JPO reacts as government launches Cohabitation Bill
Independent MP says Bill is step in right direction, but will move amendments
The Cohabitation Bill, launched today, provides for Civil Cohabitation Partnerships which may be registered between a man and a woman or two people of the same gender, to regulate their relationship.
Details were given by Justice Minister Chris Said, who said the government's purpose was not to interfere in people's private lives but to regulate matters, in the interests of the weaker partner.
The country had a reality which the government was obliged to legislate for, he said.
The law provides, among other things, for action which may be taken when a cohabitation relationship breaks down.
A relationship, including a relationship between gays, may also be regulated by Civil Cohabitation Partnerships, registered under this law. However, registration of gay partnerships would not mean recognition of a gay relationship on the same level of a family, he said.
See video above.
Replying to questions on whether the Bill would be backed in parliament, Dr Said said that would depend on the outcome of the debate in parliament.
He described the debate within the PN parliamentary group as 'lively' and said that independent MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando had been consulted.
The minister said the law is divided into two. The first applies to couples - a man and a woman or people of the same sex - who have been living together for some time. It provides legal safeguards for the consequences of such a relationship such as maintenance. Such couples would have had to be living together for five years, or two years if they have children.
In the second part, the law also provides that a couple, heterosexual or same sex, may register their partnership before a notary. In that case the partnership would start from the date of that Civil Cohabitation Partnership. In such a contract the partners would list their obligations and responsibilities to each other. Such arrangements are not recognised as families.
The Bill does not provide for siblings living together.
Neither does the Bill go into tax issues.
However, next of kin rights are being recognised for partners who register their partnership, such as in the health sector. Partners from non-EU countries will, upon registration of a partnership, enjoy the right to reside and work in Malta.
JPO REACTION
In a reaction, independent MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando said the bill is a long-overdue step in the right direction.
He said, however, that he would be proposing some amendments at the appropriate moment during the forthcoming parliamentary debate.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said he is planning to meet the MGRM and individuals associated with gay rights for their reactions and suggestions.
However he had also made other suggestions which were positively received by Dr Said.
AD - BILL DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH
In an initial reaction, Michael Briguglio, chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika
said that the proposed registration of same-sex couples in the cohabitation bill
is not enough."While other parties propose civil unions or registered partnerships, AD is in synch with the proposals of MGRM for recognition of same-sex marriage. Only the right of marriage represents equality," he said.
Neil Falzon, chairman of civil rights group Aditus and a consultant for the Malta Gay Rights Movement said he was disappointed by the bill.
"It does nothing to recognise same-sex relationships. Furthermore it does not recognise gay unions as families and the bill will not change anything.
He hoped that after further consultation, the bill would be amended and 'aligned with fundamental standards."
Bill disappointing - MGRM
The Malta Gay Rights' Movement said it was hugely disappointing that the bill did not accede to most of MGRM's demands and failed to attain even the minimal level of recognition acceptable, that of civil unions at a par with marriage.
As things stand, the bill acknowledges those who enter into a de jure cohabitation agreement as next of kin and grants residency rights to those who come from Third Countries but continues to exclude these couples from the government's definition of family.
For those same-sex headed households which also include children, the role and contribution of the non-biological parent is only recognised if and when the biological parent dies to the detriment of the children concerned.
Same-sex couples who were both registered on the child's birth certificate as parents, as was possible in the UK and a number of other EU countries or Australia, would not be able to register their child in Malta in a similar manner.
In effect, the child would lose a legal parent on moving to Malta.
"This is unacceptable and considered to be an infringement of the child's rights as well as a breach of the freedom of movement directive where EU citizens are concerned."
The MGRM said:
"While the government may chose to present this bill as a considerable step forward the Malta Gay Rights Movement holds that such a bill continues to stigmatise same-sex couples and their families as inferior by preventing access to equal rights and creating a separate form of recognition that is by far inferior to marriage.
"It also serves to justify and perpetuate the homophobia that exists in society. We call on the government to take a leadership role in this matter and ensure that all citizens have access to equal recognition before the law rather than allow for the prejudice and homophobia of some sectors of society from presenting a more just law."
Popular Stories
Update 3: Marsa murder - Police looking...
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Updated - Two bodies, capsized boat,...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
In Discussion
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
Chinese company to study Malta-Gozo...
Updated - PM reacts to Labour anger on...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
No appeals board for first part of power...
Updated - PM comments as Franco Mercieca...
BBC site highlights illegal hunting in Malta
99 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Paul Gauci
Aug 30th 2012, 12:31
As usual....a half baked bill which will not solve any problems at all.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 29th 2012, 22:15
I urge JPO and the LP to vote against the Bill. And this from someone who this year celebrates 40 years of being out and proud. The Bill is an insult to gay men and lesbians.
