What is the relationship between La Vie d’Adele and Manif pour tous?

It would be very negative to make marriage and civil unions equal

La Vie d’Adele (Blue is the Warmest Colour) is Abdellatif Kechiche’s latest oeuvre. It was described by The Guardian as “a devastatingly emotional film about a love affair between two young women, with unforgettable notes of sensuality and sadness”. Last Sunday it won the prestigious Palme d’Or in the Cannes Film Festival.

Manif pour tous (Demo for all) is the name of the movement set up to oppose the legalisation of same-sex marriage by the French Parliament at the behest of President François Hollande. While Blue was receiving its award, hundreds of thousands were demonstrating against the passage of the law. The length and breadth of the protest movement must have surprised Hollande.

An unsympathetic media repeatedly touted the demonstrations as violent. The Independent, however, reported just 200 people were involved in violent incidents with the police after the conclusion of the demonstration. Since Halloran’s seminal work about a large anti-Vietnam War demonstration held in London in the 1970s, research has consistently shown that the media generally report an event within the parameters of their pre-event framing.

The third ‘related’ event was the publication by The Today Public Policy Institute (TPPI) of Same Sex: Same Civil Entitlements. TPPI is to be congratulated for publishing the report, as such reports, independently of whether one agrees or not with their conclusions, could instigate an intelligent discussion.

The report, though, has a serious failing. While its compilers felt the need to add an annex explaining the meaning of such terms as ‘adoption’, ‘gay’ and even ‘same-sex couple’, they then strangely enough did not feel the need to give us a list of references. The report, thus, makes many claims, which it does not bother to substantiate in any way.

The report concludes that for the time being, same-sex marriage should not be made legal in Malta. This position “probably reflects majority opinion which should be respected”. This opinion is close to (though not identical to that) of the Manif pour tous movement. Both are against the introduction of same-sex marriage in their respective countries.

It is legitimate to conclude that TPPI does not believe there is a fundamental human right for a same-sex marriage. Had TPPI held such a belief it would have been obliged to lobby for the immediate legalisation of same-sex marriage. Fundamental human rights should not be subject to majority opinions or be delayed because their introduction could be seen to be “both premature and impolitic”.

The TPPI is in line with that of the European Court of Human Rights ruling in March 2012 which stated that European nations which define marriage as the union of a man and a woman are not guilty of discrimination. “The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage,” the court said.

I agree with the position of TPPI minus the caveat ‘for the time being’. As Timothy Radcliffe wrote in The Tablet on March 2, 2012, one cannot make a cheese soufflé without the cheese, or wine without grapes. Nor can one make a marriage without a man and a woman unless one wants to try and re-write nature or re-define what it means to be human.

I also agree with TPPI that there should be legislation for civil unions. But I think it would be very negative to make marriage and civil unions equal in almost everything but name.

The TPPI report supports adoption by gay couples on condition that, like in the case of other adoptions, this is done in the best interests of the child. Such adoptions caused vociferous debates all over the world, but it seems in Malta they will be introduced almost by stealth.

It is being argued – if I understand correctly even by leaders of the Nationalist Party – that since our legislation allows adoption by a single person, then social workers should decide in the case of any application for adoption – I presume even by same-sex couples.

I strongly beg to differ. The situation of a same sex-couple is radically different from that of a single person. If there are loopholes in the law as is, then these loopholes should be addressed. There should be a nationwide debate on whether same-sex couples in a civil union should be allowed to adopt or not. Such adoptions should not be allowed by default.

It is true that there are studies showing that adoption by same-sex couples does not negatively impact children. There are also many studies stating the opposite.

Regnerus (2012) found that children raised by married biological parents fare better in a range of significant outcomes than children raised in same-sex households. Marks (2012) explains flaws in 59 studies conducted on same-sex parenting and concluded that the generalised claim of “no difference” was “not empirically warranted”.

In this scenario should we not take the safer and more cautionary path as that being in the best interest of the child?

Isn’t it reasonable to view the union of one man and one woman united in marriage as – at least – the preferred environment for the bearing and upbringing of children, even if, as it happens, some children are born and also well raised in non-marital contexts, for example, by single parents or by people in same- sex relationships?

Such a preference for the best environment for bringing up children means that one judges marriage to be the only institution that serves to connect children with their father and mother together in a stable home. The option is not a judgement about the dignity or worth of any person, married or not. This option is not a negative assessment about the parental competency of any one person over another.

Just as our option for marriage as an institution between a man and a woman should not be construed as a way of ridiculing people who practise polygamy, similarly it does not imply we are disparaging people who have same-sex attraction.

Refusing same-sex marriage does not imply that the dedication and love that one finds in several same-sex relationships should be shunned or considered to be of no value. There are many such relationships which are both humanly rewarding and that enrich the community to which they belong.

This position is about the refusal to redefine an institution as old as humanity and based on human nature, and not about harbouring a hostile disposition against people who experience same-sex attraction.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt