Jeff makes a break for the limelight again. Move over, Franco, because somebody’s really jealous.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando with failed Labour MEP Sharon Ellul Bonici and her brother, Labour lawyer and former policeman Andy Ellul, and one of his usual large drinks that are or are not spiked.
Desperate for his last few months of the limelight before he returns for good to the humdrum anonymity of dentistry, botox injections and being the wife of a politician, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has said to The Times that he does not “rule out” bringing before the House a private member’s bill on ‘gay marriage’.
First things first: it’s not ‘gay marriage’, Jeff, because marriage doesn’t have a sex life and can’t be gay, and besides, nobody’s going to ask you whether you’re gay if you turn up to marry somebody of the same sex, and you needn’t be.
If and when your attention-seeking efforts bear fruit, Jeff, you can turn up at the Public Registry requesting a marriage licence for yourself and Robert Musumeci – for example – assuming he has previously done the necessary, and you can’t be refused it on the grounds that there are suspicions you’re not gay.
This morning, Jeffrey is in the newspapers again, arguing that “the only reason many are averse to the idea of gay marriage is simply a misguided one based on religious beliefs”.
Not so, Jeff, not so at all. Homophobia exists independently of religion and besides, disagreement with and disapproval of same-sex marriage often has nothing at all to do with homophobia.
Take Russia, for instance. The participants in Moscow’s Gay Pride parades in 2006, 2007 and 2008 were targeted by mobs of thugs. There was a great deal of violence. In Moscow, openly gay men are regularly beaten up savagely and even killed.
The Gay Pride Parade there has now been banned. Yet you can’t accuse the Russians of being overly burdened by religiosity. In fact, if you want the world’s most secular society, that’s probably it. It also happens to be one of the world’s most homophobic, probably ranking alongside its polar opposite in the religiosity stakes: Iran.
If you’re going to begin a fresh crusade, Jeffrey, at least make sure you understand your market. You might find that same-sex marriage is not as popular a cause as divorce.
Malta was one of only two countries in the world without divorce legislation, and that kind of thing really influences people’s thinking and decisions. But with same-sex marriage, Malta will be one of the trail-blazers, and lots of people here in Malta are uncomfortable with that.
Ironically, it was conservatism and the need to be like everyone else and not a freak that drove a good deal of the vote for divorce. This one will be different.
21 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Jeffrey ignores the ongoing discussion at the Vatican regarding the notion of love between homosexuals and its natural existence. As usual proposed by those whose historic role it is to create the polemic within the church, the jesuits.
The most vehement opposition to this comes from the bible belt in the American southwest. If his intention is to set a similar anti-Cathholic agenda, I think he’ll be surprised at the gay community’s allergy to such tactics.
These extreme forms of politics belong to the far right, whose idea of civil society’s judgement and obsession with conspiracies is pretty similar to his.
Placing the church in the midst of an issue which won’t have an effect on the vast majority of the population will only damage those who would be.
Your comment on the far right has little basis in historical fact. The one about the Jesuits is more Interesting . . . and convenient.
Explain.
Jeffery knows from experience that if he pushes the religion argument far enough there will be do-it-yourself crusaders, bible-bashers and happy-clappers preaching at us “what would you tell Jesus in the pearly gates of heaven….?”
There would be a stampede to the polling stations to vote against these holier than thou people and their ideas.
Gay marriage: if they can ‘produce’ children without the ‘help’ of the opposite sex, than I would accept marriage for that couple.
I am seeing this ‘gay’ marriage proposal as a marriage of convenience to get pension ‘rights’ which are there for non working women (mainly). What would the country get in return with this kind of marriage?
Your “argument” would lead to the forced annulment of all childless marriages.
Why give him the insight? Il-Malti jghidlek ‘cafcaf papru la sibt l-ilma’. Or are you’re betting the more you tell him not to, the more noise he’ll make?
“Yet you can’t accuse the Russians of being overly burdened by religiosity. In fact, if you want the world’s most secular society, that’s probably it.”
That is, simply put, not even close to being true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Russia
Probably around 70% of Russians identify as Russian Orthodox Christians.
Oh, no. Not another reverendum.
If as you rightly say,J.P.O is again trying to be in the limelight. Why do you accommodate him? Why don’t you just ignore him?
That is exactly what he deserves. Who the hell wants to know what persons like him says or does.
As far as I am concerned he is a nonentity and a text book failure.
From a marketing point of view, your take on marriage between homosexual persons is perfectly true. I don’t think they would agree, however, that their “rights” should be considered as a commodity.
On the other hand, Pullicino Orlando is being perfectly consistent in his push for families based on purely solipsistic ideals.
If JPO wants to make an ass of himself let him do so.
I mean, we all agree that same-sex marriage is top of the national agenda and people’s main concerns right now as spending dries up.
Why does it have to be called marriage?
There has been enough social progress in Malta to let all and sundry live as they like as long as they do not impinge on others.
