Tuesday, 25th November 2008
RUNNING TRIALS
Some days ago, the youngest MP in the House made a suggestion that couples should live together before getting married and, for some reason, seemed to think that this was something that should be discussed.
I’m not completely sure that there wasn’t some sort of notion that the government should do something to facilitate this state of affairs coming about. That’s something that’s about to happen, given that – how shall I put it? – the government in its present incarnation is hardly about to annoy the Curia now, is it?
Exactly what prompted this mildly juvenile suggestion, though, isn’t entirely clear. To start with, I don’t think that many couples who felt like moving in with each other were about to wait for permission to be granted by the massed ranks of the Honourables.
And then I’m not too sure that there are too many young people to whom the idea about co-habiting without the benefit of preceding nuptials would not have occurred had it not been for Owen Bonnici mentioning it to them.
One of the planks on which the Honourable Gent rested his thesis, if memory serves, was that if people got to know each other a bit more closely (there’s nothing that brings home to you what the object of your desires is like than seeing him or her stumbling out of the pit on the morning after the night before) there would be less marital strife.
This, with all due respect to my young friend, is tripe and twaddle.
Living in sin – don’t you just love that description? – is hardly a state that has been eschewed by vast numbers of youths in foreign parts and their rate of martial break-up is hardly anything to write home about. In fact, the state of matrimony, insofar as a lasting state thereof is concerned, is conspicuous by its absence.
So, taking the loved one out for a trial run is certainly no guarantee that when push comes to shove, (s)he won’t shove off.
So, that which Bonnici was trying to achieve, other than getting himself mentioned, which is a laudable aim where politicians are concerned, is highly mud-like – as in, as clear as mud.
Somewhat worrying, though, is the frame of mind that underlies the very idea that the thought was expressed that the House should discuss the way people should interact with each other in a purely private setting. Given that it was hardly likely that anything meaningful was going to come out of such a discussion (what, no law making a six-month trial period mandatory before a marriage licence is granted?) (might not be such a bad idea, when you think about it, you don’t get to drive a car without proving you know how to) it was, frankly, a bit of a waste of hot air, which in this day and age is hardly a good idea.
But back to that frame of mind which is worrying.
Why is that gentlemen of the left seem to think that everything under the sun should be discussed and that everything under the sun should be facilitated, legislated for, regulated and otherwise put into some form of framework? Why do people with a certain political bent always think they know what’s good for everyone all the time? Ever heard of freedom of choice, guys?
To put it differently: if I, figuratively speaking, wanted to shack up with someone (and no wisecracks about my chances, at my age, OK?) I would do this quite independently from the fact that Parliament might be discussing it and resolving that it was – or was not – a good idea.
In other words, get out of my bedroom, Onorevlijiet, why don’t you?
I wouldn’t have been moved to put these thoughts down, really, hadn’t it been for the spokesman for the clergy, Roamer in last Sunday’s Times seeing fit to pooh-pooh the idea with such superior sanctimony. Chiming in with the usual refrain about family values and what have you, Roamer hauled himself up to his full height and pronounced Bonnici’s idea a “nutty proposal”.
Contrary type that I am, this would normally inspire me to leap to the defence of the idea.
The only snag is, it is pretty much a nutty notion, though if giving effect to it (don’t ask me how) were to combat the effects of spoilt brats getting hitched because it’s fashionable and then running back to mummy as soon as the other half doesn’t live up to the fantasy, then it would be almost worth legislating to make pre-nuptial co-habitation mandatory.
Oh whatever, just discuss something important, why don’t you, and let the rest of us get on with our lives, as we’ve always done, pretty much ignoring you.
Now sit back and watch how the Lil’Elves will turn this into a discussion on how Mintoff was the best thing since sliced bread and how Malta in 2008 is a living hell compared with the paradise on earth that it was in the 1971-1987 era.
Those strands of discussion will be interspersed with comments about how I’m ignoring MITTSgate, emailGATE, SewageChargeGate, FuelGatePrice and whatever other –gate has caught the fancy of said Lil’Elves.
