, but imagine paying out seven. Are you prepared to have your own NI contributions increased so that some nutter can have seven widows? Here’s a challenging thought: why do the people with progressive views on sexuality and polygamy insist of access to the most old-fashioned and archaic institution? ]
All have been practised throughout history for a number of reasons; religious or social beliefs, gender imabalance in society, love, aristocratic reasons and so on. If a household wants to pack more adults into it than we are used to, why should anyone stop them?
As far as I’m concerned, if we allow two homosexuals to marry (and we should), we should also allow anyone to marry anyone as long as all people involved consent. I don’t care who or how many people my neighbour is married to.
An interesting article about this was written recently in The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/marriage-and-liberty
[Daphne – Yup. And then there are people who laughed because the prime minister said his cohabition law will also regulate the relationships between siblings.]
No shit sherlock. When people say gay rights they are discussing human rights which relate to gay issues. Women’s rights are human rights which relate in particular to women’s issues. There is nothing more asinine than saying gay rights and women’s rights do not exist. Its all word play.
I’m not going to comment wether you are Homophobic or not, yet one sure thing is that your agenda is definitely PN and not pro-gay.
[Daphne – 1. ‘Your agenda is definitely PN and not pro-gay’ is a non sequitur. 2. I have already made it amply clear that I disregard a person’s sexuality and just consider the person, therefore I cannot be ‘pro-gay’ because it would give the lie to this. 3. My being pro-PN is a democratic right, just as your being pro-Labour is. Unless, of course, you and your friends are now suggesting that it is permissible only to be Labour, especially if you are a gay man (gay women are irrelevant because gay or not, you’re typical Maltese chauvinists.]
Kindly understand that you can never understand a gay person’s feelings/situation so please refrain from trying to tell us what is good for us.
[Daphne – Oh, on the contrary. I understand perfectly: in typical male fashion, you’re making a huge drama because for the first time in your Boss of Everything lives you feel that your rights have been infringed. I can tell you this: you’re damned lucky you weren’t born a woman in Malta any time before 1975. As the saying goes, if men were the ones who gave birth, the human race would have died out immediately. Il-veru kaz.
And no, I’m not telling you what’s good for you. I really don’t care. You’re not my son and if you were, you would be able to argue rationally rather than in this infantile fashion.
I will tell you just one thing that’s good for you, though: if you want to be taken seriously outside the world of soft porn, refrain from posting pictures of yourself on Facebook ‘sexily’ pulling down your pants. It’s really, really not a good look.
As I have said several times, I’m in favour of same-sex marriage because I have nothing against it, but I am absolutely not in favour of the way you are undermining your own cause. This is a piece of professional advice: don’t protest too much and argue the case for. Concentrate on demolishing the case against. That’s right, there isn’t one. So point that out.]
I used to be an active PN supporter yet if I give LGBT issues a priority (which in my case it is), I have no choice but to look for greener pastures thanks to the complete indifference and insensitivity the PN constantly shows towards LGBT issues (which we both agree are human rights).
[Daphne – Oh, that’s so very sensible. Because when the economy is f**ked over and Anglu Farrugia is minister for the police (among other horrors) none of that will matter as long as the prime minister is still telling you to convince him that same-sex marriage is fine. I’ll tell you when Joseph Muscat will be convinced of same-sex marriage: when the polls tell him that 60% of the electorate favour it. Ghandek x’tistenna. And while you’re waiting, let’s hope you hold on to your job.]
3 basic issues to ponder about this are: Malta Didn’t Sign Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ie The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status & that No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned), The Joanne Cassar Case & Homophobia is not considered a hate crime although Racism is…. after looking into these should we still be loyal to this party?
[Daphne – No, Malta hasn’t signed it but we’re in good company because the United Kingdom, Sweden and France haven’t either. Albania and Azerbaijan, on the other hand, have. Signing is meaningless. It’s ratification that counts, and of the ‘civilised’ states who have signed it, very few have ratified it, even though many of them signed it as long ago as 2000. Here you go: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=177&CM=8&DF=26/07/2011&CL=ENG ]
Needless to say although the Prime Minister did not pronounce himself against LGBT rights, his actions speak louder than his words…. maybe “lili iggudikawni fuq dak li nghamel” rings a bell?
[Daphne – Yes, exactly. ‘Judge me by what I do not by what I say’, and that’s what I do with the prime minister and ‘gay’ issues. He doesn’t stand around mouthing platitudes like Muscat. Instead he encourages gay people to stand for election on the PN ticket (successfully) and to take on prominent positions in the party – NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY BUT ON MERIT. Compare that to Labour. Talk talk talk with everyone in the closet and the token gay – captured from the enemy – paraded around like Pocahontas.]
You are right Joseph Muscat made many shocking statements & I was Shocked and let down big time, I also was one of the first to fire my guns at him, yet after learning of my criticism Mr Muscat unlike Dr Gonzi, Invited me over to “id-dar tal-hgieg”, listened to my arguments admitted to some of his short comings, we found common grounds and we came to some understanding,
[Daphne – Frigging typical. What an arch manipulator. “Qieghed jghid kontrina dan? Mela cempillu wahda ghidlu ha jigi hawn ha noqghod nisimghu ftit u nsoddu.” Then you get the call, feel thrilled, flattered and important, sit there talking while he fakes listening, and you leave converted while he rubs his hands with glee. Joseph Muscat – Labour’s Mata Hari of gay men. I can’t believe how you can have so little self-respect. If he were to ring me ghall-appuntament ha joqghod jismani, I’d quickly tell him where to stuff it. Fake, false snake-oil merchant.]
I am sceptic of PL yet PN is not offering anything better, especially when bearing in mind that PN is in government and has the faculty of amending the situation. What did PN do in the past 25 years for the LGBT community? besides the Bare Minimum imposed by EU for accession
[Daphne – ‘PN is not offering anything better’ about what? Gay rights? Is that how you decide major issues, on minor ones? Or is getting married more important than staying in work, and this when you KNOW that no government is going to introduce same-sex marriage 2013-2018, no, not even Labour. Once you’re not going to get same-sex marriage from either lot, you’d be better off voting for the lot that knows what it’s doing with the economy. But that’s just me, and I’m thick apparently.]
I think at the moment it’s premature to say if we should support Labour or PN (basically we have to choose between the lesser of two evils), that can be decided at a later stage, I think we all have to wait and see what proposals both parties are coming up with… Should PN promises “more relevant rights” (which I doubt) in the party’s electoral manifesto it will be another insult to the LGBT community, as PN is in Government and at least the 3 miser issues mentioned above should have been tackled and not “in the future we should consider to start to discussing them cautiously” just as Dr Stephen Spiteri speaking on behalf of pn said last month.
