Oh, so we do have divorce
Nationalist MP Charlo Bonnici, who is a contender for the post of the party secretary-general, asked in parliament how many Maltese citizens have been granted a divorce by the courts of other EU member states, since Malta joined the European Union.
Austin Gatt, as the minister responsible (eerrrmmmmmm……?) replied. The answer is 115. Reading further along the report, it becomes clear that this figure doesn’t refer to the number of Maltese citizens who have been granted a divorce, but to the number of divorces that have been granted to Maltese citizens. Every divorce decree results in two divorced people, not one, so 115 divorce decrees means 230 divorced people. Perhaps some of these were non-Maltese married to Maltese, but that’s by the by.
The figures have been pretty steady every year: 21 divorces were granted in 2004, 33 in 2005, 25 in 2006, 23 in 2007 and 13 so far this year.
40 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Anyone can make us understand why Austin answered this question?
Austin Gatt is also responsible for the Public Registry.
Anyone read this?
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/06/15/amallia.html
This article raises several important issues.
Sybil, the natural conclusion of Anna Mallia’s article is that any system designed to coerce people into unnatural positions is doomed to failure. Trying to keep all people married and faithful all the time is like squeezing a handful of sand to control it. It slips out through your fingers. Adultery shouldn’t be illegal and divorce should be available to those who want it.
@ Daphne Caruana Galizia. Adultery is illegal thanks to the Labour Government of the 1970s. No thanks to the PN. The reason we even have civil marriage in Malta is because of the MLP. No thanks to the PN there either.
Anyone who wants to legalize divorce needs to vote Labour – it is that simple. EFA and Archbishop Gonzi’s great nephew are on the record as being against the introduction of divorce in Malta. Guido Demarco negotiated the scandalous marriage act that allows the Catholic Church the exclusive right to dissolve marriages in Malta.
At present the only Maltese citizens having access to divorce are those residing abroad or those with the funds to be able to establish a foreign residence for the purposes of getting a divorce abroad and then having that foreign divorce registered in Malta.
As for the rest of us -the middle and working classes – no divorce because the Nationalist party, who are always tas-santa f’idejhom, doesn’t believe it is in our interests.
A vote for Gonzipn was also a vote for the status quo on divorce – i.e. forget about it anytime soon. For those of you who voted gonzipn and were in favour of divorce, that includes you Daphne, please don’t complain and get bent out of shape about it. You had a chance to bring us forward into the early 20th century on this issue and you didn’t. You got what you voted for – now enjoy your moaning and hand wringing for the next 5 years.
My heart goes out to those of you who did not vote for the qaddisin tal-PN and have to live with the situation.
@Uncle Fester
I believe divorce is a civil right, but I’m not about to vote labour to get it. Its an act of self-flagellation I’m not keen on.
And don’t be disingenous, the MLP has its share of santa wavers too.
But hey, if you want divorce, you can always collect signatures to call a referendum. The question is, which Maltese party respects the peoples wishes expressed in a referendum?
Uncle Fester: “As for the rest of us…no divorce”. Are you married?
Corinne, Uncle Fester has told us repeatedly that he’s gay, so the answer would be no. Unfortunately for him, even the sainted Joseph Muscat is against gay marriage. Oh well.
Uncle Fester, as a sensible person, I weigh up the consequences/benefits of any major action I take, including voting. Nothing would have made me vote for a crazy government led by a nutcase leader like Alfred Sant, just for the remote possibility of divorce legislation which he didn’t even promise, and which wasn’t in his manifesto (a misprint, perhaps?).
It is not a question of if..It’s a question of when
Daphne: Maybe, maybe not. Uncle Fester might be gay and married, hence the pseudonym.
I agree with fester. Since the PN and the Church are permanently allied to each other (and always have been), you will never legalize divorce by voting PN. You have to vote Labour or AD to get divorce legalized. It is a simple as that.
However, if you want divorce right now, quick and easy, take a trip to Catania, find a lawyer there, pay some cash and you’re done. And then you can ignore the fools organising crusades against divorce over here, while there rest of the world has been having divorces for hundreds for years.
My fear about having divorce introduced by the Labour Party is that it will turn out to be like CET. I’m sure it’s a fear that many others have to. The Labour Party, famously, can’t organise a piss-up in a brewery.