Just for the record, guys, I’ll write what I choose to write about – call me an arrogant son-of-a-gun if you like, I’ll just sit here and enjoy it, my enjoyment made fuller by the delicious aroma of sour grapes that oozes from your every pore.
RSS
Comments
My remark wasn’t addressed to you personally I was being generic my friend. To me phrases like “I do have homosexual friends,” "I'm not racist; one of my best friends is Black!” denote a hint of prejudice.
When saying something that would normally be offensive, but the speaker does not intend it to be, for example – “No offence, but I hate your tie although I have one like it,” some people resort to these phrases.
In my experience, people tend to use these phrases when they have been, or are about to be, extremely offensive!
You may think that I’m being pedantic but it’s just my utter disgust for prejudice, be it sexual or racial.
Patronising: "to behave in an offensively condescending manner".
Nothing to do with supporting the right of individuals to freely enter into contracts.
But of course, sometimes, when a child keeps on insisting and screaming that "elephants can fly, elephants can fly, elephants can fly", at one point you have to say "yes dear, elephants can fly".
So yes, perhaps I am patronising.
Cont...
"You see Kenneth, in this context, your well-wishing is patronising and dubiously magnanimous (there, is that better?..."
Not really. Like I have shown, I am as much patronising (or rather, not) as you are. There, is that better?
"I am happy because I am an atheist and a fully paid up member of a homosexual community of one".
Again, this is not about you. It is about people who want to get married, but the state does not let them.
"You claim to be happily married. I hope you make sure the source of your euphoria is rock solid".
Frankly, its none of your business.
Earlier you wrote: "Did I infer homosexuals should not be allowed to get married and so stand accused of being patronising. No way!", which effectively means that you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get married if they want to. I basically say the same thing, and yet, I am patronising and you are not. Incredible! You are just going round and round in circles and digging yourself in ever deeper.
"I am secure enough in who I am not to feel any need to impress anyone least of all guys like you".
This is not about you. It is about people who want to get married, but the state, patronisingly, does not let them.
"Let us shore this up. You claimed to be a happily contracted man and,IN THE SAME BREATH, you wished homosexuals to enjoy the same benefits (and to be fair, the obligations) of State sanctioned (but not the Church, obviously)".
Only if they want to.
Cont...
Cont...
"Further, can you explain what you mean by rights that marriage proffers? including the rights of those of the homosexual persuasion who opt for this imposed institution (is Maltese marriage special? as you imply). And when is a marriage more than a mere contract?"
Marriage is just a contract to me. But of course, I won't deny that Christians see marriage as a spiritual sacrament.
"Do not get too close to your homosexual friends - you might get labelled, no doubt unjustly".
I don't care what homophobes think.
"you would extend the rights and the onus of obligations proferred by marriage to everyone, including homosexuals. How magnanimously patronising".
Can you please very kindly explain what is so patronising about letting others freely choose how they want to live their lives? Or is it just that you love to use the words "magnanimously" and "patronising" as if you will impress anyone?
"Did I infer homosexuals should not be allowed to get married and so stand accused of being patronising. No way! The option should be there of course".
So again, how am I patronising?
"but I was merely expressing my views as to why I would refuse the option".
Its your rightful choice, but it should be an option. That's all I said. Very patronising of me, isn't it?
"You did not answer my questions".
I did, as evidenced in the "Cont..." in my last reply. Unfortunately, the second part somehow did not get through.
Cont...
"I don’t particularly like the term ‘I do have homosexual friends’ because friends are friends irrespective of sexual orientation and don’t need to be classified".
I don't like it either, but you must take it in context. I used it as part of my response to "Homosexual people are not what they once were, harassed and looked-down upon". I only wished to express that a few of my friends are homosexual. How otherwise could I have said that?
I don’t particularly like the term ‘I do have homosexual friends’ because friends are friends irrespective of sexual orientation and don’t need to be classified. Homosexuals are not different than the rest. Notwithstanding our prejudice I think homosexuality is another natural orientation, people, birds and animals do not make themselves homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.