[Daphne – Russell, the Nationalist GOVERNMENT (not party) has already proposed far more than Labour has done (18 months before an election and still no Labour policies): the cohabitation bill. Or had you missed that? Stephen Spiteri does not speak on behalf of the PN. Stephen Spiteri has his own problems because, you know, you don’t have to be gay to have personal difficulties. Personally I think they should wipe him off the list.]
Seriously?! You must be joking comparing Malta’s civil and human rights record against that of the United States, like that’s some kind of world standard. Death penalty, anyone? Don’t ask, don’t tell? How about a quickie rendition flight in the middle of the night to some hell hole that tortures its emigrants just for the heck of it, mainly because your name sounds like it might belong to some Ay-rab and you happen to have a connecting flight through JFK? (That actually happened and, yes, I do believe that JFK is located in the world’s most sophisticated city).
No one is more “ta’ wara l-muntanji” than the moral majority of the United States. And it’s not just the Republicans: it was none other than William Jefferson Clinton who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, that vile piece of legislation that was specially devised just for the gay community (sorry, “homosexuals”), to carve out a unique exemption from the constitutional requirement that every US State give “full faith and credit” to marriages that were solemnized in all the other US States, leaving tens of thousands of gays and lesbians without federal health or tax benefits even though their home states had allowed them to legally marry the person of their choice.
Could it be that Mexico City is more sophisticated that NYC? After all, they have had same sex marriage for over a year, and all those marriages are recognized throughout Mexico.
The bottom line is this: Malta has light-years to travel on several fronts with regard to some basic civil and human rights that other Westerners take for granted. Right now neither the ruling party nor the official opposition has the cohones to do what is right. Case in point the recent shenanigans regarding divorce. Even worse, the current government continues to spend your hard-earned taxpayer Euros, and is actively marshalling all manner of state resources in the righteous battle to prevent people like Joanne Cassar from getting married (presumably, to anyone, male or female). You can bet that they would do the same if Johnny and Billy were to apply for marriage banns, or Claire and Monica.
By what stretch of the imagination is this kind of state interference even remotely acceptable in a modern, secular society?
[Daphne- Oh, I agree. And that’s just it. The only argument for same-sex marriage is that there is no argument against it. But then I would take that one step further: there is no argument FOR marriage, full stop, whether you’re gay or not. That’s the direction the developed world is heading in, particularly with the removal in many jurisdictions of the tax benefits pertaining to marriage.
It’s one of the ironies of contemporary life that while heterosexual couples are seriously disinclined to marry, homosexual couples (sorry if you don’t like the word, but there you go) are agitating to be able to do so. How long before gay couples (OK, then) discover what straight (I don’t like this word, because it comes from the use of ‘bent’ to describe homosexuals) couples began to discover three decades ago – that marriage is only ‘necessary’ when there is significant financial inequality between the partners?
You talk of the unacceptability of state interference in deciding who gets married and who doesn’t. But think: marriage is by definition pure and utter state interference in personal relationships. By consent, it is true, but still. Marriage is the regulation by the state of a sexual (or whatever) relationship between two people, whoever and whatever they may be. Exactly why are we asking the state to regulate our relationships in this day and age? Society has changed completely. There is equality between the genders. Women are working and earning money and looking after themselves and have their own pensions. There are ways of proving paternity without marrying a woman and making sure that you are the only one who gets to have sex with her. When two people marry nowadays they buy the house together before they contract their marriage, and both help pay for it – meaning they own it jointly whether they marry or not. And yet we are still subscribing to an institution designed to protect financially dependent women, legitimise heirs and consolidate dynasties. Marriage rates haven’t fallen throughout the developed world because of divorce- as the anti-divorce campaigners claimed – but because women now have their own money. This is not something I agree or disagree with, but just an observation of a state of affairs.]
I agree that it is just plain daft to champion the jack-ass who will change his mind when the polls tell him that the majority of the population favours same-sex marriage. It is downright disturbing to look across the field and see that the only option is a PM who prefers to say and do nothing to remedy these and other wrongs, on the basis that the remedies would offend his conscience.
[Daphne – Oh, no doubt. But the difference between me and all the gay men who are getting very angry about this is that, being a woman, I have lived with serious legal injustice and immensely disturbing socio-cultural prejudice, suspicion and bias for close to 47 years. We’re not talking the right to get married here, either. We’re talking really serious stuff like your husband being permitted by law to sell the marital home, which you helped pay for and in which you all live with your children, without your consent or even without telling you about it. We’re talking about women going to the bank and finding out that the entire contents of their joint savings and current accounts have disappeared because their husband was permitted by law to take and blow the lot without his wife’s signature.
I had a schoolfriend whose father gambled away THE FAMILY HOME and everything he and his wife owned. Women were fired from the civil service when they married, which is why there were so many married-women teachers in church schools. In high unemployment situations, it was official policy to discriminate against women when hiring – yes, that’s right, not only was discrimination against women allowed, but it was actually ENCOURAGED – so that men could get the job and ‘feed their families’. In job interviews, the standard question to single women was ‘Do you plan to marry?’ and to married women ‘Do you intend to get pregnant?’.
Worse still, some recruiters asked women to submit to a pregnancy test. In factories, women were permitted more lavatory visits when menstruating, so women who said they had their period were checked by a female supervisor to see whether it was true. Was this the dark ages? No – this was my lifetime, and most of these injustices carried on right up until the mid-1990s.
Educating girls and women was considered a waste of time, effort and money ‘because they’ll just get married’. In fact, many of the problems we’re seeing with today’s generation are the direct result of the fact that their mothers were not educated beyond the age of 15, and so totally unequipped to raise and mentor children in the vastly changed world of today.
Erable, you know all this is true.
How many women my age in Malta have jobs, careers, money, a life outside the context of their husband and family? The story of Maltese women of my generation (more so our mothers and grandmothers) is the tragedy of wasted potential because the entire system – schools, home, family, social brainwashing – programmed us to expect nothing more than to marry and have children and be dependent on our husband. With my generation – and I was born in 1964, not 1944 as you know – if you weren’t married by 24 you were on the shelf. In 1986, the Sliema ‘front was chockful of pram-pushing mothers aged 19 to 24 with the occasional really old one of 25 or 26. That’s right, 1986. None of us had a job or any money of our own – unless i came from our parents – and all of us without exception had left formal education at 15, 16, 17 or 18. And we came from Malta’s most privileged families, so imagine what it was like for women in other social groups.
So forgive me if I sometimes sound bemused at the absolutely terrible injustice of one man not being allowed to marry another man, even though they both have an income, pension and property of their own and no reason to do something so very unprogressive and old-fashioned as get married.
