Wednesday, 3rd February 2010
No gay matter
Let me say it from the outset. I respect the right of every person to make his or her choices in life including with whom to share a life, a house and whom to love and cherish. In a local contest I also go one step further: I am ready to support, even in parliament, the call for more legal rights for same sex couples who have chosen to live together and to build a life together.
However, I must admit that I am utterly disappointment with MGRM's latest position against President Abela's statements in favour of positive action to safeguard the Maltese family. The Head of State spoke at a national conference entitled The family: yesterday, today and tomorrow organised by the Ministry for Social Policy.
MGRM takes exception to a number of statements included in the President's speech and in my opinion manipulates a number of points raised by the President in order to push forward their cause.
MGRM feels that by defining the family as a man and a woman, in a life-long commitment which sometimes leads to procreation, the President excluded all the other forms of relationships that may exist including that of childless couples. Whoever followed or read the President's speech would realise that the Head of State's intention was not to exclude anyone but to focus on a concept of ‘family' which has existed since time immemorial and which he, myself and many others feel is the ‘ideal' we should strive for.
MGRM is entitled to its opinion on this basic issue, however it should not try to impose it on anyone else particularly on whoever has a role in this country of doing what is obviously in the national interest. This also applies to the definition of ‘marriage'. MGRM and others seem to challenge this notion as well.
So now we are under pressure to accept that ‘marriage' as we have known it for so many years needs to be re-defined to suit the ambitions of a powerful lobby who want open up this concept to other forms of relationships as well. Just because some countries have allowed same-sex ‘marriages' does not mean that this trend should be accepted by others. This has nothing to do with prejudice or discrimination. This has nothing to do with semantics.
If MGRM does not believe that the country should to do its utmost to strengthen the Maltese family, as defined by the President, it's ok. This is a free country and everyone is entitled to one's opinion. However, they should realise that by doing so they might be doing a disservice to the same people they are supposed to speak for.
Many gays and lesbians are happy to be living as part of a so called traditional family unit. I am sure they do not mind that their President or any other politician speaks in favour of positive action aimed at safeguarding the same ‘family' concept they are obviously happy with.
The local gay and lesbian lobby also takes exception to President's Abela questioning of whether children adopted by same-sex couples could lead to the suffering psychological and social harm. I am sure the President didn't mean that all children who are growing up within such setting have psychological or social problems.
On the other hand, I am sure that there are children growing up within a ‘traditional' family who are suffering for some reason. However, why MGRM expected the Head of State to speak about exceptions rather than the norm, the logical, the truth that has been tried and tested since many, many years, escapes me. Yes, the truth is that children will benefit more from a heterosexual family. Having a mother and a father is much better than having just a mother, just a father, just two women or just two men raising you. It does not mean that the different forms of ‘family' cannot guarantee ‘love, responsibility and the ability to provide for the needs of the child'. We are talking here about what's best. What's ideal.
MGRM's disservice to the same people it is supposed to speak for continues in the last paragraph of their press release when they describe the conference ‘nothing more than propaganda for a conservative's government agenda and the religious right that sits solidly behind it'.
So those running the association representing gays and lesbians have turned their guns onto the government for taking the initiative in discussing such an important subject claiming that this was just a propaganda exercise. My feeling on reading this part of their press statement was that MGRM seems to be dancing to someone else's tune. I hope I am wrong. MGRM also criticised the Church for taking part in a conference, aimed at discussing a subject close to its heart in, ‘full force'.
So now MGRM are expecting the Catholic Church to stay away from such a discussion not to give the impression that they are pulling the government's strings!
Come on MGRM! You should take a reality check. Taking such irrational positions does not help the cause of the people you should be representing. There are issues you should be working on in tandem with others. No one is saying that you should not come out in force to put pressure where pressure is due. It's your duty to do so because there are still miles to be covered in a struggle for equality and justice. But by taking the route you seem to be taking you run the risk of being labelled a radical group alienated from a society you should care for.