I am one for equal rights, privileges, legal protection and obligations irrespective of, but denying the so called ‘legal right’ of marriage to non heterosexual is hardly deprivation of rights. I consider the notion of that unity-by-marriage as absurd and farcical.
Marriage is not just a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners it also entails procreation which is the essence of marriage and the reward for love and respect. Nature did not provide for procreation by species of the same sex.How can I therefore recognise a hybrid marriage?
I do however recognise the right of any two people’s choice. not excluding homosexuals, to cohabitate and being afforded the State’s legal recognition to protect their estate but please do not call that a marriage because that would be a misnomer.
"To counter your patronising suggestion that homosexual people should be allowed to marry so they can engage in its rights and obligations..."
What is partonising about letting people who want to marry to get married. I would think the opposite is the case - that it is patronising not to let them.
"....With its inherently flawed makeup, an imposed institution..."
Marriage is not an imposed institution, at least not here in Malta.
"...why would homosexuals in their right mind opt for marriage?"
Frankly, it is none of my, or your, business. If they want to get married, they should have the option.
"Kenneth Cassar, if by rights you mean visiting rights, inheritance rights and so on, homosexual people have now asserted themselves well enough to sort these issues without the marriage safety net".
Homosexuals are not members of a club. They are individuals with the right to think for themselves and act as they wish.
"Homosexual people are not what they once were, harassed and looked-down upon".
I know. I personally do have homosexual friends.
Cont...
"Happiness being so elusive, so subjective, so difficult to define with any degree of honesty, so easily influenced by the vagaries of life - I believe it is a trifle shallow to wish it upon anyone else, in or outside marriage. So again I say to you, thanks but no thanks.
I wish you all that is best".
You're welcome, and I respect that. But the question is - should anyone (adults) wishing to get married be allowed to do so? I believe the answer is yes. That was all I was suggesting. It was not about "happiness", which is a complex matter not reducible to just being married.
I wish you all that is best.
"A few weeks back a contributor claimed that black jelly babies were illegal in the UK but ‘taint so"
Thought so, and thanks for posting this. Of course, some people will say all sorts of silly stuff just to stir up racist paranoia.
Gordon Caruana Dingli communicates that The Malta Housing Authority
is offering social housing as an environmentally friendly measure,
but with a special feature, its Web site says: "All the properties
have environmental friendly measures including roof insulation,
double glazing, lovers and wells." Hello, young louvres, wherever
you are ...
A few weeks back a contributor claimed that black jelly babies were illegal in the UK but ‘taint so.
He was confused by reports of a court case two years back when two Underground workers were accused of taunting a black fellow worker with coloured confectionery. After a lengthy trial costing some £250.000 they were acquitted but the Underground company gave the black man £125,000 by way of compensation.
I thought you should know.
“Anyone who protests that "They want us to believe that our greatest Statesman was the biggest dictator Malta ever had" should blame a Mr Charles J Buttigieg(? the same person)who in another ABC blog wrote "...During that era of Mintoff's dictatorship..." and again " ... by that dictatorship ..."
I had passed caring stage of the person who made that statement but if he cares for your intelligence he ought to quote the full text of my statements. Effective sound bites, although unfair, sometimes can be a good vehicle to convince a weaker audience, amateurish and childish sound bites are always counterproductive.
A few postings down the line I stated “Muscat affirmed his position that in spite of his personal belief he would allow a free vote in parliament and he will vote in favour of divorce as he has to respect the different beliefs. Gonzi’s attitude is totally different and he keeps evading the issue”.
A contributor, who always accuses people of twisting words, interpreted my statement thus, quote “You just never cease to amaze me how you twist a statement beyond recognition and use it to support your way of thinking......
What you are saying here, in effect, is that Joseph is a man of strong Christian values and...Against divorce but if expedient and to respect the different beliefs, he will abandon his Christian values and vote in favour of divorce!!!! Are you saying then, that Joseph is principled only when politically advantageous.”Unquote
Twisting words? Putting words in other people’s mouths? Dear readers you are the judges of that.
"as a happily married man, why are you suggesting homosexual people should also be allowed to marry? How magnanimously patronising of you Kenneth. Thanks, but no thanks".