In fact, I am not at all surprised that it’s only gay men who are present in this debate in Malta. I have received streams of comments and NOT ONE of them has been from a lesbian. I rather think that this is because, for the first time ever in their history and experience, these men are suffering an injustice and sense of unfairness, and because men are accustomed to being the top dogs in Maltese society, they can’t understand how they’re not the boss of this too. Meanwhile, Maltese lesbians are rather less agitated about it all because, let’s face it, if you grew up as a second-class citizen by dint of being a woman in Malta, then your perspective on what’s an injustice and what isn’t is going to be a whole lot different to that of gay men.]
True – all true, and all very sad. And yet, the first same-sex couple to tie the knot in New York State were an elderly lesbian couple. It’s about acceptance, equality, and not being relegated to the second, third, or worse, tier of society. That desire is truly gender-blind.
In my own life, as you may know, my partner and I would never dream of getting married. Why would we? Our “deal”, financial and otherwise, is all set out in a private contract of our choosing.
But then, we can afford independent legal counsel, we are educated, and 25-page documents do not intimidate us. That’s not the case for all same-sex couples.
Gays and lesbians are entitled to the exact same legal protections and choices that are made available to their straight counterparts. That is a basic civil right that has nothing to do with sexuality.
Neither the state nor any of your correspondents have any right to tell me that my partner and I are unfit to marry if we want to, or to adopt a child. There is no science to back up those prejudices, and no amount of sophistry can heal the world of hurt caused by this ancient and systemic discrimination.
Matthew Wayne Shepard was a gay boy born in Casper, Wyoming in 1976. To my knowledge, no Maltese woman born in 1964 or anytime in the 20th or 21st century was tortured, crucified and left to die on a desolate fence in the middle of a cornfield, just because she’s a woman.
[Daphne- Not in Malta, no. But look elsewhere in Europe, like the United Kingdom, where girls and women are shot, burned alive or knifed because they refuse to marry/dishonour the family/leave their husband. By the same token, no gay man in Malta has received that treatment either. In Britain there are shelters and organisations set up specifically to help women who are at risk of honour killings. Throughout Europe, including at least two in Malta, there are shelters for women who are beaten by men. One of them has a reinforced steel door and a hotline to the police. I know of no such shelters for gay men who are the victims of violence. Practically every week in the news in Malta there’s a story about a woman who has been shot, strangled or stabbed 50 times, thrown down a well, off a cliff or systematically poisoned (this one last week). I never see anything similar involving gay men.]
This is a world where 18, 22 and 23-year old gay boys are suffering execution by have stone walls bulldozed over top of them, in places like Iran and Afghanistan.
[Daphne – They are not executed because they are gay, but because they are men who have sex with men. Similarly, the women who are killed in those places in the exact same fashion are killed because they have sex with men outside marriage. The common factor is illicit sex, except when you’re a straight man. Now if you tell me that this is wrong because a gay man should be able to have sex, the same goes for women.]
Any state that persists in maintaining discriminatory laws (for reasons of conscience or otherwise) is tacitly but effectively condoning this barbaric behaviour. Yes, women have had it bad. No one will deny that, least of all me. But no, that does not justify a “wait your turn” attitude towards all the other injustices that are crying out for justice the world over.
[Daphne – This is not about waiting your turn but about putting things into perspective. By singling out the young man so horribly killed in the United States because he was gay, you are falling prey to the mentality that takes the far more frequent savage murders of women for granted. If a gay man were to be found here in Malta dead from 50 stab wounds, there would probably be a gay right march down Republic Street, but when a woman is found that way – yet again – tmur ma’ l-ohrajn.]
“We’re talking about women going to the bank and finding out that the entire contents of their joint savings and current accounts have disappeared because their husband was permitted by law to take and blow the lot without his wife’s signature. ”
That can still happen today I believe, I don’t need my wife’s permission to withdraw any amount from our joint account, and she doesn’t need mine.
[Daphne – Yes, that is one of the flaws in the legislation. Instead of removing the potential for abuse, it ensures ‘equality of abuse’. She can rip you off and you can rip her off, but before 1995, you could rip her off and she couldn’t do the same to you. However, at least loans and the sale of property are now subject to signatures from both.]
“We’re talking really serious stuff like your husband being permitted by law to sell the marital home, which you helped pay for and in which you all live with your children, without your consent or even without telling you about it.”
As far as I know, I could be wrong, the husband could even do this with property the wife owned BEFORE she got married.
[Daphne – Thank you for reminding me of that. It still gives me serious palpitations I get so angry just thinking about it. How did we stand for it, my god!]
Are you saying husbands could administer their wife’s pre-marriage property?
[Daphne – YES. Married women did not administer their own property, and you will notice that women of a certain generation have had this so much ingrained into them that their husband still takes care of what THEY own.]
New York is the sixth and largest state in America to legalize same sex marriage – joining Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut (as well as Washington DC). Yet the Federal Government’s Defence of Marriage Act means same sex couples do not get the same legal recognition as heterosexual married couples.
While same-sex married couples can file a joint tax return in New York State, and be eligible for tax breaks, they will not be able to file a joint federal tax return.
The above is part of the article which was published today on the website of BBC News.
.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14270960
What percentage of people in Malta, when they think about what marriage means, think of it as a man and woman getting married in a Catholic Church with vows and all that?
90%?
95%?
More?
How many of them then consider the civil contract that has been entered into?
I reckon that not only will it be hundreds of years, if ever, that same-sex civil marriage is available in Malta, also I can’t see that type of marriage which has been contracted abroad being recognised here until the Catholic Church’s influence has dwindled considerably.
If a Maltese wants a ‘gay’ marriage then they have to go abroad and stay there.
And I would love the first same-gender marriage to be between two women, to be used as an example of how unfair our current system is.
Okay just so you know, within 20 years same sex marriages will 100% DEFINITELY be performed in malta. I’m pretty sure it will be earlier than that, but you never know.
We are not talking about marriages by the Catholic church. As a gay man I would NEVER want to impose my views on christian and force them to allow me to get married in a catholic church. But we are not talking about religious ceremonies. Why are you talking about them?
I am one of those who said, ‘I am ex-PN not wishful thinking like ex-Gay’. Daphne, my reasons are very simple: I am fed up with this corrupt government. I am informed thanks and I do not need you to tell me. And with regards cohabitation law, get informed yourself and compare the rights and duties of cohabitation law when compared to civil unions laws or marriage laws. What I can really observe is that you are in denial or projecting your failure of your belowved Gonzi- PN on other people.
[Daphne – From the perspective of my great old age, I have just this piece of advice for you: if you need a contract and a wedding ring to ensure that your companion does not do the dirty on you, don’t even think of marrying him when the law comes through. Dump him instead and find somebody you can rely on with or without a contract. Marriage or not, if you can’t trust a person before marriage then you can’t trust him afterwards, and the marriage law has yet to be invented that cannot be circumvented by somebody determined even to cheat you of what is yours and screw you over. But nobody tells you these things: if you NEED to marry somebody, as opposed to WANT to, the relationship is dead in the water.]