Brian Farrugia
Aug 29th 2012, 20:01
Hope he gives permission!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 29th 2012, 02:18
I encourage all those who support gay and lesbian rights to make submissions to the relevant committee. The movement needs more than comments on sites like these. Be both specific and general in your comments. I propose to make a detailed submission to the Bill. All I can say at this stage is that the Bill tried to cover far too many areas. If this Bill were to be put before any Australian State parliament, you can be rest assured that the gay and lesbian movement would be up in arms. This is not what is normally understood by civil unions or same-sex partner registrations. In many ways it is an insult to gay men and lesbians but wehat else can we expect from a confessional party. Our relationships MUST be recognised as a family because they are.
Alex Ellul
Aug 29th 2012, 14:03
Same-gender unions have never been accepted as a family unit for the simple fact that such unions had never existed in human society up until now. Human society has been built over the millennia on the man-woman or man-women marriage bond upon which the family unit and therefore society is based.
The 'same-gender' union is a very modern development which needs to be addressed to y society, but it can never be called a marriage. The meaning of marriage cannot be redefined, while biologically speaking, a same-gender union is de facto dysfunctional and therefore cannot be considered, on biological grounds, as a foundation for creating a family unit.
Let there be a new descriptor for 'same-gender' unions and leave the meaning of marriage to mean what it has always meant, the union between a male and female of the same species and as nature itself meant it to be since billions of years ago. No one can refute this fact.
One more point: Again, biologically speaking, polygamists have more right for state recognition than same-sex partnerships and once again no one can refute this fact.
Jo debono
Aug 29th 2012, 18:46
@ Alex!
Are you kidding me?? The established union is indeed modern, however lgbt people existed from the Beginning of Time! How can you as a heterosexual tell the LGBT community what rights they should have or not, when you are not in their shoes?!
What this Bill is proposing is a dwarf-step forward however it is utter Bull! If one sees through the Bill, it has only taken place NOW, because 'votes cannot be lost'. I find this Bill offensive as it does not consider or try to take a glance at the mindset of the gay person, actually it COMPLETELY ignores the fact that a gay couple IS in fact a FAMILY! (after all doesn t love supposedly conquer all idiocracy?)
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 29th 2012, 22:14
Alex, I am not going to engage in a debate when your comments are based on historical nonsense. Yes, homosexual unions are recognised in Australia as a family. For instance, Australian immigration law treats them the same as de facto relationships and they fall under family migration. May I remind you that all unions - heterosexual and homosexual - are matters of social construction. What you claim to be history is not history at all but prejudice. May I remind you that Christianity did not always exist from the beginning. So will you now kindly draw the same conclusion!
Wally Vella-Zarb
Aug 28th 2012, 23:50
Will there still be a government at the end of the debate? Or rather, which will end first, the debate or the government?
Alex Ellul
Aug 29th 2012, 12:25
I believe that this will be a major issue in the forthcoming elections with the PL getting itself between a rock and a hard place. Crafty move isn't it?
Jonathan Camilleri
Aug 28th 2012, 23:35
I think that the cohabitation bill has to bring about a closer impression of equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Fr Richard-Nazzreno Farrugia
Aug 28th 2012, 22:43
It seems the MGRM wants the recognition of civil unions at a par with marriage for homosexual couples and sees this refusal as a sort of discrimination, or "second-class" treatment. They equal such refusal to homophobia. This is very inappropriate since it's not discriminatory to treat different realities differently. Such difference is not discrimination since the difference is not in the way a given reality is treated but in the reality itself. A union of marriage between a man and a woman constitutes a family, a union between persons of the same sex is of a different kind. A heterosexual union has a unitive and procreative meaning. Not so a homosexual union. As far as I know two men or two women cannot procreate. If might tell me: if you're placing your argument just on the couple's ability to procreate, then what of those heterosexual couples who cannot? My answer is that the love between a heterosexual couple has the potency to be open to life whereas the homosexual couple hasn't. Am I being homophobic by stating facts? Could different realities be put on the same level? Are we really keen to "celebrate diversity" or do we just want to "uniform" ourselves to be considered what in fact we are not? Does that mean that one doesn't accept his own diversity? Marriage between a man and a woman forms the family that is the basic cell of society since it guarantees not only life (of the new generations) but also a complete and solid education to the new generations. Calling homosexual unions a "family" is an offence against such an important institution. Certainly, individual rights should not be denied, but marriage is another thing, and the family is formed by marriage. If according to MGRM not putting homosexual unions at par with marriage is homophobia, is not debasing the meaning of marriage between a man and a woman putting it at par with any other type of civil union a kind of familyphobia?