I hope you're joking.
@Kenneth Cassar, as a happily married man, why are you suggesting homosexual people should also be allowed to marry? How magnanimously patronising of you Kenneth. Thanks, but no thanks.
@ Charles J. Buttigieg. You areso right about children being nurtured to the Faith. Let us doaway with euphemisms shall we and call it by its real name, indoctrination. I have spent a lifetime ridding myself of this yoke. And I am not about to murder anyone, I would never rob anyone of what is theirs. I never tell lies. In fact, I am brutally honest to a fault. A truly Christian life one might say and, unlike Christmas dinner, without the trimmings.
If JM is against divorce or not is no issue at all. He is at least aware that not all people in Malta are Roman Catholics, and he understands that there are people who are not religiously and morally obliged to keep to out of divorce.
WHEN WILL YOU AND PEOPLE SET AGAINST DIVORCE UNDERSTAND THIS? And anyway don't you live in Canada??? Can you explain how a divorced Maltese couple can affect you?
Seems to me Robert Attard understood your blog very well so don't patronise.
There's one obvious common trait in your writings and that is to undermine anything having to do with Labour. People would think everyone was living in concentration camp conditions in the 80's if they go solely by your writings.
You even boast about doing it deliberately, and the only funny thing about it is that people take you seriously, when you are so clearly brainwashed.
Cohabiting couples can regulate their relationship by buying property in common and leaving each other their property in their will.
Another thing - why do you bother to write in this blog if you find Dr Borg Cardona so arrogant? Just let him talk to himself.
Surely you are not that thick. The `someone else`s` that you are infering to happen to be leaders of a party so I take it, so again I ask, name them and the occasions.
If not, then shut-up.
@ Peter Prictoe. Unfortunately I see your quest to find some unbiased account of our recent history as a futile endeavour. You wouldn’t get it from any of our writers because they are all leftist or rightist. My suggestion to read ‘Priests and Politics in Malta’ wasn’t intended to show you the truth, simply to read it in parallel with Friggieri’s biology hoping that by reading both you may form a conclusion close to the truth.
I am sure you'll blog this out !!!
seriously, you're so full of manure. You're an odious little man. Such talent wasted in petty political dichotomies. You're so much resolved in being so religiously political. What are you expecting? that everyone is going to comment back with "good blog keep it up!", " ABC your opinion is so supreme", "how can we not agree with you!"? Tell me? why are you so anxious to expose your bigotry?? I pity you and I hope you treat people around you with more respect then your readership cause I won't form part of the latter.
What is wrong with saying that? Many agree with that and I have heard that phrase from many people who think that people should have a taste of things to come before tying the knot. Are you truly thinking that our politicians are going to force us into cohabitation? I cant understand why a hardcore PN blogger should waste his time writing on someone who expressed a completely uncontroversial opinion in parliament. Is there a law forbidding politicians from suggesting anything regarding preparations before maried life? ABC is painstakingly monitoring every move of the opposition to try to find a slip. He should be watchful on the government and he ll be sure to find his muse ...again!!
My point is that if cohabiting couples are given the same rights and obligations as married couples, it would simply be marriage by another name.
Regarding "Finally, we all feel so good to declare how happily married we are, but sadly not all of us stop to think about the unhappy situations where ‘traditional marriages’ and divorce are not possible", I already made it perfectly clear that I am in favour of divorce and gay marriage.
Anyone who protests that "They want us to believe that our greatest Statesman was the biggest dictator Malta ever had" should blame a Mr Charles J Buttigieg(? the same person)who in another ABC blog wrote "...During that era of Mintoff's dictatorship..." and again " ... by that dictatorship ..."
You just never cease to amaze me how you twist a statement beyond recognition and use it to support your way of thinking.
Let me start, however with your own quote: "Joseph Muscat and Laurence Gonzi were both brought up in a solid Catholic family. They both have strong Christian values, they are both happily married and against divorce, Muscat affirmed his position that in spite of his personal belief he would allow a free vote in parliament and he will vote in favour of divorce as he has to respect the different beliefs".