Seems to me like you need some clarification on the terms you’re using and how they compare to eachother.
co·hab·it (k-hbt)
intr.v.
1. To live together in a sexual relationship, especially when not legally married.
mar·riage
–noun
1. the social institution under which two individuals establish their decision to live as husband/wife, husband/husband, wife/wife by legal commitments, etc.
How is this equal in your books?
[Daphne – It’s not. And apparently, that’s why the government feels the need to legislate so as to regulate cohabitation situations. But I repeat: if you need the law to regulate your relationship because you don’t trust your partner not to cheat you, dump him, don’t marry him.]
That’s a very short sighted way to look at it. What about cases where hospitalised people are refused the right to see their partners simply because the state does not recognise their relationship?
[Daphne – Patients in hospital have the right to see whoever they want, including the dustman if they so wish. There are restrictions only in ITU and CCU, but these do not cover one’s nearest and dearest, marriage certificate or not. Who told you that you have to be married to the patient so as to be allowed into ITU? What rubbish, honestly.]
What about inheritance rights?
[Daphne – If your partner dies without having made a will leaving you his goods, chattels, money and property, then you have no rights. Solution: make a will. How hard is that. I guess you don’t know that when married people die without a will, the heirs are not the spouse but the children. The spouse only gets right of use.]
What about tax benefits for married couples?
[Daphne – Are there any? I hadn’t noticed. It’s quite the reverse: when you’re married and filing a joint return, the two incomes are calculated as one and you end up paying massive amounts of tax. It’s one of the main reasons why married women don’t work – because it’s just not worth it. Hadn’t you known this? If you’re talking tax, better not to be married. That’s another reason why marriage is on the decline in many jurisdictions: the tax regime penalises marriage.]
I think you are missing a very simple point, this is not about the trust between partners and neither is it about relationships. This is about equality, something you clearly will never understand because you don’t have the lack of it.
[Daphne – Are you reading my blog selectively? I was born into a system which actively discriminated against women and classed them as second-class citizens. I grew up in that system, married within it, and had three children while still living in it. Then, when I WAS 31, the laws began to be changed. I don’t have much time for the fuss gay men make about marriage because I know exactly what REAL discrimination is as I lived and breathed it in a society that took it as read that women were inferior and that men were the boss of everything, a situation that was backed up by laws. You, on the other hand, having been born a man and what’s more, one who probably reached adulthood post 1995, have never experienced discrimination, real discrimination at law and in society. This is your first and only experience of it and you cannot understand why it is happening to you. Meanwhile, if you know any Maltese lesbians my age, I suggest you ask them what was the greatest discrimination they suffered – whether it was as women or as lesbians. I already know what the answer is.]
You so miss the point! We are speaking of human rights here not about trust… that is out of subject. Totally unrelated to why many wish to have marriage rights just like you…
[Daphne – What would those rights be, Chris? If you are talking about community of property and earnings, that is optional in marriage and not mandatory. The right to live in the marital home? You can get that by ensuring that the home you both live in is in both your names – you don’t need marriage for that. What else? Ah yes, a widower’s pension: surely nowadays nobody expects not to work and contribute to their own pension? Come on, what else?]
What if your partner is sick and you are told you are not allowed in because you are not next of kin?
[Daphne – When you are admitted to hospital for surgery, you have to fill in a form giving details of next of kin and the person authorised to take decisions in case of emergency. If your partner puts down his mother’s name instead of yours, take it up with him, not the hospital.
You appear to have very little understanding of how hospital visits work: anyone can visit anyone, which accounts for the huge throngs at Mater Dei and the protests for more buses there. The only way somebody can be banned from visiting is if the patient gives express instructions. The only restrictions are in ITU and CCU, two places where you are unlikely to find yourself. But if you do, rest assured that significant others are permitted access along with, say, parents and siblings, and that nobody asks for proof of marriage precisely because so many couples are not married. This, of course, is assuming that the patient is unconscious or in a coma and cannot speak. If the patient can speak, he can ask for whoever he wants to visit him, even in ITU/CCU.]
What about inheritance? Spending half your life with a person you love only to be told by greedy nieces and nephews they want you out of the house when he passed away?
[Daphne – Such ignorance, honestly. If you and your partner fail to make a reciprocal will leaving everything to each other, then don’t blame the state or the fact that you’re not married. No number of nephews or nieces can challenge that will. Only your biological or adopted children can do that, whether you’re married or not, and I’m assuming you’ll want to leave them something if you have any. ]
These are all true stories, and the reason you speak and think the way you do is because you have grown up taking these rights for granted.
[Daphne – True stories, my great-aunt Zeza (I haven’t got one). You’re relying on gossip when what you should be doing is ringing the hospital and talking to a lawyer.]
Daphne remember however that there are particular rights attached to the matrimonial home per se, that go beyond community of property – such as exclusive rights. Similarly a single reciprocal will is the prerogative of married people.
[Daphne – Reciprocal willS. I leave you all and you leave me all (separate wills but with reciprocality). Rights to the matrimonial home: if your name is on the deed, then nobody can move you out. If you have bought the home together, your name will be on the deed. If you are moving into your lover’s house with a view to a permanent commitment, and he refuses to put your name on the deed, leave him. If he won’t even share his property, on the grounds that it’s ‘his’, then he’s not going to be sharing much else and your life with him will be hell. I find that homosexual couples have a romanticised view of marriage that hetero couples just don’t have – the grass is greener, etc etc]
The only way to circumvent this would be to have two wills written simultaneously. Naturally, inheritance righs exist ex lege for married couples, and where the laws of succession, provding the obligatory minimum mode of transmission, render the wills practically unnecessary.
Your take on that bit about hospitals is totally correct of course.
“Rights to the matrimonial home: if your name is on the deed, then nobody can move you out. If you have bought the home together, your name will be on the deed”
Precisely. This means that there is no exclusive right unless under the regime of marriage. In the event of abuse or divorce, the house would have to be sold or remain in community. One partner would not have exclusive rights over the other to remain resident in the house. This is the situation presently with marriage, and gay marriage would be no different.
[Daphne – I’m actually talking about how to manage things when you’re NOT married. I genuinely can’t understand all this fuss by homosexual couples about rights to property. What are we talking about here – two grown men, both of them earning, and only one of them owns the flat? How does that happen? Pension rights – ditto. Why does one of them need the other’s pension if both are working? Inheritance – hasn’t anyone heard about wills and notaries?]
It is possible that gay people may want marriage, in part, precisely to exert special rights over the matrimonial home. Rights that they would not otherwise enjoy through he exercise of a simple community of property. This is not to say that a co-habitation law cannot provide similarly, and I’m not saying that the law as proposed doesn’t. I haven’t read it, so I don’t know.