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 29th 2012, 22:17
What a lot of Catholic waffle!
Paolo Bugeja
Sep 1st 2012, 23:59
Father, that means that you are pretty useless!!
Charles Grixti
Sep 2nd 2012, 23:06
Using your same argument then a sterile couple or mature couple cannot have their marriage recognised either. Marriage is not based on 'baby-making', but on love of two persons for each other, irrespective of gender. Being so removed from social norms, Catholic clergy cannot get past their utilitarian view of marriage.
Anthony C. Azzopardi
Aug 28th 2012, 21:16
As usual when some action is controversial
It ends up being half baked. Let us think of ALL involved to table, and approve, a Bill which launches us at leadt onto the present if mot tje future and not the past.
Noel Abela
Aug 28th 2012, 19:35
As usual a half baked bill that is only intended for Goverment to keep its hold onto the seat of power.
Andrea Schembri
Aug 28th 2012, 19:03
'Neither does the Bill go into tax issues.'
Mela igifieri Partner A jahdem u Partner B ma jahdimx u ghandhom it-tfal flimkien u Partner A ihallas taxxa ta single xorta allavolja ghandu familja ma Partner B!!!!! Ghala? It-tfal ta din il-Familja jieklu inqas minn tal-mizzewwgin?????
U ma dan il-gvern its paradise mill-kejk jehodlok l-ikbar slice :)
David Buttigieg
Aug 28th 2012, 20:04
@Andrea Schembri,
If a man and a woman want the benefits a married couple wants, they can get married (civilly) and there- problem solved!
With divorce legislation, there really is no excuse!
Tajba din, they want the benefits without the responsibilities!
Ruth Seychell
Aug 28th 2012, 21:17
ghax hi mhux recognized bhala familja
Lawrence Fenech
Aug 28th 2012, 18:57
JPO.
The question is for how long will the present government debate in parliament?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Peter Borg
Aug 28th 2012, 18:55
This bill is confirmation if indeed confirmation was required that the Nationalist party is a party of bigots ! The people of Malta have progressed and no longer want to deny any of our brethren, who belong to a minority group ,any of their rights no matter what the position of the catholic church. We want to live in a country which is secular and which ensures justice for all. This draft bill is an outrage and is simply another nail in the PN's electoral coffin ! Good riddance !
Gerry Cowie
Aug 28th 2012, 18:48
If people calmed down and stopped making demands, insisting that they are all met, then perhaps some progress might just be made with this thorny subject. All or nothing is not necessarily the best way forward.
As Matthew Saliba points out, not everybody chooses to get married but would rather live together.
Perhaps the MGRM could publish their own version of the bill as they would like to see it so that people can clearly see what their arguments are. This might help to tone down the more acutely homophobic comments which do not help anybody.
Ms. P.M Graham
Aug 28th 2012, 19:18
I think the debate is basically that every law abiding, human being should be treated equally and to respect choices. Respect being the operative word..
I can't for the life of me understand why there even has to be a debate or for that matter a Bill passed in the first place.
It's not a Governments job to dictate to people how they live. Run the Country, fix the economy and get people jobs etc......... don't meddle in private, personal, choices that so do not concern you or for that matter affect you.
Charles Bayliss
Aug 28th 2012, 20:37
"As Matthew Saliba points out, not everybody chooses to get married but would rather live together".
If people like Matthew and you want to live "together" with whoever you want, that would be your right to choose, but if I would like to marry (like in a CIVIL marriage) my partner of 8 years, who is to deny the riight to do so for the simple reason of being gay? We do not want to get married for the simple sake of saying "we are married" but we want to because we as Maltese citizens want the same rights as our counterparts, nothing MORE nothing less.
Russell Sammut
Aug 29th 2012, 02:48
A position paper was published back in january with what all the law should be about
Paul Cassar
Aug 28th 2012, 18:46
IN BETWEEN THE LINES PLEASE NOTE THAT:
GONZIPN HAS NO, REPEAT NO, MAJORITY ..................lost his right to govern, an accusation oft repeated
about previous pl govt.
WE HAVE NOW TWO PMs....................one pretending at Castile..............the other at Zebbug !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MALTA FLOATING ON ITS OWN
Lawrence Cardona
Aug 28th 2012, 18:40
THIS IS ONLY A PLATE OF SOUP BEFORE ELECTION JUST A COSMETIC TOUCH SO THAT WE CAN SAY THAT THE NATIONALIST PARTY DONE SOMETHING FOR THE GAY COUPLES THIS IS JUST A JOKE AND SHAME FOR THOSE EVEN THE MGRM IF THEY WILL ACCEPT THIS KIND OF JOKE BEFORE ELECTION .