What you are saying here, in effect, is that Joseph is a man of strong Christian values and...against divorce but if expedient and to respect the different beliefs, he will abandon his Christian values and vote in favour of divorce !!!! Are you saying then, that Joseph is principled only when politically advantageous.
You should have said, perhaps, that Joseph is against divorce, but will allow a free vote - period. Then, one would expect that if he is of such high principles, he would vote no but let others decide for themselves. Then and only then would your argument make sense.
Continued
When you quote me please copy and paste. Do not alter my text to completely change its meaning and twist or spin it your way.
When I commented on Peter Prictoe, I wrote thus: "The Nationalist Party is proud to proclaim itself as a Christian Democratic Party but I can assure you that while formulating policies regarding social issues, it does not await the Church's approval, although it may, at its discretion, seek opinions from the Church authorities regarding topics which may affect doctrinal matters" You chose to erase parts of what I wrote in order to alter the very essence of my remarks. That is the lowest of the low. Specifically you omitted "... that while formulating policies regarding social issues, it does not await the Church's approval, although it may, at its discretion" Does not ...may ...at its discretion...seek opinion... All were lost in your translation making my remarks appear to be the exact opposite of what I had written and intended.
Continued
The government of Malta is duty bound to safeguard the interests of the Maltese and any Maltese minorities of different beliefs. Each Member of Parliament should vote according to the wishes of his constituents and not necessarily in his or her own beliefs.
Friggieri is not totally unbiased and "... you would also need to read 'Priests and Politics in Malta' by Dom. Mintoff". The latter would certainly set the records straight!!
@ Peter Prictoe
You wrote: "I am an individual whilst the PN is a goverment" What is your point? If you vote in an election, you are making a choice of who will represent you, right? Are you saying that if the party or individual you vote for is not elected, then you are not represented?
@ laurence schembri
You wrote: "I was one of the first people to send my condolences to the PM and I am a soicialist"
So? I think it was nice of you and I noticed that quite a number of 'Socialists' sent their condolences, but what has that got to do with my comments to someone else?
You wrote, "In fact, people who marry in Church cannot get a civil marriage with another person. As the law stands now, they cannot even get a civil annulment without getting a Church one, and if a Church annulment is given, it applies to the civil marriage as well."
Thanks for setting me straight.
I have been under the impression that the Civil Law trumps the Canon Law, and that the manner in which Article 19 of the Marriage Act has been interpreted and applied by the Family Section of the Civil Court vitiated the need for a Divorce Act ... that is to say, why bother with Divorce when you can get the Civil Court to annul your broken marriage?
Now I know why Dr. ABC never bothered to address my suggestion to seek Annulment. Silly me, I thought that I've been dumped onto his Ignore-List, when in fact, he was sparing me the embarrassment of pointing out the flaw in my thinking.
This blog is full of surprises.
I thank you for the further details but I still hold to the need for a totally unbiased history.
Your posting was interesting but I have to admit that my mind is not so clear these days
and so I must write in general terms only.
Regards Peter.
You are correct with regards to state recognition of Church Weddings. My initial interpretation was based on the Marriage Act of 1974 but that was amended in 1993. You win on this one Kenneth. I take it that you agree with me that Malta recognises all other marriages celebrated abroad. ( lex loci celebrationis (or contractus), the law of the country in which it is celebrated)
Your statement-“If, given all this, people freely choose not to get married, its their choice...you can't have the best of both worlds. This has nothing to do with "personal values". Civil marriage is just a contract.” (SIC) is dictatorial, a take it or leave it attitude is not conducive to democracy.
Succinctly, our present laws do not recognise the fact that a traditional marriage is not the only way which two people may celebrate their love and form a unity. I am not ready to accept this because the church says so and be untrue to myself.
Finally, we all feel so good to declare how happily married we are, but sadly not all of us stop to think about the unhappy situations where ‘traditional marriages’ and divorce are not possible.
What an utterly boring and empty life these people must have!
But wouldn't you agree?