Daphne, so if a patient is in the ITU after a car accident and is in a coma, or whatever not conscience, and the patient’s parents simply do not want you involved (extremely common), would you still be allowed in?
[Daphne – Yes, if you are the significant other. There is a great misconception about this, which grows out of the fact that in extreme cases in the ITU, only spouses, parents and perhaps siblings are allowed in to restrict movement and disturbance around the patient (no other reason). Spouses doesn’t mean you have to produce a marriage certificate at the door; it’s just taken to mean ‘significant other’. What do you think – that if Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando were (heaven forfend) in a coma, then Carmen wouldn’t be allowed at his side? Come on. Parents or no parents.]
I think you’re missing the point. The rights that you gained through marriage may not be huge, [Daphne – I gained absolutely no rights or anything else through marriage that I didn’t have before or wouldn’t have had without. On the contrary.] most of them can be replaced by individuals contracts and so on but that still doesn’t mean that it makes sense that same sex couples don’t have them when straight couples do.
[Daphne – Straight couples don’t. Married couples have some rights over communal property, but then only if they take up the default position and don’t rescind the community of acquisition regime. Pensions? Surely a grown man should be paying for his own. The pension rights in marriage were designed to protect women, because it was taken for granted that they weren’t going to work and would be financially dependent on the husband. House? Ditto. Couples nowadays buy the house before they marry, so it’s academic. Inheritance? Write a will. If, on the other hand, you want to marry for some other, non-property, non-financial reason or just to make a point, then that’s another matter.]
To your last comment:
I think you’re missing the point. I am not interested in whether you think marriage is a great deal or not. WHY i want to get married is none of your business. The fact of the matter is that straight couples have a legal option that a gay couples does not. That is unjust. That is unfair. There simply is not a legitimate reason why same sex couple should be excluded from this having this legal option.
And again you may think its useless, but considering the amount of people getting married today, I’m sure it has its benefits. (And even if you think it doesn’t, it is still unjust for only certain couples to have that option).
[Daphne – ‘A lot of people are doing it so it must be worth having’. Sorry, no. It’s a social convention. And for most Maltese women, a free meal ticket for life.]
A free meal ticket for life? I don’t care about your thoughts on housewives, lets not even go there.
[Daphne – Not wives, necessarily, Matthew. Issa ghandna shab indaqs fiz-zwieg, u hemm salt bums ma nghidlekx.]
”’A lot of people are doing it so it must be worth having'”
We are not discussing whether it is worth having. What is with you? We were discussing the fact that certain couples do not have access to it (when there is no reason they shouldn’t) and that is unjust.
[Daphne – Who cares whether you don’t have access to something if it isn’t worth having? I don’t have access to the bogs at Mile End. Doesn’t mean I want them. Sharpen up your arguments. Come on. Too lame.]
And yes the rights that come along with marriage aren’t the only reason marriage should be a legal option for both straight and gay couples. The government is sending a clear message when it excludes same sex-couples that is very damaging for gay individuals. It is about principles too.
[Daphne – Actually that’s not how people see it at all. It’s important to mix outside gay circles to get a proper perspective. Extending marriage to same-sex couples does not change society’s perception of gay people. It changes society’s perception of marriage. In other words, the minute same-sex couples get marriage, it’s no longer the thing they wanted. ]
The only trust I want is that of society to respect my rights and duties (I do mention those too) that I can love someone.
[Daphne – I don’t follow you, sorry. I think what you’re talking about here is public recognition of your relationship, which is something else all together.]
If we want to speak about trust and politics it is about we trusting the state!
[Daphne – I don’t see how that comes into it. Forgive me for playing devil’s advocate, but it’s best to test your arguments against somebody who has no problem with gay marriage before you go out and use them on somebody who really hates the idea.]
Daphne I pretend more from your intelligence, but I have to be honest I think you are only disappointed like I am with the PN. But PN is not like a family, it is a club… so yes proudly I say I am ex-PN until and hopefully PN transforms into something more TRUE.
[Daphne – No intelligent person will ever talk about ‘gay rights’. The nature of human rights is that they are identical for all. Winning arguments against unintelligent people who like jumping on bandwagons is the easy bit. Winning them against ‘intelligent people’ is where the real challenge lies. If you can’t use your argument to persuade somebody who reached her own conclusions (in favour) many years ago, then just imagine how much tougher it’s going to be arguing with ‘intelligent people’ who can’t stand the thought of same-sex marriage. My message to you is not ‘your cause is wrong’ but ‘your arguments are wrong’. I repeat: the only argument for same-sex marriage is that there is no argument against it. There is only prejudice and irrational fear. Work on that.]
And how does what you’re saying, in any case, translate into ‘this corrupt government’?
Daphne, why get married at all then. Either we have marriage, or we don’t, but if we want it, what is the reason not to enable any consenting adults to get married to each other, regardless of their gender?
[Daphne – Patrik, that is exactly my argument: that there is no argument against same-sex marriage. As for why get married at all – there’s no reason to get married anymore, and it is this, not divorce, that accounts for the decline of marriage throughout the developed world. When women are working, earning as much as their men, have paid for their share of the home, and paying for their own pension, marriage becomes completely irrelevant. The only reasons for marriage now are if a woman wishes to live off a man and be protected legally (except that when he wants out she usually discovers he’s made sure she’s not protected at all), if you want to start a family (because children like their parents to be married and it’s kind of nice for them) and if you think being married is more respectable (why not). Also, when you’re in public life or a national leader it’s seen as mandatory to be married: Gordon Brown lived with Sarah for many years but married her before he became leader; Ed Miliband is under pressure to marry his companion, with whom he has children; Nicolas Sarkozy married Carla Bruni in haste before his state visit to Britain, because the Queen does not host companions or lovers, only spouses. And so on. The reality is that two people, both of whom work and own property jointly, and who plan to have no children, needn’t get married – though many do so all the same because they want to.]
Of course a gay man can get married to a woman if he wants to, but that doesn’t quite make it equal. A heterosexual man can get married to the person he loves, as can a heterosexual woman. A homosexual man or woman does not have that option.
[Daphne – Oh, you would be surprised just how many homosexual men love the woman they marry, just Not In That Way. You know, all this trouble began when marriage came to be seen as a union of love. Throughout history, it was never anything but a functional, practical, pragmatic and contractual union, generally entered into for survival at worst and advancement at best. ‘I love him therefore I must marry him’ is a bit of a non sequitur, really. The people who insist on the right to marry present themselves and their arguments are progressive, but really they are conservative in the extreme. A progressive person campaigning to be able to get married is an oxymoron.]
You have expressed yourself repeatedly on this issue and I just can’t understand your point. Normally I read your articles like they were second nature and only occasionally do I find myself disagreeing, but your view on gay marriage is something I find incomprehensible. Perhaps there is something I’m missing, but I don’t know what that is.
[Daphne – I’ll spell it out, then.