Eddy Privitera
Aug 28th 2012, 18:19
Il-ministru Said qal li koppja li jknu ilhom joqghodu flimkien tal-inqas 5 snin se jkunu jistghu jigu rregistrati bhla koppja ( qieghed nirreferi ghal koppja ragel u mara li jikkoabitaw ), izda din il-koppja mhux se tissejjah FAMILJA !
Nistaqsih lil-ministru: ghalik u ghal GonziPN pero, koppja mizzewga isda li jiggieldu kulljum daqs il-klieb u l-qtates, dik tissejjah FAMILJA ????
John Vella
Aug 28th 2012, 18:07
I am heterosexual and I am ashamed for the way we are treating a minority group of our own species as second a class race.. Shame on us...
K CASSAR
Aug 28th 2012, 17:59
About time that the government wakes up to reality, though the scarceness of these measures is pathetic! I wonder if siblings living together have any rights at all? Besides JPO certainly drew the longer straw , given that he's calling the shots over Gonzi!!!
Doreen Attard
Aug 28th 2012, 17:31
This is so obviously a half baked bill. The run-up for it has been so long that it makes it look like an old bill. Apart from this responsible governments do not propose important bills on the eve of a general election. This is all wrong. If this bill goes through, which I doubt, it will surely not be a good law. It will lack a lot because it will not be debated in a proper way. I bet most of our parliamentarians, at least those who will be contesting the elections are already in election mode and their full attention will not be in the debate.
jesmond zammit
Aug 28th 2012, 17:22
imma possibli f dal pajjiz hadd ma jinduna li mhux b konvinzjoni imma b konvenjenza qed isiru dawn l affarijiet.
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Aug 28th 2012, 17:57
Naqbel jidher sar kollox ta kafkaf u ftit dettalji
V. Cauchi
Aug 28th 2012, 17:10
All so unnatural, sad to say. I hope this and the IVF Bills will be shelved with little time left to discuss them before a pre-budget election, if Dr Debono's blogs are anything to go by. If they pass, many more PN level-headed votes are at stake than the few which may be garnered with this topsy-turvy piece of legislation. No wonder we were told we will be seeing a polar shift!
Peppi Borg
Aug 28th 2012, 16:33
It's about time that a Nationalist Government after 25 years of rule start doing something about this reality of a segment of our society, present in our country. This draft law was drafted haphazardly to win votes in a nearby election.This draft cohabitation bill creates more questions than answering dilemmas of affected people . What is going to happen where third persons are involved? In the end it's a cohabitation bill where the governmnet has to abide to the will of one MP.
Malcolm Farrugia
Aug 28th 2012, 16:33
So Hon. Chris Said has done the cohabitation bill from scratch, this alone raises two questions,
1) What was Carm Mifsud Bonnici doing during his tenure as Minister?,
2) How come The government (GonziPn) is in such a rush to pass this bill on the ever of a general election?
And we must not forget that the gay community is facing yet another discrimination from the current legislature!
Lawrence Fenech
Aug 28th 2012, 18:59
@Malchom.
It is now obvious that GonziPN is passing everything through a mincing machine for rapid results.
David Buttigieg
Aug 28th 2012, 16:28
A co-habitation bill for a man and woman living together is beyond ridiculous!
A perfectly good law to regulate this already exist, and has done so for millenia, it's called marriage!
With divorce legislation in place why on earth are they re-inventing the wheel?
Matthew Saliba
Aug 28th 2012, 16:37
because not everyone wants to get married!! shock shock horror (yes people specifically choose not to get married)
David Buttigieg
Aug 28th 2012, 16:49
Shock shock horror horror, tough luck for them, they remain 'unregulated'!
If they want to regulate their relationship they can get married, civilly, otherwise not complain!
What do you think a civil marriage is other then a contract?
Matthew Saliba
Aug 28th 2012, 20:53
Thanks for your informing me that marriage is a contract. I had no idea!
Nonetheless, the cohabitation bill caters for them...like it or not
Alex Ellul
Aug 28th 2012, 23:45
Because it's not marriage that they want but it's destruction.
David Buttigieg
Aug 29th 2012, 08:31
Shows how little you know, what do you think civil marriage is and the reason for it ?
"Nonetheless, the cohabitation bill caters for them...like it or not"
I suggest you learn how to read, that was the point of my comment! How stupid it is!
Matthew Grima
Aug 29th 2012, 09:37
David Buttigieg, I can co-habitate with my sister (which I don't have). Why not? It covers situations that cannot be covered by marriage.
And lets say someone wants to live with their best friend who is of the same sex, but neither are gay. Why can't this be regulated?