In 1964. the date of Independence, however, due in the spring, had to be postponed because the Church in Malta refused to accept certain basic democratic clauses inserted by the British government in the Constitution, since the new Constitution, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies said during discussion of the Malta Independence Bill in the Commons, July 23, 1964, was not going to "place the Catholic Church above the law." (Parliamentary Debates, Hansard, Volume 699, No. 149, columns 709-710).
The Maltese Church, with the connivance of her representative, had tried every device to put herself above the Constitution, finally counting on the time limit of thirty-six hours before the House of Commons went into recess. Thanks, however, to Lord Alexander of Hillsborough and others, the maneuver did not succeed. For further documentation of the 1962 Elections in Malta, see Suppression of Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Speech during the Elections in Malta, May 1962, , Malta Independence Bill - Order for Second Reading, House of Commons, July 23, 1964. Parliamentary Debates, Hansard, Volume 699.
And, Dearest Peter, They want us to believe that our greatest Statesman was the biggest dictator Malta ever had.
Olivier Friggieri just published an autobiography covering the period 1955 to date. I haven’t read it yet but apparently he covered the Integration and the Independence issues quite a bit. I don’t think that Friggieri is one of Mintoff’s culture vanguards so a little bias is to be expected. If you read Friggieri’s biography you would also need to read ‘Priests and Politics in Malta’ by Dom. Mintoff.
“The Maltese were also to have social and economic parity with the UK, to be guaranteed by the British Ministry of Defence (MoD), the islands' main source of employment. Although this received large support in a referendum on 14 February 1956, a boycott by the PN and the Roman Catholic Church meant that the result was inconclusive”.
Currently peculiar to Malta is the general attitude to both divorce and cohabitation. I refer back to my quotation on Integration and no matter what my personal opinion on the subject may be one ends up with the Church being PN at prayer.
Back in 1956 I was still a Protestant but over a half a century later am a Papist but still object to the Church interfering in both politics and social life.
Personally, I live according to the rules and teaching of the Catholic Church but no way would I try to impose such upon folk in general.
That could easily be applied to the Nationalist Party. Or any party for that matter.
Cont...
Regarding the state allowing protection only to civil marriage, I think you are grossly mistaken. All Church marriages are also civil marriages. In fact, people who marry in Church cannot get a civil marriage with another person. As the law stands now, they cannot even get a civil annulment without getting a Church one, and if a Church annulment is given, it applies to the civil marriage as well.
I never suggested abolishing marriage (I'm happily married). However, you must understand that giving people living together the same rights and responsibilities as marriage couples would be marriage by another name.
What's more, suppose the hypothetical law would apply after a period of 5 years living together...basically this would mean that the state would be forcing co-habitants into "marriage" when the 5 years elapse (same rights and obligations).
Moreover, would such a law apply only to people of opposite sex living together? This would be discriminatory towards people of the same sex (not necessarily gay) choosing to live together.
What is needed is not the creation of a pseudo-marriage. What is really needed is the introduction of divorce and gay marriage, so that people who are not permitted to marry (or re-marry) so that they will be able (out of choice) to have the rights and obligations of marriage, would be permitted to do so.
If, given all this, people freely choose not to get married, its their choice...you can't have the best of both worlds. This has nothing to do with "personal values". Civil marriage is just a contract.
Cont...
Yes indeed there is more than a subtle difference,
I may misunderstand you but I am an individual whilst the PN is a goverment.
Mr, Martinelli
Quote: `A refreshing change from absentism by previous leaders in the past`
Please explain! When,where and why they were absent.
I was one of the first people to send my condolences to the PM and I am a soicialist.
People like you have no idea, colour dominates.
Our Church would be wrong if it were to act in a way to differentiate between followers of different Political inclinations as its mission is to teach and lead all its faithful alike. That would go against the Christian principles.
Our Government would be wrong if it were to act in a way to differentiate between citizens of different Religious inclinations as its mission is to govern and give equal opportunities to all its citizens alike. That would go against the Democratic principles
The Nationalist Party proclaims itself as a Christian Democratic Party and while formulating policies regarding social issues it seeks opinions from the Church authorities regarding topics which may affect doctrinal matters and it awaits the Church's approval. They operate that way simply because the church is a mighty lobby group and has an enormous potential to influence the electorate. This had been tried and tested over and over again and it is still happening today.
