Daphne, you cannot marry another woman either. But as far as I know you don’t wish to, and never did. Crucial difference.

Let’s be sensitive to other people’s wishes (not to use the word ‘rights’). No matter what your opinion is on this issue, insensitivity here will only fuel even more estrangment.

[Daphne – I am not at all insensitive, but I have been cursed with a logical mind, which isn’t always an asset. The law pivots on logic, not emotion. As for my opinion on this issue, regular readers of this blog know that it’s no nose off my nose whether two people of the same gender wish to marry. It’s none of my business, and I’m not about to make it my business.]

To me, the fact that Agatha Barbara, a woman cabinet minister responsible for employment, issued a regulation demanding that a job vacancy created by a man could not be filled by a woman is the true litmus test of the MLP’s attitude towards women’s rights.

This was condemned by the International Labour Organization.

Daniel;, who are you trying to kid?

At the end of the day a civil marriage marriage is nothing more then a contract, and there is little that cannot be achieved through a notary and a lawyer.

What you mean is you want two men\women who live together to be considered married by society at large.

You know, or should know that is not going to happen in Malta for a long long time, civil union, gay marriage or whatever comes along, just like today, most Maltese people (and far more ‘laburisti’ then Nationalist supporters) consider people like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and his wife, for example, as ‘pogguti’.

I don’t agree with it but it’s the truth.

If you are gay (I think you’re an elf not a gay man struggling for gay marriage) you will never be considered ‘married’ to another man by society here, not for a long long time, even if you are.

Think about it, despite Labour being Queen (bitch) Central, the only openly gay MP and politician is former Nationalist, who they are constrained to parade around, while the others are in the closet though still obvious. But seeing that to the PN a person’s sexual orientation is neither here nor there, no issue is made of it.

I do see your point. However, translated into a basis for voting, or not voting for a particular political party I think it is slightly out of context.

During Mintoff’s time, women’s rights were by and large an area of human rights law that was still in its development phase. If you look at the ratifications of CEDAW for instance, at least half of the signatories only ratified the Convention after 1990, that is at least 11 years after it was opened for signature. Therefore, I find it to be a more constructive exercise to compare the way Nationalist and Labour governments dealt with “emerging” rights (for lack of a better term).

In the case of the Nationalist government, some cases in point would be:
1. the more recent interpretation of the right to a fair trial, as also including the pre-trial right to access to legal assistance. Not only did the Nationalist government drag its feet in this respect, it did so even after Parliament had passed legislation recognising such right, and for eight whole years.
2. LGBT rights – Which creates discrimination with regards to issues such as tax regimes for homosexual couples.
3. Reproductive rights – for instance, Malta is the only EU country which outlaws abortion, without any exception.

So whilst I do agree with you to a certain extent, I believe that while in government, both Nationalist and Labour governments have shown a not so marginal degree of reluctance in the progressive interpretation and implementation of human rights protection.

[Daphne – Don’t be such an arse, robert. Rights are rights. They’re not in anyone’s gift, still less ‘Dom’s’. What are you suggesting here: that if the law hadn’t been changed to allow Maltese women to vote, in 1947, we would still be without the vote today? Get a grip, for God’s sake. In any case, it was Boffa, not that ass.]

[Daphne – Women had few rights anywhere in the world between 1962 and 1971, David. That’s part of what ‘the Sixties’ was all about. That’s when things began to change: late 1960s, early 1970s.]

You left out an important bit, men could sell their wife’s property (i.e. property they owned before marriage) without their permission too.

I agree, the possibility of gay marriage is utopistic in Malta. I can already see a different thought process though. This is exemplified in the transition from a cohabitation bill to a civil union.