1. I am in favour of same-sex marriage not the grounds of rights (or wrongs) but because it’s nobody’s business if two people who are over 18, not in an incestuous relationship and of sound mind want to marry each other, whether they are of the same gender or not.
2. I believe that campaigners for same-sex marriage in Malta are weakening their position by getting embroiled in ultimately self-defeating arguments about rights (and wrongs) when they should set about demolishing all opposition instead by pointing out repeatedly that there is no rational argument against same-sex marriage, but only prejudice and fear. The divorce referendum was won not by posters of women with black eyes and protestations about equal harm being done to children by separation, but when the anti-divorce lobby was pressed for rational arguments against divorce and was unable to come up with anything other than fear and prejudice.
3. I find it necessary to ‘train up’ same-sex marriage campaigners by playing the devil’s advocate here, because I have done a fair bit of campaigning and public affairs work in my time and this is my professional competence (though I no longer do that work). Hence, I can see exactly where they are going wrong. Think of it as putting an amateur boxer in the ring with a professional trainer for a bit of sparring, the objective of which is not to knock the amateur out but to sharpen up his boxing skills.
4. In lobbying, you have to win over the toughest nuts, not the weakest ones. The arguments that have come into this website don’t even convince me – somebody who is already convinced – so take it for granted that they are not going to convince somebody who is both sharp and prejudiced. Convincing the Facebook crowd is the easy bit. ]
I truly appreciate the lengthy reply (really don’t know how you find the time for all this) and it’s definitely clearer, although still a lot I disagree with.
[Daphne – Oh, it’s really getting on my nerves at the moment. You have no idea. Like being chained to a galley. And if I let it slide for a few hours I come back and find 200 comments.]
In regards to marriage I was funnily enough of the same position before I met my wife. I really had no intention of getting married, but after living together for some time it just felt right and proper.
Marriage is a lot of things and the emotional and comittal parts are vastly more important than the legal aspect. In fact, personally the fact that we have an officially recognised marriage have very little impact.
I could have had the ceremony, the loving words and the far too many sambucas, left the contractualy bits outside of it and still been as happy. But, I can still understand why that part matters to people.
You say it’s not about rights and that’s the part I still can’t understand. If marriage was completely a la carte and 100% customisable for every couple then it wouldn’t matter. But marriage, in its current shape, is more than just a social contract, it carries recognition and benefits throughout society and I know you feel most of those benefits can be acheived by other means (although not all), but that’s hardly the point.
To cross the pond, imagine Mississippi in the 50s where blacks and whites had, for example, seperate restrooms. A situation which is obviously wrong, as we all know whose restrooms were fancier.
But imagine if the law stated that black and white people can’t share restrooms, but the standards of the restrooms were identical. Would that be acceptable?
[Daphne – Not the same thing at all.]
In my book it wouldn’t, as you still, to the very least, pander to a system of segregation and division, where you officially endorse a view. Same goes with same-sex marriage. If a society has a legal framework for the love and commitment promised between two people, then that framework has to be expanded to cover all consentual adults, or else it creates that same kind of segregation.
I agree very much when you say that in today’s day and age we hardly need marriage laws anymore, for the very same reason why the legal part matters very little in mine. But, if we are to have the legal framework for it, then it is in my book a breach of right not to include those who by their very nature are attracted to people of their own gender.
Some quick notes on your last four points and then I’ll shut up as I’ve taken up too much time already.
1. Great, agreed.
2. Covered what I don’t agree with on this above and the last part about lack of reasoned arguments I agree 100% with.
3. Greatly appreciated. I’m all for Daphne as public service.
4. You would be right if we were talking just politics here, but winning over Joe Public is a crucial part of any policy change. The march on Washington (yeah I’m back to that, sorry) was a demonstration of strength in numbers, when reasoned arguments were faced with violence and strong words.
Rosa Parks didn’t try to engage in debate with politicians, she sat right down with the commoners with a message of having had enough. And just to be clear, I’m not in any way saying that gays in Malta face remotely the kind of climate that black people faced during those years. But the fact is that there is historically a low level of tolerance of gay people in Malta (as in many other places) and taking the political route is but one way to achieve change.
Even the pride parades, which to us more subtle people look absolutely ridiculous, have an important role to play. It’s all about standing up and showing people that they’ve had enough.
[Daphne – I don’t think pride parades have that effect at all, but the reverse. They make it look like gay people have no worries and are not really concerned about anything. Compare pride with a women’s march for the vote or equal pay for equal work, or even with the march on Washington that you mention.]
Appreciate the answer and I think where we disagree is fairly unimportant and continuing will only be tedious to both of us.
Keep up the good work and feel free to leave the topic behind (not that I’m implying you need my permission to do so).
Hi Daphne,
I suggest that you encounter Dr Joseph Muscat as I did and get to know the facts better.
[Daphne – I have already encountered him several times, Mr Bayliss. That’s how I know what I’m talking about. As with Sant, I knew a great deal of him BEFORE he entered the public’s consciousness as a party leader and potential prime minister. He and I were both journalists at the same time – or rather, I was the journalist and he was the paid propagandist and party hack. We were also on opposing teams in the EU referendum campaign, when much of my time and effort was devoted to counteracting and anticipating his stupid and dangerous arguments why Malta shouldn’t be part of Europe. I remember thinking at the time that if my sons (I didn’t care that much about myself – I was already almost 40) ended up without an EU passport because of the irresponsible, stupid bastard, then I would probably have to be restrained from strangling him with my bare hands (a metaphor, I hasten to add). In addition, I sued him for the most incredibly stupid and irresponsible book he wrote associating me with the P2, the Bologna train station bombing (I was at school) and the assassination of Kennedy (I wasn’t yet born), and won rather a large sum of money off him and the Labour Party.]
He might have said that he is against Gay Marriage but he is in favour of Civil Partnerships, something which Dr Gonzi does not even dream of. There are lobby groups in Malta that are working hard for our rights including yours truly.
[Daphne – Exactly where did he say that? In most states where ‘gay marriage’ is legal, including Britain, it’s actually not marriage at all but a civil union. Try not to be gullible. Remember always kif hadmu l-Joseph Cuschieri.]
The anomaly about it is that we are all Maltese Citizens but we have to “fight” for our rights. I suppose as Maltese Citizens, under one flag, we should be treated as equals and do not have to lobby for our rights. Afterall, we still have to burden our duties to the country.
[Daphne – Tell me about it. Life was legal hell for married women before 1995. I actually find it quite ironic to see gay men (where are the women?) arguing that they want rights through marriage when I and legions of Maltese women lost many of our rights ON marriage.]