Marriage was called marriage, between a man and a woman who can procreate.
[Daphne – That’s not true at all. If that were the case, post-menopausal women and the sterile in general would not be allowed to marry.]
Let there be civil unions and yes with the same rights as married people.
If it feels like marriage and enjoys exactly the same responsibilities and benefits as marriage, why not call it marriage?
I would be very grateful if you allowed this link to appear here ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9121424/We-cannot-afford-to-indulge-this-madness.html
Thank you.
inkontri (on facebook)
F’dawn il granet assistejna ghal rapurtagg ta konflitti politici f’kunsill lokali b’espressjonijiet li jindikaw nuqqas serju ta rispett poltiku, b’evidenza ta diskriminazzjoni politika , addirittura ta mibgheda politika ghal dawk meqjusa bhala avversarji politici. Il bicca l kbira tal Maltin u Ghawdxin, ta kull kulur politiku, stqarru li ma kienux jimmaginaw li fil kamp poltiku kien jezisti dan it tip ta razzizmu serju. Imma fil fatt jezisti u hawn min ma jiddejjaqx jesprimih meta jkun imdawwar minn dawk ta bhalu. Din il gimgha, INKONTRI se jiddiskuti
” VELENI- Id degenerazzjoni tad djalogu politiku f’pajjizna”. Jiehdu sehem fil programm, Evarist Bartolo, Fr Mark Montebello, Karmenu Vella., Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Charlo Bonnici u Andrew Azzopardi. VELENI f’INKONTRI Nhar it Tnejn 5 ta Marzu fit 8.20pm fuq One. Imexxi l Programm Joe Grima
Oh please, are you seriously suggesting that religion isn’t a major factor in people’s decision? Just because homophobia exists independently of religion does not mean that the two aren’t strongly linked. In the western world its a major factor in people’s homophobia.
[Daphne – In fact, they are not. Homophobia exists independently of religion and religion merely ‘encapsulates’ it. Religious laws and proscriptions did not come out of nowhere. Misogyny, for instance, is not CAUSED by religion. Religion gave a framework to a pre-existing (still independently existing) suspicion and fear of women. The fact is, if you remove religion, you do no remove homophobia or misogyny.]
OBVIOUSLY if you remove religion you wouldn’t automatically remove homophobia, but again that doesn’t mean the two aren’t linked.
The link you posted below proves it!
Catholic belief is not in any way supportive of homosexuals and forbids same-sex marriage BUT the problem is that nosey twerps like O’Brien are encouraging civilians to take it to a civil level.
Christian marriage should never ever be forced to change for others but legal and civil marriage accommodate all consenting adult couples.
Religion doesn’t create homophobia, but it does encourage it.
[Daphne – I can’t see how, given that everything else it says is ignored, at least where there is no force of law. People do, think, say and believe what they want to do, think, say and believe, and that’s why Noel Arrigo sells so much Durex in Malta despite what the Catholic Church says. If people ignore the Church’s teaching on contraception, you can bet your last cent they’re going to ignore the Church’s teaching on whether you should have sex with somebody of the same gender, just as they already ignore, in their legions, Catholic teaching on any sort of sex outside marriage. If the Catholic Church is responsible for homophobia, then why isn’t everyone obeying the rest of its teaching? ]
And yes, if the Catholic Church suddenly declared that same-sex marriage is fine in the eyes of God, then support for it would increase dramatically.
[Daphne – You are quite wrong there. What would happen instead is that support for the Catholic Church would plummet further, while people’s views on same-sex marriage would remain the same. People reach their own conclusions on these matters, generally as a result of life experiences, at least where society is fairly well developed and people are sort of educated.]
“If the Catholic Church is responsible for homophobia, then why isn’t everyone obeying the rest of its teaching?”
Because it significantly easier to judge others than yourself. Knowing that ‘those people’ shouldn’t being doing something makes it easier to simply point and judge. Contraceptives and sex before marriage are personal things which people do in their own privacy. Everyone does them so the mentality is that it really isn’t a big deal. Very different to something a small group of people do.
Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people in Malta who stupidly do not use contraceptives or who will not have sex before marriage (or more importantly have been married for years and years and believe that others shouldn’t, like Ms. Gonzi).
[Daphne – The fact that it is easier to judge others than oneself has nothing to do with religion. Religion grew out of human psychology, not human psychology out of religion. The three religions of the book originated as a system of law, with authority coming from a deity.]
Oh please, are you seriously suggesting that all those who are against same-sex marriage, divorce, euthanasia and abortion give a fig what any religion may say?
Of course not. I’m simply saying that a significant number of individuals are strongly influenced by the church, so much so that if the church was to say gay marriage is a-ok then yes their belief would eventually change.
There are obviously also plenty of other individuals who are against same-sex marriage because of their ignorant, bigoted or antiquated beliefs and not because of Catholic belief, I never denied that.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120304/world/scottish-cardinal-attacks-gay-marriage-plans.409635