The Labour Party and its ability to organise a piss-up in a brewery: I nearly died laughing in the election campaign when it held its day-long televised fund-raising drive at the very same time that it held ‘l-ikbar mass meeting li qatt sar fuq il-fosos’. By the evening, the total collected was loose change compared to what the PN had raised (something like half a million). You could see the grim expressions of the hosts as they realised – ding! dong! – that they shouldn’t have scheduled the televised marathon for the very same time that all its keenest supporters were at the mass meeting, rather than in front of the TV.
Daphne Caruana Galizia Wednesday, 25 June 1750hrs
Sybil, the natural conclusion of Anna Mallia’s article is that any system designed to coerce people into unnatural positions is doomed to failure. Trying to keep all people married and faithful all the time is like squeezing a handful of sand to control it. It slips out through your fingers. Adultery shouldn’t be illegal and divorce should be available to those who want it.
If Anna Mallia is correct in that article,the type of divorce that is acceptable in Malta by the Registrar includes a type of divorce that does not treat both partners equally. A few days ago on TVM , a high goverment official was explaining that the registrar only accepts divorces taken abroad from countries having “serious” divorce legislation. The “Talaq” system mentioned by Dr Mallia may not fall under this category and it may affect negatively the rights of a Maltese woman married to a non-Maltese who may chose to get a divorce in this fashion. In the particular case mentioned,a legal precedent may have also been created because both partners in this marriage are residents in Malta and have Maltese citizenship. This precedent does not bode well for women’s rights where divorce is concerned. Maybe a legal beagle can explain further and in some more detail.
Clearly one of the intentions of the MLP Leader is to anchor the party firmly on the left side of the political divide especially as regards social issues, divorce being one of them. That is the position which always guaranteed it success.
Let us not forget that the MLP lost power in 1987 only because there were not enough checks and balances to control certain elements which got used to the power they enjoyed and mis-used it. The difference was only 4,000 votes. There was no “plebiscite”, no “revolution”, as some seem to be calling what happened in Malta after 1987. The mentality of getting everything from the government is still alive and kicking. It’s just more sophisticated. Like, for example, the myriad “advertising agencies” which would go bust without government or parastatal contracts.
The MLP has paid a heavy price for the mistakes of the 80s. In vain it has tried to look like a sort of “red PN”. But we know that those who copy in an exam are disqualified. Success for the MLP once again requires it to be the party of, yes, dreams. That is what socialism is all about. Were it not for socialism in Europe, there would still be a ruling class made of up businessmen, nobles and beaurocrats having all the power as if it were “the natural order of things”. Socialists then dreamed of a better world. And their dream came through. And the dream is still valid.
When the MLP is firmly anchored to the left, especially as regards social policy, the PN will be pushed to its natural constituency, the conservative one.
@Daphne and her sister: When I used the plural I was actually speaking in terms of the rest of the nation. I think I form a part of it, whether you like it or not. Sorry I should have realized that I fall into a special sub category of Maltese, at least in your eyes. And Corinne, no I am not married. I am in a committed relationship with a same sex partner. We would like the option to solidfy our relationship and legalize it for many reasons but are unlikely to get that in this country any time soon. That’s just life.
But getting back to the issue of divorce – Didn’t Alfred Sant’s government set up a commission to examine the issue and report on it and this within a year of being elected to office? Has the PN done anything to even examine whether such progressive (by early 20th century standards) legislation is needed in 21st century Malta? Answer: no it hasn’t and is on the record as saying that it will never agree to it.
What is the PN’s position on this issue:
– Opposed decriminalization of adultery in the 1970s even although the party was headed by a serial adulterer.
– Opposed civil marriage.
– “Reformed” marriage laws to win brownie points with the Vatican by giving local church exclusive competence over marriages between Catholics even if the Catholics did not set a foot inside a church other than to be married or for their kids baptism, first holy communion or confirmation.
– Uses “liberal” PN supporters like Daphne to convince pro divorce voter segment that you can still vote PN even if it goes against your fundamental believes on core issues.
U hallina, Daphne, don’t you realize that you are being used to perpetuate the tas-santa f’idejhom’s grip over the PN?