John Zammit
Aug 28th 2012, 16:24
After 25 years in Government The PN came out with a half baked law on cohabitation. I ask what were the former Justice minister doing. Is this a law to be presented just before the dissolution of parliament. What about the rights if there are third parties involved
Daniel Tabone
Aug 28th 2012, 16:19
Gejja xi farsa ohra fil-Parlament? Allura jekk JPO iressaq emendi li ma joghgbux lill-gvern konservattiv li ghandna, x'jigri? U jekk dawn l-emendi jghaddu bil-vot tal-Oppozizzjoni mhux gvern li ma jikkmandax ikollna f'dan il-pajjiz? Kollox qed isir bil-ghaggla biex ligi li ilha mweghda mill-elezzjoni tal-1992 iressquha malajr issa qabel l-elezzjoni. Mhux hekk ghandhom isiru l-affarijiet. Din il-ligi bhal tal-qattusa ghaggelija. Nofs kedda!
Alex Ellul
Aug 28th 2012, 16:09
A same-gender union is what it is: A same gender union and it cannot ever be defined as marriage. Marriage has been defined by human society for thousands of years, for mellenia, based on the billion year old terrestrial biological life that had evolved into a male-female procreative method for ensuring the survival of the species.
The union between two persons of the same gender does not make biological sense, however society has to provide whatever needs to be provided to ensure that all can enjoy the type of life one wishes to have accoring to basic human rights established by our society, but without infringing on other persons' rights, such as the meaning of my marriage. Nobody can infringe of that meaning and I Have the right to understand that itmeans only the union between a man and a woman, or a man and more than one woman as established by extant human societies. I have the right for that meaning without anyone else trying to thwart it, demean it or destroy it.
Marriage does not need redifining. What it needs is confirming its meaning as it had been established by all people of all races and ethnicity and beliefs for many thousands of years. Marriage is that foundation stone of human society, that society that has made us what we are today. Now, a small but well-funded group of people across the western world abetted by the mainstream media that have now been taken over by anti-Christian left-wing people, are propagating the hyped-up myth of gay marriage when these same people do not even believe in marriage itself. Their agenda is actually not to redefine marriage but to destroy is value and its meaning.
Let there be a new legal name for a union between two or more persons of different gender, but it cannot be marriage. It's like trying to describe a horse as being a fish.
Ramon Casha
Aug 28th 2012, 17:17
The correct term for same-sex marriage is marriage. The current definition of marriage includes same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples, of any ethnicity, any religion, etc. The previous, obsolete defintion of marriage, which is that of exclusively one man and one woman based on mutual love and respect, is only one or two centuries old. The definition of marriage has changed countless times. It used to mean one man and as many women as he could buy or kidnap. Then it became one man, one woman as wife and several as concubines. The it became one man with the best woman with same-coloured skin he could afford to buy from her father. In most cases, love had nothng to do with it. It was all about the money - the difference between wife and concubine was whether the offspring wuold inherit the property of the father. Today things are different and marriage is based on love and respect - which apply to same-sex couples just as much as they apply to opposite-sex couples.
Philip Bonello
Aug 28th 2012, 19:47
The family (mother + father + children) is the basic building block of society. It is a shame that in this modern world of political correctness, we are finding ways of by-passing this and trying to invent new forms of family units. I can understand that two people, of whatever sex, living together and dedicating themselves to each other have to be protected from other greedy members of society but this does not entitle us to create an entity which, in the long run, goes against the sustainability of the society we live in. I hope that the forthcoming elections do not make loose our sanity. What we legislate now will affect generations to come.
Alex Ellul
Aug 28th 2012, 23:42
Ramon Casha, did you realise that your treatise about marriage is all about the union of a man with one or more women?That yoursame-sex 'marriage' is only a modern day invention? Can't you just coin a new word to describe the biologically-inane union between two persons of the same sex? Nobody is depriving you of your rights to live and love legally any other person whom you wish tosaher yourlife with. You have that right and I will defend you to my death, but you do not have the right to call your type of union marriage.As I have already said, marriage and same sex unions are as distinct to one other as a horse is to a fish.
You are actually infringing on my rights given to me by mother nature itself to defend the basic description of marriage to be the biologically correct union between a male and a female or females of the same species. All other forms are biologically unnatural and void and a new definitionis required to deascribe this modern type of socialunion which cannot be biologically justified.
A man wanting to marry more than one woman hasmore right to his claim than twopersons of the same gender and no one can beat me on that logic. Calling a same gender union m\rriage willopne up a can of worms.
Marriage needs confirming not redefining. Gay unions are just gay unions. Full stop.
Michael Borg
Aug 28th 2012, 15:43
It is time for the Maltese LGBT community to stand up towards this backward thinking. Equality is a human right not a government's decision. TIME FOR CHANGE!