RSS
Comments
Which part(s) of my comments here and elsewhere on the same subject did you not read?
'I am ready to support ...'. And why shouldn't you?
The President should show himself to be the President of one and all, and that is why his words should not merely 'reflect what is 'normal''. Or do we want inclusivity only in our class-rooms?
I don't agree with you that MGRM is manipulating the President's speech. Rather, from your words, it is you manipulating both the thoughts of the President as well as the words of MGRM.
Don't come writing to us about what is your 'idea'. We know what morality we are living in, even in Malta. From the newspapers, from what we hear, we can easily come to a decision as to the 'ideals' of many people with regard to 'family'. Point made, I hope.
And how do you know that 'many gays and lesbians are happy ...'? Have they come to tell you?
Will children really benefit from heterosexual parents? Even those parents who create tension and violence within the family? Hallina, trid.
Stop trying to push MGRM on a political platform - it is very silly.
The Church has a place to keep: to guide and to preach. At the end of the day, there should be a complete separation between Church and State.
With regard to 'minority', you will be surprised how 'sizeable' it is. We can never know the size of such a so-called 'minority'. All I know is that society as it is composed now, and also thanks to the Catholic Church, is so extremely homophobic that EVERYTHING is against the individual who believes that he is gay. Hence, most of these individuals hide their orientation, sometimes even to themselves, and get married, probably have children, ... etc... Result? The Church is happy; the State is satisfied, but as for the individuals in question? Well, you should ask THEM how they feel!
Apart from the fact that I maintain that the President could have refrained from making certain remarks regarding the 'family' and 'marriage', one has to bear in mind that his remarks were made at a national conference entitled 'The family: yesterday, today and tomorrow' . This conference was organized by the Ministry for Social Policy, therefore it may have been taken that the President was mirroring the government's views. We were assured that the government had no input and that the speech was written primarily by the President himself.
With such an assurance, then the speech has to be regarded as a personal perspective and nothing more.
'Family', 'marriage', 'unions', 'same sex relations', 'rights' and privileges are often talked about these days and consequently a vast spectrum of opinion develops, but surely, I feel that there's a line, however thin, between what we have for centuries defined the 'marriage' of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and 'a same sex union' which on the minds of gay couples, procreation is farthest from their mind.
Therefore, the questions or 'recognition', 'economic rights' and the 'definition of same sex relationships' come to the forefront.
Continued
It is safe to assume that few if any, dispute the definition of the traditional relationship of a man and a woman as 'marriage'. It then follows that the task is to find a suitable definition of the relationship of a gay couple. If the definition is different than 'marriage' but it gives the same rights in civil society as marriage does, what is wrong with calling it a 'union'? Malta recognizes civil marriages and maybe it is time to recognize gay unions.
The Church has its views regarding gay relationships and it is not expected that it will endorse such unions, but then the Church does not amend Malta's laws and neither should it be taken for granted that the government will suppress change especially on matters of great importance to a sizable minority. Therefore dialogue is necessary between people of open mind but certainly no attempt should be made to alter the traditional definition of 'marriage'.
Gay unions have existed since time immemorial and many have lasted just as long as some marriages have, therefore it may be time to give these couples formal recognition and bringing their rights to the level of married couples.
Both you and he make assertions without any research that back you up. I am sure you are aware that research has compared same sex families and conventional ones and found that children in the first did just as well.
The issue is that the conventional family is not strengthened by excluding other forms of families. It's good to know that next time I ask after your family, I want you to know that, yes, my family has both the orthodox and the non-standard. They are whole and We Are Family, and I bet you my bottom dollar that if I decided to bring up kids, they would be more well-adjusted than your average Maltese kid.
As to the adoption of children by gay couples, (you and he both don't mention the biological sons and daughters of women in a lesbian relationship and those men who have had children from previous heterosexual relationships and are now committed to a gay one) the President questions their new family, asking whether this would be a natural family model for children. It certainly would, for the children in question. cont.