Same-sex marriages

The recent Vatican document on gay and lesbian marriage will hopefully serve to ignite an intelligent discussion in Malta on this contentious topic. So far, cautious efforts by the Malta Gay Rights Movement in this direction have, hardly surprisingly, proved futile. I suggest we weigh up the arguments in a rational way.

Much as I disagree, I think the Church is well within its right to speak out against gay marriage. The teachings of the Church, albeit committed to coherence and contemporary values, can never rely on argument alone. They must remain rooted in and bound to God's word that Christians believe is revealed to them in the Bible. As I remember it from my schooldays, the Bible in general and in particular the Old Testament is unequivocal in its condemnation of anything remotely homosexual. Actually, it seems to me the Church is bending over backwards and being generous when it tells us we should be "tolerant" of homosexuals.

Having said that, I also defend my right to live in a secular society in which Church and state are separate and where the state has the right and duty to respect the beliefs of non-religious people. Which means legislating on the basis of a secular rationality rather than dogma or God's word. I hope most readers accept this premise - for those who do not, may I recommend Iran. Why, then, should the state seriously consider gay marriage?

It is essential that we start by distinguishing marriage from wedding ritual. Banal as it may sound, I suspect that many people's opposition to gay marriage has to do with images of men in bridal dress. Of course, these are just bizarre creations of a deeply-rooted homophobia and should be binned as such. In fact, the essence of gay marriage entails the recognition by the state of same-sex partnerships as deserving of rights and obligations, just as heterosexual marriages are. By way of illustration: a gay man told me how humiliating it was for him to have had to name his mother as his next of kin before a serious operation when he has been in a loving relationship with a man for several years. The issues of common property and inheritance are similarly crucial to homosexuals who are in long-term relationships.

The argument is often made that gay marriage "undermines" the institution of marriage. On the contrary, I see it as an endorsement by the state - and by homosexuals who get married - of its continuing relevance. Why would gays choose to get married if they did not believe in the significance of marriage as a long-term commitment based on a system of legally-sanctioned rights and duties? Surely, they would just opt to cohabitate. Gay marriage is to my mind a broadening of the relevance of marriage, not the contrary.

Another point we often make is that marriage between a man and a woman is the basic building block of society. And, yet, it is by no means easy to argue why it should be exclusively so. One anthropological idea (the so-called "alliance theory") about the importance of marriage is that when two people marry, two families are knit together and that this constitutes a form of social "cement". The notion is interesting and convincing but it would work equally well for homosexual couples - the families of married homosexuals would call themselves "in-laws", as those of heterosexual couples do.

Adoption by gay couples constitutes a rather more difficult scenario. In reality this is a separate issue - but marriage and children go together and it is inevitable that the two are discussed in tandem. The truth is that the millions of pages of research by psychologists, although often valid and informative, do not come up with clear and universally-applicable conclusions. There are very few undisputed links between couple composition and child development and the professional case is far from being closed. With this in mind it is understandable that children, especially as "third persons", be given the benefit of the doubt and adoption by gay couples delayed.

An open-minded society is one that seeks to construct, based on a wide social dialogue and rational politics, a legal framework which is as inclusive of diversity as safely and sensibly possible. I see gay marriage as the recognition by the state that, whether we like it or not, the realm of intimacy and partner choice is a variable one. Different people have different tastes and orientations. Until legislation reflects this reality, we will be living in a discriminatory society.