Sunday, 1st February 2009
Maltese MEPs say 'yes' to cohabitation and gay couple laws
Two Nationalist MEPs have voted in favour of amendments recognising the need for laws on cohabitation, including those of gay couples, and the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other EU member states.
This vote at the European Parliament was part of a non-binding resolution to harmonise fundamental EU human rights' laws and shows a marked shift in the position of the five Maltese MEPs.
This comes two weeks after the five MEPs opposed the final vote on the resolution moved by Italian communist MEP Giusto Catania, particularly due to a reference to abortion rights.
However, an analysis of the voting patterns on the amendments put forward to the resolution, shows Malta's representatives in Brussels are in favour of legislation on the rights of cohabiting partners.
Nationalist MEPs Simon Busuttil and David Casa voted 'yes' to the amendments. However, the vote of Labour MEPs appears to be mired in ambiguity.
While John Attard Montalto voted in favour, Glenn Bedingfield abstained and Louis Grech did not cast his vote. However, this vague Labour position was the result of a "misunderstanding", according to Mr Grech, Labour's head of delegation.
Admitting the inconsistent voting pattern, Mr Grech clarified that this was only a result of the ambiguous wording of the amendments "which gave rise to different interpretations" by the three Labour MEPs.
He stressed that all Labour MEPs are in favour of having Maltese legislation regulating cohabitation and gay partnerships.
"We feel that discussion and action on the concept of civil partnership is long overdue. Our delegation believes it is high time to legislate civil partnership, which is open to all couples, and which will address and rectify anomalies, injustices and hardships, resulting from the absence of proper and adequate legislation,"he said.
The big surprise vote on this issue was from the Nationalist side. Traditionally, the PN - a party rooted in Christian Democratic values - preferred to stay away from these hot social issues.
However, according to Dr Busuttil, it is time these issues are addressed: "Through our vote we wanted to show that we support efforts to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and we felt that we needed to reflect this in our vote."
"We are in favour of laws on cohabitation, including those for same-sex couples. This would regulate same-sex partnerships only, and not marriages," he told The Sunday Times.
"Our position is that once we introduce cohabitation and once we already recognise divorces granted in other countries, there is nothing wrong in recognising same-sex marriages as well."
Dr Busuttil's and Mr Casa's move is in line with promises made by the PN before last March's general election to legislate on cohabitation, including same-sex couples.
RSS
Comments
So there you have it Mr Figallo. In a nutshell. Well, just over 150 words. Not bad. Not bad at all.
I sleep well at night. What you proposed finds me concurring. Perhaps it would be time homosexuals recognise one thing, they are being perceived as monolithic in thought because of just a part of what I shall term the "homosexual community". In this regard, the MGRM might be doing the "homosexual community" a disservice, for it purports itself to represent the views of all in all instances when it doesn't.
This monolithic perception in the eyes of the public harms all homosexuals who harbour different political beliefs and priorities. The worst of all, strategically speaking, is that you end up appearing as asking way too much and you'll end up getting way too little, when it could be done better from your part.
The public thinks that all homosexuals want "marriage", child adoption, social benefits given specifically to families et cetera when I know that that is not the case. However, if no homosexuals speak up against that perception the notion of tacit consent kicks in. Worse, the public will think that there is uniform agreement and the lack of courage to assert it if not subterfuge. Time to look into that.
MALTESE never learn....these polticians are a junk of nuclear mold
This question is very important and it is a political one. It is not a juridical question whether someone considers divorce and same-sex marriages distinct, they most definitely are. It is about whether those that clamour for same-sex marriages politically expect one of the following:
1. To not have the right to be granted a divorce by Maltese courts, as is the case for marriage in our jurisdiction, because marriage is indissoluble at law.
2. To actually have divorce applicable to same-sex marriage exclusively. Meaning that if the legislator would be happy in granting divorce exclusively for same-sex marriages and not to heterosexual marriages, the gay lobby would be happy.
3. Whether the gay lobby expects same-sex marriages and divorce to be recognised as civil rights sanctioned by our courts according to our own law, enacted by our own Parliament.
My usage of the term "same-sex marriage/s" is for argument's sake, I do not subscribe to that terminology nor what it purports to represent.
Being cynical and remembering the many broken promises I will only be convinced of the Government's good intentions when these human right's laws(note rights not privileges) are part of Maltese law.
I'm not saying it is as such, just asking
I suggest you get your facts right Mr Zammit !