@Daphne. If you are right and the MLP can’t organize a piss up at a brewery (and you may just be a tad pushing it there) – then why not try constructive criticism and make it a better party? It would be in the interest of everyone but especially of people, like yourself, that have progressive views on social issues. 20 years of your writing on progressive issues hasn’t made the PN more progressive on those issues, it has simply served to perpetuate our backwater status on these issues by convincing progressives to vote for a backwards looking PN. As a starting point the MLP needs funding. The MLP should be taking advantage of the euphoria created by the election of a new leader to tap people for cash by organizing a major fundraising drive. “20.13 euros donation per supporter for victory in 2013”. I sent a cheque for 300 euros to the MLP. Will readers of this site who support the MLP on progressive issues do the same according to their means. On the cheque I wrote “for divorce, gay rights and a woman’s right to choose”. Money talks.
@Albert Farrugia. I agree with your analysis almost 100%. Only thing is that there is no left and right in the pre-cold war sense any more so dividing line is more blurred.
Sybil, what difference will it make to the price of eggs or to the divorced wife of a Muslim if the registrar here refuses to acknowledge the divorce? The man will go on with his own life in his own country – or wherever – regardless of the refusal. Surely it makes more sense for the woman to be shot of him rather than have him as a millstone round her neck?
Uncle Fester, if you knew me at all well, you would know that one of my distinguishing characteristics is my refusal to do anything I don’t want to do, in both my personal and my working life. If I do something, it’s because I want to do it. ‘Have to’ is not really part of my vocabulary. You can forget your notion that anyone is using me for anything at all. Don’t you imagine that the Nationalist Party would have loved me to campaign for Pullicino Orlando’s resignation, for example? As your former idol liked to say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
@Daphne. People who are being used by definition don’t realise it. Do you concede that your success at convincing the PN to adopt progressive views on social issues like divorce, a woman’s right to choose etc is ZERO despite gallons of ink over 20 years?
The Pullicino Orlando scandal is a run of the mill corruption scandal – it does not interest me at all. As opposed to the Noel Arrigo scandal which interests me plenty. The PN uses you to keep progressive PN supporters in the fold and voting against their own convictions on progressive issues.
Clever people down at tal-Pieta. Way smarter than me and yes even you Daphne. And how come Noel has not been brought to justice yet. Has your mutual friend given you the inside scoop on that?
@ Uncle Fester
A cheque donation of 300 euros for the Labour Party, what a waste of money. I would have found better things to do with that amoumt. I don’t think you will find anyone on this blog doing the same. Anyway Labour cannot change anything while sitting on the oposition benches, and at the rate it is going there is a big “if” whether it wins the next election, especially with those three at its helm.
@daphne
If there’s something the MLP could organise, at least until recently, its definitely a piss-up :)
@Uncle Fester
We have tried constructive criticism to create a better party, but the Labour party’s paranoia drove to believe it was all a dastardly plot and told us to mind our own business, remember? And they elected Joe Muscat, Anglu Farrugia and Toni Abela. Enough said.
@Albert Farrugia
You say:
Were it not for socialism in Europe, there would still be a ruling class made of up businessmen, nobles and beaurocrats having all the power as if it were “the natural order of things”. Socialists then dreamed of a better world. And their dream came through. And the dream is still valid
To start with socialism is generally discredited today. Remember il-Partit Socjalista? You don’t hear that any more do you? The MLP is ashamed of it and pretends it never called itself that.
When you refer to socialism and Europe, do you mean the EU, by any chance? The institution which was going to be a disaster for all eternity? Which we were supposed to vote against?
And by the way, lets have a look at exactly what socialism brought us, shall we? Lets see:
The Stalinist purges before and after WWII, the Cambodian Killing Fields and the Chinese cultural revolution. I don’t know exactly how many tens of millions of dead they gave us and I’m sure I’ve forgotten something, but hey, thats bad enough!
Hitler and Mussolini both claimed to be socialists, as does Mintoff’s buddy Robert Mugabe. The post WWII incarnation of the italian fascists called themselves Movimento Sociale.
Oh what a lovely legacy…..
As to your ridiculous comments about 1987, the MLP lost by 4000 votes for the same reasons that the Zimbabwean opposition only won by a couple of seats in the parliamentary elections, never mind the rip-off on the presidential vote. If that isn’t clear enough just go read the news items re Zimbabwe of the last few months on the BBC. The scale of the violence may be larger, but the legislative approach, the rhetoric of the state, the propaganda mechanisms and the instruments of intimidation are identical in substance if not in scale. But why am I not surprised, your hero Mintoff is still sending Robert Mugabe letters with advice….
@uncle fester
If you wrote that on the cheque you invalidated it and will not be cashed. Take the cue from the gospel and don’t let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. Pay cash.