That is not Christian and definitely not democratic it’s an opportunistic attitude and it harms the freedom of a country. Social Democracy treats all citizens alike irrespective of their religious inclinations .
A personality is formed partly by nature and partly by nurture and nobody can change that. If one’s parents are Catholic the child would be brought up in a Catholic ambience and naturally acquires that influence. This also applies to political inclinations and the likes and dislikes of certain drinks and nourishments. Our politicians can’t be different. One Christian Brother at school use to tell us that our girlfriends will all behave and look like their mothers when they grow up.
There is nothing untoward for our politicians to act according to their spiritual beliefs however it would be wrong for them to impose their values onto the citizens that elected them to parliament. Joseph Muscat and Laurence Gonzi were both brought up in a solid Catholic family. They both have strong Christian values, they are both happily married and against divorce, Muscat affirmed his position that in spite of his personal belief he would allow a free vote in parliament and he will vote in favour of divorce as he has to respect the different beliefs. Gonzi’s attitude is totally different and he keeps evading the issue.
Boring...
Most of our MPs, being Catholic, whether practicing or not, tend to follow the Church's teachings and precepts. Therefore, using your own argument, they all are under the influence of the Church.
It was great to see Dr. Muscat receiving Holy Communion at the funeral Mass for the Prime Minister's mother. A refreshing change from abstention by previous leaders in the past.
The Nationalist Party is proud to proclaim itself as a Christian Democratic Party but I can assure you that while formulating policies regarding social issues, it does not await the Church's approval, although it may, at its discretion, seek opinions from the Church authorities regarding topics which may affect doctrinal matters.
You, as a declared Catholic sometimes talk to a priest regarding matters of conscience, I suppose. So, are you influenced by the Church or guided by the Church?
There is a (more than) subtle difference!
Abolishing marriage would create anomaly like not recognising cohabitation, the issue is- to recognise the fact that some people prefer to live together outside marriage and the government shouldn’t recognise only the conventional knot. Our personal values are irrelevant as long as a married person’s estate is legally protected by why should we oppose legal protections to couples that have different values.
Our legislators have got a sacrosanct duty to protect our children and they do that very well even if they are born out of wed-loch, so why does the state deprive the parents of legal protection in the absence of official marriage?
The state allows us freedom of choice yet it only offers protection to Civil Marriages, it also excludes traditional church marriages but includes all marriages effected abroad irrespective whether civil or church. I’d dare say that EU regulations might also impose on our Government to recognise Gay couples married in other EU Countries and taking up residence in Malta.
Did you know that if a Maltese couple get married by way of a medieval ritual in some strange country and that country recognises that marriage as legal our law must also recognise that marriage?
What is interesting though, is how fast the re-naming (or re-branding) of the MLP to LP has been taken up by many. And this has not been officially approved yet.
Does this mean that MLP supporters are themselves fed up with the old name thus dropping 'Malta' from their established name? This re-naming the party will not change anything except their logo on their stationery and flag.
Re-branding is another matter altogether and re-naming is only a small part of the whole exercise. Re-branding means taking a new fresh approach to outdated policies, dropping their antagonistic attitude to anything not initiated by them and restructuring the party's hierarchy from the bottom up.
Judging from the 'inclusive' policy adopted by Doctor Joseph, giving elements from the past a new lease on life, the re-branding exercise has already been rendered completely meaningless.
1) Couples (married or common-law partners) in an ongoing relationship may voluntarily share their Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions.
2) Canada Pension Plan credits may be divided by divorced, separated couples or former common-law partners. Credits are divided for each year the couple lived together. Pension credits are used to establish eligibility for Canada Pension Plan benefits and to calculate the amount of benefits. Contributors may obtain a credit split even if they have remarried.
Disestablishmentarianism should be considered though we live with an established church here in the UK-though it's supine.
I do approve of the original youthlike thought of new members of MLP but changes must be made with discretion - bearing in mind the Maltese nature in general.