“Legal hitches
· Same-sex marriages are legal in six states: New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts
· In 2008 they were briefly legalised in California, until Proposition 8 was passed five months later
· Washington DC, which has administrative powers but is not a state, also allows gay marriage
· The 1996 Defence of Marriage Act (Doma) said marriage must be between a man and woman
· In 2010, a Boston judge ruled Doma unconstitutional”
(Timesonline.uk)
“Some people have even declared that they will not be voting for the PN and will instead vote for Labour.”
OK, here’s an idea. Why wait for the election?
Why don’t gay activists approach all the sitting Labour MPs and ask just one of them, any one of them, to present a draft gay marriage bill in Parliament? You know, a’ la Pullicino Orlando. I’m going to start holding my breath round about now so, guys and girls, please hurry up!
Agreed! The Facebook group in question can sometimes be a bit retarded with various comments that don’t make sense.
However, one must not assume that all gays think the same way as those who post on said Facebook group, just as the panel on a recent John Bundy TV show does, and did not, represent all the women in Malta and Gozo.
[Daphne – Yes, Al, I know that and I’m glad that somebody has written in to say the same thing I’m saying here but in a different way: the gay men on that Facebook group expect all other men to behave like them because they think they are the ‘gay standard’. But they’re not. Their thinking and behaviour reflects their social and political background and not their homosexuality. Put simply, they would have thought and behaved the same way even if they were not gay, and all they have to do to see that is look at similar Facebook groups where the common factor is NOT homosexuality. The main factors which govern behaviour are social background, IQ, education and political beliefs (which last are shaped by the rest), and NOT sexuality. This small nucleus of mainly working-class gay MEN (because given their background and nationality even the gay men are chauvinists here) have seized the agenda and the debate and have made it seem like it’s not possible to be gay (men) and vote Nationalist. Notice that there are no gay women in this debate. In typically Maltese fashion, the men have taken over, are seeking to dominate the agenda, and are all busy writing in here to fight with that bloody woman who won’t stay in the kitchen like their mothers. Rant over – for now.]
I am starting to lose you Daphne as, as I mentioned in my previous comment, I used to really enjoy reading your blog.
[Daphne – That’s OK, Al. I don’t get two cents for every reader I can muster. And I’m not trying to become prime minister so I won’t be telling you what you want to hear, either, but what I want to tell you.]
Having said that, it seems now that you seem to be attacking the gays, which I find very amusing, Daphne.
[Daphne – ‘Attacking the gays’. Oh dear god in heaven.]
Just because ”the well spoken and the bright light in the PN” let you down, you must but not take it out on the rest of us.
We’re defenseless…. (I’m griinnnig)
Oh don’t worry, I shall still follow your blog, yes, religously :-)
Al, ic-chunky!
[Daphne – Ask around outside the Labour Gay Men’s Movement, Al, and find out exactly how much of a gay-hater I am.]
Thank heavens, I have no connections in there…. you’re my only salvation Mrs Caruana Galizia.
Al, ic-chunky
[Daphne – From the perspective of my great old age, I have just this piece of advice for you: if you need a contract and a wedding ring to ensure that your companion does not do the dirty on you, don’t even think of marrying him when the law comes through. Dump him instead and find somebody you can rely on with or without a contract. Marriage or not, if you can’t trust a person before marriage then you can’t trust him afterwards, and the marriage law has yet to be invented that cannot be circumvented by somebody determined even to cheat you of what is yours and screw you over. But nobody tells you these things: if you NEED to marry somebody, as opposed to WANT to, the relationship is dead in the water.]
Bravo and spot on.
Straight, gay or bisexual if against the Party -line let the mad dogs tear him/her down. How low can you get?
i’m sorry at your comments, truly I am, because your writings have recently changed from professional criticism to simple bitch fights loaded with what seems a tough break of pms…. i’m sorry but this kind of criticsm and digging up the dirt of people simply to discredit thier stands is just sad….
[Daphne – Nice. A misogynist writing in to accuse me of homophobia. I was just having a chat with a friend this morning, Joseph. I told him that in Malta, even the gay men are chauvinists. Isn’t it interesting? Even the ‘gay rights’ debate is dominated by gay men, with the gay women nowhere to be seen, except for the LGBT leader. And just as with their non-gay counterparts, they talk as though people = men.]
Also, there is a general assumption that all Maltese gay men (I don’t personally know any gay women) by default, are open-minded and tolerant. From experience, I believe that this is certainly not the case.
[Daphne – Mhux ovvja? To repeat an answer I gave elsewhere, our attitudes are NOT shaped by our sexuality, but by our upbringing, education, social background and politics (which last are shaped in turn by the first three). The attitudes and thinking of gay men who were raised Labour and working-class are not shaped by their homosexuality but by the fact that they are Labour and working-class. This is so fricking obvious that I shouldn’t have to point it out. And they mistake the well-mannered behaviour and refusal to be exhibitionist, of those who are gay (men) and vote PN, for ‘being in the closet’ or ‘pretending’. Chav behaviour is chav behaviour, whether you’re gay or straight, but the Gay (Males Only) Labour contingent can’t see what’s staring at them in the face: that their behaviour and thoughts are no different to those of your average chunky straight woman in a halter and four-inch mini who’s out on the razz. It’s got nothing to do with sexuality.]
On another note, it seems the ‘liberal’ agenda in Malta has been hijacked by the chavs and the demi-monde. This does not bode well and I am dubious whether this is in fact a genuine interest.
[Daphne – Tell me about it. Liberal = chavtastic. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Vince Micallef with cocktails and shirts open to the waist, with Consuelo and Bundy in tow. Najs.]
It has to do with intelligence! You see only those who write good English are intelligent; the rest are Chinese, Germans Indians or Laburisti! Mentality of a lumpen petit bourgeoisie! No censorship please!
An interesting “extension” to the same-sex marriage debate in NY by The Economist – once again it boils down to monies and power, rather than love (which doesn’t have much to do with marriage in any case)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/07/marriage-markets?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/thepolygamytax
There are some who mistake the word Liberal for Libertine unfortunately.
Daphne imn’alla hawn int biex turina t-triq. Bis-sahha tieghek il-PN ser jerga jirbah l-elezzjoni. Grazzi ghax bis-sahha tieghek iddecidejt li m’ghandi’x bzonn nizzewweg lil boyfriend tieghi. Brava brava brava , vera taf .,kemm taf .Ikieku kont flokhok nohrog ghal l-elezzjoni ,tkun tajba ghal Ministru tal-Politika Socjali. hahahahhhhaahha
[Daphne – Exactly how does this sort of tone help your cause? You sound like a right idiot.]
How about this perspective:
Divorce: New York, 1787; Malta 2011.
Same sex marriage: New York, 2011; Malta …
Perhaps the fuss may be justified.
To put things a bit more into perspective, in all 31 states of the US where same-sex marriage was put to a vote by the electorate, it was always defeated.
Where same sex marriage is possible in the US, it’s only after laws passed by the state congress or court decisions. These have often been challenged and defeated at the ballot box. And this is America.
