In her article entitled ‘Proudest pride week’ (July 18), Helena Dalli, the Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties, gushes with pride as she praises the great advances achieved by her government in promoting ‘gay rights’.

Unfortunately, her pride clouds her judgement and she makes a number of statements that are inaccurate and confusing.

Dalli has shown crass disregard for her portfolio on social dialogue.

Dialogue has been conspicuous by its absence and ‘gay adoption’ has been sprung on the electorate without a mandate.

Any government has an obligation to act responsibly. Bulldozing any legislation that a government feels will translate into votes at election time is shoddy politics.

She even tries to stoke partisan politics with her reference to the Opposition and its abstention on the vote. This is rather unfair.

Although, the legislation on civil union was agreed to by both parties and most of public opinion, gay adoption was not.

The government went further than introducing civil union. It also included the adoption of children by homosexual couples.

Dalli herself admits that this places their civil union on a par with those of married couples.

The inclusion of gay adoption was not on the cards and changes the significance of this legislation enormously.

First and foremost, it is politically dishonest. It is distressing to see that all Labour MPs kowtowed to the diktat of their leader and that not one of them had the guts to express an opposing opinion and act accordingly.

The Opposition should have had the decency to vote against the Bill that betrayed the electorate.

Sadly, it is true that politicians are not particularly renowned for keeping their word.

We have the classic example of US President Barack Obama who says one thing before an election and does the opposite when in power.

In 2008, Obama said he was against ‘gay marriage’ but then, in 2012, was in favour.

Being elected seems to change the perspective of our dear politicians. So our government has other negative role models to emulate.

Secondly, marriage between homosexuals is not a right. This is not my opinion.

Only recently, the highest human rights court in Europe rejected the right of a Finnish homosexual couple to marry.

We should not fudge issues under the guise of being fair and liberal

In its judgment, the Court stated that European human rights law does not contemplate same-sex marriage. It said civil unions are good enough to safeguard the legitimate rights for same-sex couples.

The Court confirmed the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid State interest.

It also declared the obvious by endorsing the view that relations between people of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman and may be treated differently in law.

It is blindingly evident that the authentic interests of children and the traditional family are at stake.

We are dealing here with the concept of marriage and the common good. Will the State support its meaning or continue to undermine it? Conjugal marriage is the basis of society because of the unique and irreplaceable benefits it bestows on children and society.

Marriage is a natural institution and should be recognised as such.

Extending marriage rights to people on the basis of emotional attachment changes the very essence of the meaning of marriage. It is not a question of so called ‘gay rights’ but a redefinition of marriage.

Discrimination against homosexuals is just being used as a false pretext. Once marriage means any kind of committed, sexual relationship, it means nothing at all.

Obviously, the minister is so carried away with slogans of liberal, progressive, emancipated and what have you, that she is unable to be objective. So-called gender rights seem to be her only concern.

She claims that there is a lot to be done. Let’s hope it will not imply the promotion of homosexuality among young people.

Behavioural attitudes are delicate issues and genetics is not the only determining factor.

Is promoting a ‘gay’ culture in the interest of society? This has nothing to do with discrimination and we expect that we do not fudge issues under the guise of being fair and liberal.

Finally, pride is a deadly attribute. Of the seven deadly sins, it takes pride of place. It seduced Lucifer.