Same-sex marriage DOES CURRENTLY exist. It exists in exactly that term of SAME-SEX (OR GENDER NEUTRAL) MARRIAGE in The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway and Nepal. If in doubt Mr Zammit, please click on this link for confirmatiion : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
In addition, CIVIL UNIONS / PARTNERSHIPS offering varying amounts of the benefits of marriage and are available in: Andorra, Australia, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Uruguay. They are also available in some parts of Argentina, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Mexico (Federal District and Coahuila), the U.S. states of California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.).
Once again I urge you to check your facts prior to commenting erroneously here in The Times, Mr Zammit.
@ Joe Zammit : Same sex marriages !!!! I just cannot agree more. What strikes me really is the use of the word MARRIAGE in all instances, I mean Female/Male, Male/Male, Female/Female, binding relationships. Every binding instance noted here is unique and I really challenge the use of the word Marriage in all instances EXCEPT for the first : Male/Female or Female/Male.
For any other binding relationships between members of the same sex, than I strongly recommend new vocabulary in this regard but please NOT MARRIAGE !
We look forward to human rights as that enjoyed by the rest of the people of Europe. We are no less than them.
I will be voting for Sharon Ellul Bonici this time round because I know exactly where I stand with her. The PN has betrayed us all having sold its soul and country to the EU. The PNPL interests now lies in milking the cash rich EU cow out of personal concern rather than our national interest. Shame on you!
@ Anton Grech : Every democratic society has a very clear separation of Church and State. According to you, Malta should be an exception to this and that is very backwards.
A government is there as a representative for all it citizens, straight, gay, lesbian or transgender and to serve them all equally WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION ! The church should have no interference or influence on government policy and on citizen rights ! Religious belief is a personal thing between you and your relationship with your God and you have every right to go to church daily and do whatever people do when they go to church. However, this does not mean that religious belief or dogma should be the foundation of a civil, democratic government !
DO YOU CALL YOURSELVES CHRISTIANS?
Secondly, a Christian Democrat Party is NOT a Catholic Extremist Party. The Christian principles imply solidarity.
Everyone has a right to his own belief, which is part of living in a democratic society. However it is long due time that church is separated from state. Other comments that PN votes are 'catholic' votes are unsubstantiated as the church includes people from all political beliefs.
We are no longer living either in a time where the Chruch has so much power, and should be treated as a major interest group, as other groups are! It is also time that such legislation is enacted so that more rights for the people and at the end of the day, a more organised structure for the government is created.
PN has realised that it has been discriminating against such people for years and has also realised that being in government they are bound to protect ALL CITIZENS not just Catholic people. Is it that hard to understand?
Dear brothers in Christ,
You are forgetting the fundamentals of the Nationalist Party whom you are representing abroad. We are the Christian Democratic Party whose values are based on the Roman Catholic Church. It had always been thus and always will....both before, after and close to any election.
But what you did in Brussles is a shame for all Maltese Chatolics, for our Church who helped you get elected, and for our Party Great Leaders - last being Eddie Fenech Adami.
So now you (and the PN) lost my vote.
@ others
Please don;t tell me to vote Labour.
Anybody can come and pick my vote from my house.
Anton
Thank you Dr.Gionzi for betraying the old tradtition values of a christain democratic party.
Indeed, Dr.Busuttill might be right. It is time for change, but if this new world need social democratic values, then he is asking us to vote for that party who always adhere to those principles. Thank you ..... for denying me a choose .......Hail the new age of one big party ... the social democratics of Malta .... PL and PN going hand in hand !!!!!
You are completely wrong. Introducing laws for cohabitating couples (including gay couples) was an electoral promise announced during a popular TV programme. Hence, there was NO U-turn.
Secondly, the Church has nothing to do with the State. People need to learn that the State is not the Church and the government is there to protect the interests of every Maltese citizen irrespective of his/her religious beliefs, political affiliation, sex, racial origin, sexual orientation and/or cultural background!
So yes, this is a step further towards being a more democratic country. It is up to the individual to maintain his/her Family values and I can assure you that gay people have family values much more than you think!
Can you please let gay people be themselves? In no way, they are a threat to society and its values!
Ha ha ha, thank you for being just,but after the election the U turns that the P.N are taking is AMAZING.
Now to all those, GENTILE folk that go to Church and Voted for the P.N thinking that their Family values will be upheld just because they told you so, and PROMISED you.