John Portelli
Aug 28th 2012, 15:36
What's happening to Christian values ?
Luke Lanzon
Aug 28th 2012, 16:08
Hopefully in the near future will be gone and be replaced by values of equality for all, unlike christian values.
Dean Hili
Aug 28th 2012, 16:09
not much mate, you get to keep them, that's the good thing about it, consistent with the basic human rights of freedom of expression and the freedom to practice a religion of you choosing. for those other people who chose to make their life decisions on other salient points in life, more bread and butter issues which tend to affect the wider masses instead of on the opinions of desert dwellers who wrote stories in a fragmented book over 2000 years ago, there's this law and others. its called secularism and it will only get worse for you so get used to it. Practice your religion and keep your nose out of everyone else's life.
cesco di luigi
Aug 28th 2012, 16:35
christian values are being implemented...not by the conservative organisation that calls itself the rc church.
christ as in christian never went around wearing those kind of robes as cardinals and bishops do today.
Joseph Sammut
Aug 28th 2012, 16:49
@ Luke and Dean: the fragmented book has natural values as it basis; so don't go too far in neglecting it, although it's you prerogative to do so if you feel so inclined. What most would be modern open minded people have between their ears is materialism, which is contradictory to natural values. Man does not want to be restricted; he blames Christian faith for it, but if one studies natural law, one would be surprised with the restrictions there are to materialism. People are too much in a hurry nowadays to have a good look around them and see the beauty of natural law. This is the beauty of it all; it's all around us, free and we look the other way, ignoring it - with consequencies no doubt.
Ramon Casha
Aug 29th 2012, 06:05
Which of the following are Christian values? As an atheist, I'd love to be educated:
1) Love one another; Do not do unto others what you don't want them to do to you.
2) Deny civil marriage to same-sex couples and insist they're not a real family.
Matthew Grima
Aug 29th 2012, 09:32
Joseph Sammut, I'm sure it's quite natural to allow people to slap you on your face, and then offer your other side for a little more fun.
Mark. Galea
Aug 28th 2012, 15:35
Held at ranson by a few individuals.
Gillian Snook
Aug 28th 2012, 17:25
The correct quote is hold/held to ransom
....... but who is being held by whom?
Matthew Saliba
Aug 28th 2012, 15:34
The MGRM is never satisfied with any proposals, unless it is 105% what they want. Those are not discussions.
Michael Borg
Aug 28th 2012, 15:40
The 105% that the MGRM wants is the 105% you already have and that is equality, nothing more nothing less. Just what every human being deserves.
Charles Bayliss
Aug 28th 2012, 15:50
Why should MGRM be satisfied? This Law will only give a pinch of salt as rights to Gay Citizens of Malta. I am sure that MGRM are not demanding that Gays would be superior to Straights. Some people make me really laugh with their stupid comments.
Mario Borg
Aug 28th 2012, 16:13
If they should be happy with less maybe they should also pay less taxes
Matthew Saliba
Aug 28th 2012, 16:35
@ Charels Bayliss: Before calling anyone's comments stupid, I would look at my own comments (hint at previous inheritance comment). Additionally, yes, MGRM, and most homosexuals, want to be more superior than heterosexuals (that is the proper word to use)...just look at the way the majority of homosexuals self discriminate (gay parties, gay bars, specific exclusion from heterosexual people, making it a point to rub their sexual preferences in everyone's face, need I go on?)
@Michael Borg: I'm gay
@Mario Borg: only 10 countries allow same-sex marriage in the world (out of which only 5 are in the EU) - I guess the rest of the world must be lagging behind too.
Stop complaining about everything that is done!!
Michael Borg
Aug 28th 2012, 16:59
@Matthew Saliba : Knowing that you're in fact a gay person, it is even more sad to hear comments against your own. Invest your time in developing some more self respect mate instead of wasting your energy in political pride. Good on you if you choose to spend your life as a single gay man, my personal preference would be that of entering a civil union with the person i love just like every other straight person does. This is not about having more or less, this is about equality, something the bill is not about. This is beyond blue, red or green but unfortunately this rock cannot see beyond that. Thankfully the MGRM is not so short sighted. Respect to Gabi and all those involved.
josephine CACHIA
Aug 28th 2012, 17:16
very mature comments..keep it up..more gays should be like you...but unfortunately some of them are just in denial ..and never happy.
josephine CACHIA
Aug 28th 2012, 17:54
@Matthew Saliba.keep investing your time in accepting who you really are..keep enjoying life by being realistic.,people will love you more.if more gays were like you they will be treated better by everyone.@Michael Borg.In Life nobody and nothing is perfect... Equality does not exist in most of things.