Being as Cottonera is by way of being my hometown I would like such matters
as education there being given priority over the personal (sex) lives of citizens
Well, Bocca, Daphne & co. always do that with anyone who they see as
gifted and talented and coming from the PL camp and a threat to their Party.
When they attack someone from Labour it's just a sign that that person has potential...keep it up Owen :-)
and again though I am a Catholic I would allow divorce in Malta.
My gripe is the immature words and actions of the MLP leadership
I wish to see Malta socialist but NLP has a steep uphill struggle before it
.
You wrote: "My wife and I worked hard to create a little nest for ourselves, had I passed away yesterday my wife would still maintain her standard of living because we went through the sacrament of marriage. Had we lived the same life, raised the same children, paid higher taxes but didn’t go through the official ritual all our estate will go to my siblings and my lifetime partner would be kicked out of her house, would lose all our lifetime savings and the government wouldn’t even consider her as a widow".
True, but you have to understand that what you seem to be suggesting is for couples to have the same benefits of marriage without being married. Might as well abolish marriage then.
What is truly needed is (civil) marriage for those who are presently not allowed to get married, by the introduction of divorce and gay marriage.
A British project concentrating in particular on the following issues:
Whether cohabitants should have access to any remedies providing periodical payments, lump sums, or transfers of property from one party to the other when they separate.
A review of the operation of existing remedies providing capital awards (such as lump sums and property transfers) for the benefit of children under the Children Act 1989.
Whether, where a cohabitant dies without a will (intestate), the surviving partner should have automatic rights to inherit. The law currently gives surviving spouses an automatic inheritance in such circumstances. Cohabitants can normally only benefit from the estate in such cases if the courts (under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975) grant them a discretionary award on the basis of their needs.
A review of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 as it applies to cohabitants and their children.
Whether contracts between cohabitants, setting out how they will share their property in the event of the relationship ending, should be legally enforceable, and, if so, in what circumstances.
ABC’S one liner says a lot. In one line it means that it makes a mockery of the slogan ‘From the people to the people’
And for the record, no, I'm not an elf. I'm usually the one poking the elves in the eye.
Then you can forget about Divorce under your beloved govt Dr ABC!
My wife and I worked hard to create a little nest for ourselves, had I passed away yesterday my wife would still maintain her standard of living because we went through the sacrament of marriage. Had we lived the same life, raised the same children, paid higher taxes but didn’t go through the official ritual all our estate will go to my siblings and my lifetime partner would be kicked out of her house, would lose all our lifetime savings and the government wouldn’t even consider her as a widow. Dear Peter things are a bit different in this regard in Britain which validates your remark “Only in Malta”
This is shameful and our young generation and the progressive thinkers are doing a good job campaigning to address this situation. And this was the point Owen was making and I thought that he was being presumptuous and patronising. He should kill me for that even though I never suggested that he deserves to grovel.
@ Peter Prictoe & Chris Borg. Part One.
Just tried to be moderate Peter, Owen is really a smart young lawyer and a good asset to Partit Laburista (rebranded)
After reading Chris Borg’s comment it appears that it was I who made the booboo as I rushed my comment before reading the full text of Owen Bonnici’ maiden speech. Owen’s point is valid as the essence of his discourse did have a political content and a relevant one at that.
Personally I do not think that a cohabitation period before marriage would enhance the life time of the successive marriage but some people do and they have a right for that option. I do however believe that couples living together as long term partners, gays, lesbians, siblings and carers not excluded, should be legally protected.
P.S. As long as I know Dr Bonnici just said that Govt. should make things easier - till now two people who live together have no legal protection/rights when it comes to issues such as hospitalisation of a partner, breakup etc etc - and not that parliament should make people live together
Only in Malta? I don’t think so.
"ABC and his personal government ,is taking us back Malta to the 70's and he is complaining !"
Never did one sentence raise so many questions. So here goes:
1. What is a "personal government"?
2. How is ABC taking us back to the 70s?
3. How is the government taking us back to the 70s?
4. What's so special about the 70's (besides my birthday)?
5. Is ABC really complaining?
We are complaining.