I would say that civil unions are a first step to acceptance of same-sex marriage. When people can see gays entering into civil unions, the next step to marriage will not be such a big chasm to cross.
[Daphne – Tell me about it. Life was legal hell for married women before 1995. I actually find it quite ironic to see gay men (where are the women?) arguing that they want rights through marriage when I and legions of Maltese women lost many of our rights ON marriage.]
It is not worthwhile for a financially independent woman with a career and property of her own to get married nowadays, not with the laws as they stand and with the introduction of divorce legislation.
[Daphne – You tell ’em, Dee. I am sick to death of hearing gay men talk like marriage is the holy grail of rights, security and financial bliss. It’s actually the reverse for anyone who is earning and owns property. They’re a bit late to the party: when the heteros are getting out in droves, they want in. If I were a gay man with money and a house, I would NEVER get married. Why in heaven’s name would you bother, unless there are citizenship and work permit issues.]
What the law says and what actually happens in the family court are two different things altogether.
Meglio soli che mal accompagnati _ and that goes for straight people and gay ones as well.
“when the heteros are getting out in droves, they want in. If I were a gay man with money and a house, I would NEVER get married. Why in heaven’s name would you bother, unless there are citizenship and work permit issues.]””
Same here. Society in general has changed and with it the main reasons why one decides to get married.
No piece of paper from the civil marriage office or the kappillan ever stopped anyone from walking out of a marriage, if he/ she decides to call it a day. Nor will it make him/ her keep his/ her word re maintenance, no matter how much carefully thought legislation one may concoct.
I couldn’t resist sharing this apparently serious comment taken off the TOM comment board with reactions to Claire Bonello’s column referring to the hunger striker from Cospicua:
Albert Spiteri
Jul 24th, 15:48
Very good comments by Claire Bonello. Actually I feel obliged and heavily indebted to Mr. Cini for being much bigger than I am. He took up the fight for us all. If ARRIVA does arrive, it would be thanks to this guy, whose paste I do not care much about. WHAT I DO CARE ABOUT IS HIS PRESENT AS A PERSON OF GUTS AND CONVICTION AND HIS FUTURE AS A HUMAN BEING WHO DESERVES JUST AS MUCH AS I DO. THANK YOU MR. CINI! And thank you Claire Bonello for writing this piece.
My favourite bits: “I feel obliged and heavily indebted to Mr. Cini for being much bigger (!) than I am” and “thanks to this guy, whose paste (!) I do not care much about”
Dr Freud, please analyse.
Wait a mintue, just one thing. Gonzi obviously hasn’t said he’s against gay marriage. But thats simply because it goes without saying. I mean it would be bizarre to me if he even said such a thing.
[Daphne – So why isn’t it bizarre that Muscat said it? It should be even more bizarre to you given that he’s always banging on about how progressive he is.]
And you mentioned in a comment to someone that the UK has same-sex marriage. Civil unions are not the same, they offer less legal benefits (irrespective of whether you think they are important or not). Plus the word itself holds importance. They are not the same thing.
[Daphne – Exactly what do you know about marriage? Do you know, for example, that what you think are the rights of marriage are actually the default position and need not be contracted or, if contracted, annulled by means of a subsequent deed (while still being married)?]
Obviously both Gonzi and Muscat will only consider same-sex marriage when it becomes politically advantageous.
But when the time comes there is always a risk in supporting it and I would simply imagine Muscat taking that risk before Gonzi. I still can’t get over the divorce debate. There is no denying that the labour party was the more progressive party on that debate, so it just seems more plausible that they’d be the more progressive again.
[Daphne – A total non sequitur, as the debate on membership of the European Union, and Muscat’s own vote on that, show CLEARLY.]
That is not a non sequitur! The debate on the EU was almost a decade ago….. One would hope attitudes have changed.
[Daphne – Mine hasn’t. I still think joining the EU was the best thing that ever happened to us, and I still think Joseph Muscat is a complete pr**k for not being able to see it. And yes, I still feel like strangling him with my bare hands (a metaphor) for bending over backwards to deprive my sons and their generation of the EU passports that have made possible for them things their parents could only dream of. For that alone, my take on Muscat is that he can f**k himself to kingdom come and back. I apologise for the language, but eight years on (not 10) I am still livid about it. To think what we stood to lose because of his half-brained, half-assed ‘pragmatism’.]
On the largest recent issue Labour was the most progressive, its not a HUGE leap to suggest they would be more likely to support another issues in which one of the biggest obstacles is religious prejudice, like divorce. (the divorce/same-sex issues are more similar than the EU membership, which was a while ago).
[Daphne – It was only ‘a while ago’ if you are 20, which would make it half your life. It is not ‘a while ago’ to me. It is vivid and recent, and when I see Muscat on television now I see him on Made in Brussel then, or shrieking at Eddie Fenech Adami at some press conference about the EU.]
And I don’t know why you insist on detailing what marriage is.
[Daphne – Because some people appear not to know. I find it strange that you want marriage but can’t be bothered finding out exactly what it does or doesn’t entail.]
Even if marriage is a completely rotten option, it is an option that straight couples have (AND CONSTANTLY USE) and gay couples do not. Don’t you get that THAT is a problem for gay couples?
[Daphne – No, not a problem. A bloody irritation, an unfairness, but certainly not a problem. If lack of marriage were a problem, there wouldn’t be so many unmarried straight couples who can marry but won’t. This is the 21st century not the 19th. Marriage is pretty archaic, you know. You do it for romantic reasons or reasons of respectability, not practical ones – unless the practical reasons involve being financially dependent on somebody who would cheat you without a contract.]
Muscat has pronounced himself against gay marriage for one good reason– POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.
He does not want to lose the Muslim vote that he is carefully nurturing. The prominent Maltese Muslim in his ranks is not exactly a fan of same-sex marriages, and neither is his boss at the Corradino mosque.
He is simply weighing out his pros and cons and figuring out whose vote is worth more.
[Daphne – Muslims? No, it’s the Catholics he’s worried about. And the many thousands of his supporters who think in terms of ‘pufti’ and ‘nisa-rgiel’. After all, the biggest insult that a Labour website can dream up in my regard is to call me a transsexual. So progressive. Straight out of their rahal.]
Madame Caruana Galizia i agree with you about the biased perspective of certain maltese people and not just homo’s, what is really killing me is the way you think about progression. Just because NY received a human right today and NY is NY it doesnt mean that Maltese homosexuals have to stay with there had to the wall and not fight for their rights just cause Malta is Malta and we are still 10years behind everyone. First of all I believe that decisions make progression and with many different decisions we will get to NY scale, it is just people who think “i dont care” or “i dont want to do anything for my country let the others do it for me” who keep Malta this way. Reader, do you want Malta to stay this way? Then DO SOMETHING!