Wednesday, 28th January 2009
Minister out of touch with the times
Tonio Borg's intervention in a recent parliamentary session when debating the rent reform highlights the contempt in which the government holds same-sex couples and how far they are from according them the rights and respect they enjoy in a number of EU countries.
Despite discourse reiterated by the Nationalist Party regarding the need to regularise the position and legal status of couples who cohabit, regardless of whether the couples are same-sex or opposite-sex, Dr Borg's remarks left many wondering whether there really is any political will to legislate in this regard. His words and the mocking tone he used seemed particularly intent in belittling the relationships of same-sex couples and showed great insensitivity towards lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens.
Moreover, it clearly manifested that there are two measures being used when it comes to safeguarding the human rights and well-being of opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
By his statements the minister implied that were a partner or child of a same-sex couple to become homeless this was of no particular consequence. The hardship they would undergo was not a matter of concern to the state.
The minister also queried how one could verify the relationship of a cohabiting couple since no marriage certificate could be produced. He seemed to find the idea of registered partnerships for cohabiting couples, gay or straight to be a ridiculous notion, despite this being common practice in many countries. I am certain that to many politicians in Europe it is the minister's attitude that would be considered preposterous and out of sync with the times.
The Malta Gay Rights Movement would like to thank MP Evarist Bartolo for his intervention in defence of same-sex couples and his censure of Minister Borg's attitude towards the rights of sexual minorities.
RSS
Comments
But, then, I am ready to reply back... Good Bye, be blessed. Joe
Yes, it is quite true, God is kind & loving, but we should not forget what St. Paul's said and made it quite clear in the Holy Bible (1 Corinthians Chapter 6 Verse 9 to 11), specifically & quite clearly telling us that through such behaviour one cannot inherit the Kingdom of God – he further stated “don't fool yourself”, and explained “As none will inherit His Kingdom if he remains indulged in sexual sin or practicing such acts” referring to homosexual acts. Yet, many cannot or don't want to understand this fact, unless realizing that is on the wrong path to His Kingdom. We all are oblidged to enlight you with the true facts. So why be afraid to explain this prospective dangers. If this is neglected would we not be judged for our negligence from not helping homosexuals to follow God's law to their freedom from their bad habit OK
"If I dont plan to get married shouldnt I have the same tax benefits as you who guys who get married?"
Of course not. Otherwise what would be the difference between marriage (whether civil or religious) and cohabitation?
Perhaps I'm at fault here, but neither of you got my point. I'm in favor of divorce and same sex civil unions, but not cohabitation legislation.
What does the Catholic church have to do with rent reforms? or Civil union for that matter?
I’m sure you can – eventually – change too. You too must ‘understand and try’. Again, as you said, with a minor correction, ‘When there’s a will, there’s a way.’
What scripture says about homosexuality is about as relevant as what it says about brides not being virgins needing to be stoned immediately (Deut, 22:13-21). Or about married couples who engage in intercourse during a woman’s period. They should also be executed (Leviticus, 18:19). These too are facts ‘that cannot be hidden or misunderstood’, as you say.
Your ‘respect, compassion and sensitivity’ come across as extremely patronizing. I suggest you stop trying to find answers to the complexity of human sexuality in the bible. It knows zip about sexuality as much as it knows zip about astronomy. Ask Galileo Galilei.
As the rest of the world realizes the importance of granting gay couples equal rights to opposite-sex couples – because their relationships are as important – you are still lost reading scripture and trying to convince yourself that it is wrong to love one’s partner, if one’s partner is of the same sex.
Therefore, it goes contrary to the natural human law, thereby under no circumstances can it's act be approved. However, the local church does says that we must accept such persons with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, but then the catechism called on such person as to chastity through self mastery that would teach them inner freedom by prayers and sacramental grace.
They should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection by time. Maybe that's the actual reason which gabi must understand and try. I know of many who changed for where theirs a will theirs a way!!!
Any person, single or otherwise becoming homeless is of concern. Why should the fact that a person is in relationship have any bearing on his homeless state?
I find the concept of same-sex couples being allowed to raise children abhorrent. Even children adopted by hetero couples very often develop psychological problems, but in this case the alternative would have been even more traumatic, so it is the less evil.
What we hope is that when eventually cohabitation is regularized, opposite-sex and same-sex couples will be treated in the same way. It is relationships we are speaking about here, and nobody’s relationship should be inferior to anybody else’s.
Is it really your business and does it matter to you if I decide to cohabitate instead of getting married??? If you want to get married just get married, but don't impose your beliefs on others, PLEASE!
And btw, a study in the UK clearly proved that cohabitation between couples before marriage resulted in more successful marriages :)
I don't know that I have ever heard anything so contemptible from the lips of a Minister,and possible future PM, in a long time
Sorry to state the obvious, but biologically, same sex couples can't have children between them.
I am all for recognising same-sex unions, but should they include rights nature never intended them having? Is this not a case of having one's cake and eating it? I thought Gays wanted equality, not privileges! What's more, don't such children have the right to be raised by their natural parents?
(Sorry to have to use 'have' three times in two sentences btw)
The lease agreement conditions, agreed upon when the lease was initially signed, should not be changed through the backdoor by using this piece of legislation.