Michael Borg
Aug 28th 2012, 18:15
@josephine CACHIA : i wonder if you'd be saying the same if you were at the other end of the stick. I would never attempt to judge your situation because i am not in it and therefore cannot understand it. On the same token we should have never bothered letting women vote, but that wouldn't have been right would it? I know very well who i am, so do my parents, my family, my colleagues, friends, neighbours and all others who ever crossed my path... all whom love me enough to wish me what they wish for themselves. You clearly have no idea what it means to be deprived of human rights and i hope from the very bottom of my heart that you never will be. Keep investing your energy in a positive approach to life, there are far more important things that affect you directly and that you should be focusing on.
Matthew Saliba
Aug 28th 2012, 20:38
@michael borg...you're hilarious! Are you seriously telling me that I need to work on my self respect when you have no idea who I am? Believe me, I couldn't be more proud of who I am and that goes beyond political preferences. I have achieved a lot in life after having come out at age 18 a long time ago (I always knew what I was). The only difference between me and the majorly of homosexuals on this rock is that I live and let live...I don't force my sexual preference on others, and that is why I am accepted in all circles of life! If you want to be equal, start treating yourself as equal first! The rest will follow!!
Michael Borg
Aug 29th 2012, 15:49
@Matthew Saliba : Sounds like you have achieved a lot indeed, good on you mate. I guess this will all make sense the day you achieve the mother of achievements. Even you will one day fall deeply in love enough to want all that society is depriving you from, and will finally understand why you too deserve to enjoy the privileges others have been enjoying for centuries. With time you'll understand, luckily that day has already come for me. Good luck.
Jamie Cutajar
Aug 28th 2012, 15:26
Will gay couples be micro-chipped at registration? Government's mentality is disgusting and proves that PN has taken Malta as far as it can.
Marisa Debono
Aug 28th 2012, 15:05
Tghid pruvaw jaqtghu l-ghatx bil-perzut?
Kenneth Galea
Aug 28th 2012, 14:59
@Paul Zammit
Please don't judge and don't jump the gun. In no way I referred HIV as being a gay disease. You misunderstood my comments. The reason I also included my HIV positive friends is to make others realise that I have no problem whatsoever with gay people including those who are HIV positive. HIV is a disease which affects everybody. In actual fact I also give donations for the research of HIV and AIDS. However the above article is certainly a step in the right direction.
Carmel Ellul
Aug 28th 2012, 15:22
HIV does not effect everybody. It effects persons who have no respect for themselves and mess around with any adult of their own standard .
Unfortunately children born from these persons are almost always positive, and these should be helped.
These sicknesses are the result of ignoring what we were instructed to do, in the commandaments!
J Cassar
Aug 28th 2012, 15:36
@ Carmel Ellul, what about victims of rape? Blood transfusions gone wrong? What a thing to say!
Nicole Vella
Aug 28th 2012, 15:58
@ Carmel Ellul
Your statement is horrible, not to mention factually incorrect. Please do some reading and learn something before sharing this nonsense.
And, if you're going to quote commandments, I suggest you start off by reading Matthew 22: 'Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?' Jesus said to him, 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second resembles it: You must love your neighbour as yourself.
M Borg
Aug 28th 2012, 16:00
Why not face the real facts ?
HIV can effect everybody, but we all know that it is more common in drug users and gays .
James Camilleri
Aug 28th 2012, 18:39
@Carmel Ellul
And you have the gall to call yourself a christian? Or are you just paying lip service to Christ's teaching by just going to church. That is not enough mate.
j brincat
Aug 28th 2012, 14:51
@Victor Rodenas
"I wonder what would have happened if IVF ,Divorce and cohabitation laws were passed in Mintoff`s time.History will say that it was the PN who made them"
History will only say that GonziPN voted against the Divorce Bill even though the majority of the people voted for the introduction of divorce in a referendum.
If GonziPN had a conscience crisis he should have resigned!
As regards IVF & cohabitation (also promised by EFA many years back) it still remains to be seen. But from what's been said todate about IVF, in all probability we would finish off with a half baked cake!
(jb)
Mr Patrick Attard
Aug 28th 2012, 14:46
This is a historical moment for the Maltese Gay Community. Obviously the devil will be in the details if the Bill is to be effective and valid for us so we have to make our voice heard before it is presented to Parliament.
Dr. Ing. Patrick Attard
Victor Rodenas
Aug 28th 2012, 14:38
I wonder what would have happened if IVF ,Divorce and cohabitation laws were passed in Mintoff`s time.History will say that it was the PN who made them.
Henry S Pace
Aug 28th 2012, 14:20
Both Government and the opposition have no other special issues vis-avis the country and itthe maltese society. So much so that our parliament is using its energy on trivial issues which would in future ruin the mlatese society.