So far Labour’s new leadership has not inspired me to donate one cent
Oh for god’s sake, Uncle Fester. Get used to the idea that sometimes, people do what they want to do, and sometimes, what they want to do suits the purposes of others. I don’t write to convince the political parties of anything. I don’t write to convince anyone of anything. For the zillionth time: I have no policies to sell.
Ah yes, Noel Arrigo – funny you should say that, because I was just wondering why there was no Pullicino Orlando-style baying for blood in his case, given that the man wasn’t even elected by the people. If you know the inside scoop on why he hasn’t been brought to trial yet, do please let me know. We certainly shan’t be hearing it from Jo Said who’s up on blackmail charges, given that Arrigo’s son is married to Said’s daughter. So much for Said’s pursuit of corruption. You need more than a pinch of salt with that man.
The Talaq method of divorce, makes it easier for men then for women to get a quickie divorce as the man does not need to provide a reason to divorce his unwanted wife. All he has to do is tell her that he divorces her for three times and call it a day. A muslim woman , has to give a reason for wanting to divorce her husband, and in most cases pay back the dowery he paid for her when he had married her. She may also forfit her children as well , which children , are recognized as the father’s property in the Talaq system. In other words, the registrars office in Malta seems to have accepted a form of divorce where an unwanted wife after spending a life time of bearing children and walking two steps behind her husband can be easily replaced for a much-younger and prettier woman at the man’s whim and end up losing all financial benefits and the children as well as she is not allowed proper representation in court.( A sort of present day cohabitation in Malta) If on the other hand, a muslim woman asks for divorce, she has to give a reason that has to be recognized valid in court as well as pay back the dowery she was given. If she cannot afford to do so after a lifetime of home drudgery and no paying job ,she is stuck, as the Talaq system, recognized by the Registrar in Malta, discriminates between the sexes. With the number of marriages between muslims and non muslims on the increase in Malta,this lateset decison by the registrar in Malta to recognize the Talaq system does little for the future of equality between the sexes and women’s rights and to stop muslim men from marrying Maltese women just to live with them long enough to be eligible for ciizinship.
@Daphne. Multiple choice question for you.
Q No.1 Do you agree that after twenty years of writing in favour of divorce and in favour of a woman’s right to choose you have been unable to convince the PN to adopt a more progressive stand on either one of these issues?
A. Yes I agree. After twenty years of writing about these issues the PN is still opposed to both divorce and a woman’s right to choose. My influence on the PN has been zero.
B. No I disagree. After twenty years of writing on these issues the PN has adopted more progressive views on both issues.
If your answer is B. Please elaborate with specific arguments to support your position.
@ Daphne. The persons who should be answering the question as to why disgraced former chief justice Noel Arrigo has not been brought to trial are the PM and the Minister of Justice. All I can say is that the official foot dragging on the issue is appalling. MLP please wake up and ask questions about this in Parliament when it reconvenes. My speculation is that he has friends in high places unlike his fellow disgraced colleague. Another possibility is that he has information that could cause embarassment to some highly placed people. Your speculation Daphne, since you are in the know, and are very close to the person who got him the job?
Uncle Fester: No one mentioned sub-categories but ‘us’ and ‘we’ are ordinarily taken to include the speaker. I asked whether you’re married as you continue to hide your identity so your status is not self-evident. Now please don’t make an issue out of this. When someone’s talking about divorce, whether or not that person is married is certainly relevant.
Incidentally, it’s brave of you to send a cheque to someone with specific instructions but no guarantee that you will get what you paid for.
@Corinne Vella. I was speaking about myself as being part of the “middle and working classes”. I thought that it would be obvious that I was not talking about myself as a married person. If it was not obvious then, it certainly should have been after I clarified matters which makes your insistence on dragging up the subject again curious. Just to be clear. I am not an old Lejber supporter. I am not Anthony Licari. I am not the doctor guy. I am not married. I am in a committed relationship and as gay as a goose!
Now I take it Daphne is close to being past child bearing age and not thinking about having an abortion anytime soon or getting divorced from Peter, does that mean she has no right to speak up on the issues? I also take it that she is not interested in marrying a transexual in this liftime either? Does that make her opinion not worthwhile. I think not.
The reason I support divorce and abortion is that they will further erode the influence of the church in this country which for gay people is a good thing. The less influence the church has over peoples minds the less we are marginalized and denigrated by the tas-santa f’idejhom crowd. Similarly I want to see more women in positions of power and authority because they are far more sensible and sensitive when it comes to gay rights and don’t feel threatened by gay men. Plus straight women are in general more intelligent then straight men for the most part.
As for the cheque, Corinne, put yourself in my place or in the place of gay people if you can for one minute. Is anyone else offering us hope and the prospect of change other than Labour? My cheque is an investment in hope based on a proven track record of the MLP doing the right thing in the past. Some of the MLP’s accomplishments:
– Support for trade union rights.
– Votes for women
– Votes for young people
– Equal Pay for men and women
– Abolition of criminal statutes re adultery and homosexuality
– Civil Marriage
– Refusal to enforce criminal abortion statutes against women.
– Open minds when it comes to divorce and abortion
– Pledge to give partnerships rights to gays
– Support of legislation on progressive issues generally.
Based on this track record do I have cause for hope that the MLP will deliver for me and other gay and lesbian Maltese? I think so, don’t you?
Uncle Fester: I never said being married is a necessary qualification for forming and expressing opinions on divorce. You make that association yourself. What I *did* say is that knowing whether a person is married or not is relevant when that person discussion divorce. Your second and third paragraphs are therefore irrelevant and as for your fourth, well, what can I say other than if you wish to place such faith in what may never happen – rather than offering the party unqualified support – then that is your call. There really is no need to attempt to prove anything to me or to anyone else here, for that matter.
Uncle Fester: A correction – when that person discusses divorce.
@Uncle Fester
I could go down the path of a debate about the historical accuracy of your list, the practical effects rather than the theoretical effects, bring into perspective the abolition of laws not enforced (mixed feelings on this one!) and so on.
I could also comment that one should be in favour of something because one believes in it, rather than to spite someone else.
But I won’t bother. The fact is that the labour party has been in a downward spiral since Mintoff took over from Boffa and now combines the worst of both ‘old’ and ‘new’ politics.
Labour may pay lip service to ‘progressive’ issues, but only as part of its sometimes effective strategy of telling every lobby what it wants to hear, including those in contraposition to each other. You may rest assured that the Labour santa wavers will be doing their best to counter act that lip-service.
Labour will do nothing, irrespective of whether or not it is ‘the right thing’ simply because it is the right thing, but only because it stands to gain more votes then it can lose. For labour, winning elections is not a means to an end any more, but an end in itself. The PN is not a hell of a lot better in this regard, but it IS better.
As I have had occasion to mention in other posts, the Santa wavers are all over the place, because the santa worshippers VOTE! They are a lobby, and a bigger lobby than most.
So the main point of my argument is that your money is not wisely spent. I am not suggesting you should have sent it to the PN instead. Quite apart from the fact that in view of the MLP’s financial state and management capability, sending money to the MLP is like giving money to a gambling addict, your money would have been much better spent by an organisation dedicated to raising awareness of the personal cause you justly support. If there is no such organisation, your 300 euros could be a start. But there IS an organisation, isn’t there?
When there is enough of that awareness, when one party arrives at the conclusion it has more to gain than to lose, then something might happen.
My conviction is that that party will not be Labour, even more so if it is done as a matter of principle.
That being said I am heartened to note from parts of your post, the confirmation of the idea that intolerance and bigotry are not the sole preserve of the straight white male category of which I form a part.
It strengthens my belief that all vices and virtues are equally distributed across race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.
The fact that I saw numerous gay persons frantically waving PN flags before and after the elections supports my theory that political allegiance (vice or virtue?) is also equally distributed across race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. Of course I’m not about to start attending labour functions to verify my statistics but maybe you can do that in five years time and we can compare notes? (AND you can keep an eye on your 300 euros, assuming it hasn’t been spent paying a fine for a libelous billboard!)
Uncle Fester;
The reason I support divorce and abortion is that they will further erode the influence of the church in this country which for gay people is a good thing. The less influence the church has over peoples minds the less we are marginalized and denigrated by the tas-santa f’idejhom crowd
Do you have a dead cert guarantee that the vacuum created as a direct consequence of the erosion of the church’s influence will be for the better and not for the worse as far as gays and womens rights are coincerned? There are worse things that one may carry in one’s hands nowadays ,apart from a santa.
@Uncle Fester
re: – Open minds when it comes to divorce and abortion
Was i dreaming or was there not a poster hanging outside the Valletta MLP club a few years ago claiming that joining Europe would allow abortion to come into the country. How does that make them open minded?
Regarding their track record, well what can i say..trade union rights? Hmm. let me see Union marriages anyone? ALfred Mizzi threatening striking Air Malta staff on TVM in a state of the union type address, I don’t think so!
Votes for women, sure, as long as you vote for me, but forget constitutional courts, forget reading the newspaper of your choice,oh and forget freedom of expression through demonstrations. Bring on the North Koreans I say.
I am happy to see a new generation of Labour party people coming through the ranks, but as long as they continue to embrace the old (Joe Debono Grech, the greasy Grima brothers, the Varist – i have -an-excuse-for-everything -Bartolo), then that’s the track record I will remember most.
cheers
@Uncle Fester – some other items for your list of Labour government achievements, which – oh dear – seem to be in head-on conflict with the civil rights you think the party championed:
the abuse of human rights;
a clampdown on freedom of expression;
inciting a rabble to burn down a newspaper building, because that newspaper carried editorials critical of government policy, and with no regard for the people still working inside;
inciting another rabble to ransack the archbishop’s HQ, because the archbishop had resisted government policy on church schools;
arresting people on trumped-up charges because they did not agree with the government and failed to keep their head below the parapet;
allowing corruption to become rife at every level of the public service;
using thugs to control and terrorise ordinary people;
giving people passports and allowing them to buy plane tickets, but then restricting the amount of currency that could be taken out of the country to a sum so small that only those with access to bank accounts overseas, or those willing to smuggle currency out of the country, could actually travel;
restricting entrance to the university with the 20-points system that favoured anything but brains, intelligence and academic aptitude;
introducing an import substitution policy that kept all but the privileged few in a permanent state of relative want and deprivation (not actually starving or naked, but….).
I can add to that list but I have to write my column for tomorrow. The point is that when the chips are down, most people would opt for what this government has put into practice over divorce and abortion any day. The Labour government made have legislated for civil marriage, but then it went on to wreck the country and deprive us of some of our most basic rights. Please, no selective thinking.
Before the election, I pointed out to a dear friend who is a homosexual man that if homosexual people keep banging on with their single note they are in danger of being seen as bigoted as those they are most critical of. There are no rights that gay people need that heterosexual people do not also need. The mistake gay people make is to insist on ghettoising themselves: gay people need this, gay people want that, defining themselves by their gayness. Wrong.
If gay people want the right to marry, then please remember that there are other people who want the right to marry too, and that this is not a function of gayness or otherwise. How is a gay person in a less privileged position than somebody who cannot marry because he is separated? So you can argue that he could marry in the first place. Big deal. Gay people should realise that the only way forward in this country is to leave the psychological ghetto and stop talking about gay this and gay that. It is exactly as offputting and as alienating to everyone else as separated people ranting on about being separated.
As I also pointed out to my gay friend before the election, there is nothing that gay people have to put up with now that straight women haven’t had to put up with since the dawn of time. But check us out: we don’t bang on about it all the time. We deal with it.
@Daphne. I agree with you on most of the points you make. The 80s were a dark period in the country’s history no two ways about it. Does that in any way detract from Labour’s enduring achievments? You need to move on, dear Daphne. Or maybe you are so shell shocked by what happened in the 80s that you need professional help to do so. We’re talking 25 plus years ago by 2013. When do we put the past behind us? I’m not talking about forgetting the past, I am talking about learning from the past and moving on. You obviously either don’t want to or are unable to. As the past becomes more distant your views will become more irrelevant.
@Daphne. Re your arguments about gay rights. We are not ranting on about rights we are militating for them. The same way women fought to get the right to vote sixty years ago, or trade unions fought for the right to organize, or blacks fought for civil rights in the United States 50 years ago. They were accused of being too strident I am sure and told to wait for things to get better and beaten up and cowed into submission by the more intolerant in society. Thankfully they didn’t buy these arguments or you would not be writing the columns you write today as an educated highly intelligent woman and Obama would not be running for President of the United States. So sorry Daphne, when you have lived in my skin, you can lecture me about being too in your face. Until then we’ll keep on trying to push the envelope every chance that we can and if we irritate you and make you uncomfortable then that is just the way that it is.
@ Uncle Fester. You say that straight women are more intelligent than straight men. What about lesbians and gays? Which are more intelligent? Does intelligence depend on sexual orientation?