Labour declines to comment on same-sex marriage proposal

Karl Consiglio

Mar 5th 2012, 15:47

Labour are duty bound to tell us where they stand on the matter. Otherwise whats the whole point of their party, if they don't have a concept, just to beat the PN?

Colin Stanley

Mar 4th 2012, 20:27

As far as I know Dr. Muscat has already said that he is in favour of some sort of civil rights for gay couples, but against marriage and adoption. and so are the PN of the same opinion. and that's how it should be please don't change your beliefs for the sake of votes, there are thousands of voters who share the same opinion.

Mark Jones

Mar 4th 2012, 12:56

Sounds like Joseph Muscat still wants to swing both ways on this one:)

Kenneth Galea

Mar 4th 2012, 12:05

I do not agree that gay couples should be allowed to marry in churches, we cannot interfere with the politics of the church. I also do not agree that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. In my opinion a child needs a mother and a father figure in his/her life.
However like Joseph Muscat I certainly agree that a civil partnership should be introduced for same sex couples and unmarried couples who cohabit together. A gay relationship should be recognised by the authorities, this will make matters less difficult when it comes to tax inheritance, recognition of next of kin, immigration matters and so on. At the end of the day gay people are tax payers like the rest of us and the law should NOT discriminate against them. But please leave the church alone on this issue and also the hot issue of children to be adopted by a gay couple.

C Galea

Mar 4th 2012, 11:46

I think Dr JPO is carrying it to much. Why should he instigate such a delicate issue through a private motion bill in parliament when the election is round the corner? And when he has already stated that he shall not be contesting? Does he want to keep the Government at ransom again? I think this is a serious social issue that merits deep consultation and studies by experts. The subject touches the morality and the principles of a nation. Probably it requires a much wider process than what happened with divorce.

V. Cauchi

Mar 4th 2012, 10:15

No wonder. With some 38,200 voter documents uncollected, showing crass disinterest in politics and word juggling, morality matters will become hot potato for local and general elections.

All three parties currently stand in the same pan of kow-towing to "progressive" forces, knowing they will have to tread wearily in the knowledge that for each vote they may gain from a "modernist" voter they may yet lose many more votes from others opting to keep on the right moral path.

What many a Catholic voter presently wants from a party he or she would vote for is a categoric denial that the party will keep on following foreign-imposed trends in morality, no matter what European or United Nations diktats suggest or impose on us. Our true mettle lies in not kow-towing any more to foreign "superiors" in any matter, morals especially, and to respect the sentiments of our people.

To both party leaders: the words you heard in the panegyric in the feast of St Paul Shipwreck were certainly addressed to your goodselves and they were accepted by great applause by persons who certainly do not want to see Malta going down the path of other "progressive" countries. The wheel is in your hands and beware, as things are going, there will always be level headed historians, whether catholic or not, who will in time tell future generations WHO was really responsible for our moral depravity and for what fickle material reason.

Karl Consiglio

Mar 4th 2012, 09:39

Labour have a history of bad decision making, so now they are afraid to take a stand on anything. All they know how to do is have a go at PN.