The issue is that for our parliament is the concept of moving with the times.
Karl Consiglio
Aug 28th 2012, 14:19
Ejja JPO start your own party!! I mean it in a good way.
Joseph Grech Attard
Aug 28th 2012, 14:07
What kind of change is this Bill going to bring about? Why are not siblings included? Who has the power to decide of what constitues a family? Does it have to be marriage? Are monks and nuns living in a community a family? They should act like one and some of them are even allowed to tend to newborns and they take Children's allowance. Why not 2 or more people of the same sex, but secular. Why do religious orders have such priviliges? If it works (and it does) with them it could work with non-religious groups! If the present government is doing this just to catch votes, it won't work. Anything done outside a good intention to others, flops quickly.
Charles Bayliss
Aug 28th 2012, 14:06
Let me draw this situation. Let's say Partner A works and Partner B does not. As it stands, if they break their relationship, they just go their way and nobody has to provide of the other. If they register their partnership, and the breakup, as I understand it, Partner A will still have to provide Partner B (as B is the weaker partner). But as there is absence of inheritance rights, if Partner B inherits a good sum, he wouldn't be obliged to share with Partner A.
Matthew Saliba
Aug 28th 2012, 15:31
inheritance is paraphernal property. Even if the couple were heterosexual and married, Partner A would still not be obliged to share the inheritance!!
Tony Borg
Aug 28th 2012, 14:05
It looks that as in the case of IVF bill the bishop (and again not bishops or archbishop) got the upperhand on this law.
Mr Ernest Vella
Aug 28th 2012, 14:05
Marriage is just between a man and a woman...It may be like marriage but yet it can never be a marriage. Lets not turn the meaning of words.
Charles Bayliss
Aug 28th 2012, 15:39
Is this passage in the Bible? Enlighten us from were you got these wise words?
Robert Gatt
Sep 1st 2012, 14:42
Charles Bayliss: "Alla għamilhom raġel u mara. Għalhekk mela jħalli r-raġel lil missieru u lil ommu, u jingħaqad ma’ martu u t-tnejn isiru ġisem wieħed” (Genesi 2, 24).
Kenneth Galea
Aug 28th 2012, 14:03
I have many gay friends both in Malta and the UK, some of whom are also openly HIV positive invidivuals. I really think that the Government is trying hard to recognise same sex couples and we cannot expect everything to be done overnight. This is the beginning, it is better than nothing. Some might not agree with all the contents of the bill but I think one must draw the line now. I am not a sympathiser of the church but I recognise that the church has its own beliefs and rules. I do not expect the church to allow same sex marriage. I am also against the idea of a gay couple adopting children, this should be opposed at all times. The bill is offering gay people to register their relationship and make it legal which offers some rights to couples in particular when a breadown in relationship occurs. We cannot jump up and down in everything the Ministers are trying to achieve. This is not politcal, as I say at least it is a good start and a step in the right direction.
Paul Zammit
Aug 28th 2012, 14:29
with ref: "some of whom are also openly HIV positive invidivuals"
You have many gay friends and u still consider HIV as a 'gay disease' .... that's even worse than the gov's 'lack of effort' to recognise gay rights...
Charles Bayliss
Aug 28th 2012, 15:43
Are our rights just in case of a relationship breakdown? What rights we will be given as a couple in a strong relationship? A BIG FAT ZERO. Were is the Income Tax right (to decide if a couple pays individually or as a couple?), were are Social Benefit rights? If a gay person goes sick for more than 3 days, will he (in a registered partnership) get full benefits or the benefits of a single person? So on and so forth. Please enlighten us what this Law really means.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Aug 29th 2012, 02:20
Kenneth, Maltese gay men and lesbians are sick of waiting. That is why we need a new government.
David Caruana
Aug 28th 2012, 13:29
The PN has gone to the bigots and conservatards, so it won't get my vote.
The PL is good just at calling itself 'progressive' and to raise the rainbow flag on top of its headquarters. Then it won't deliver on real equality to homosexuals.
AD is the only party that comes out with a clear message in favour of equality and justice, so they will get my no.1
IF YOU WANT CHANGE, VOTE FOR IT!
Kenneth Grima
Aug 28th 2012, 13:29
We are all equals but some are far more equal than others the Gonzi PN way.
Charles Bayliss
Aug 28th 2012, 13:26
I do not know were the consultations were done. I know that Minister Said had a meeting with MGRM but most probably it was just a waste of time (as usual). The Government did only what pleased some higher power and not the will of the interested party.
What did the Minister waste time consulting?
Ramon Casha
Aug 28th 2012, 13:13
"Such arrangements are not recognised as families."
And the reason for that would be....?
Please choose the reason of your report below: