Is gay love second-class?

The proposed cohabitation bill risks institutionalising inequality by creating a ‘second class’ division for same sex couples.

Instead of strengthening the institution of marriage, the state is creating a second class category which lumps together same-sex couples.
Instead of strengthening the institution of marriage, the state is creating a second class category which lumps together same-sex couples.

Justice Minister Chris Said said the new bill regulating cohabitation will not be providing an alternative to marriage, but safeguard the right of cohabiting partners. He also boasts that this for the first time same-sex relationships will be given recognition by the state.

Yet his reasoning ignores one basic fact: while cohabiting heterosexual couples have a choice to marry and even re-marry if their first relationship breaks up, same-sex couples are excluded from the institution of marriage. Therefore by underlining the fact that cohabitation will not be equal to marriage, Said is simply saying that the State will still discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

In reality, nothing short of including same-sex couples in the institution of marriage can redress this inequality. For as long as two separate regimes exist regulating affective relationships, one cannot speak of full equality and social inclusion.

Even from a conservative perspective, the current solution might not be all that desirable. For instead of strengthening the institution of marriage, the state is creating a second class category which lumps together same-sex couples - who want the same sense of commitment as married heterosexuals - with couples (both gay and straight) who opt of their free will for a lesser commitment. Therefore instead of encouraging same-sex couples to seek the same degree of commitment entailed in the marriage vows, the State is relegating them to a second division. Instead of welcoming the fact that marriage is so appealing that gay people want to be part of it, the new law is creating a rival institution to marriage where relationships are reduced to bare transactions.

Obviously not all gays want to marry. The same applies to heterosexuals. A gay friend of mine told me that although he does not want to marry he wants to fight for the right not to marry out of choice.

The proposed regime will simply make this impossible.

By proposing this bill the Nationalist government is repeating the same mistake it did before divorce was introduced. At that stage the cohabitation law was proposed as an alternative to the right to remarry. In this way the PN hoped to address the needs of people whose first marriage broke down but who lived in unrecognised relationships.

But it failed to understand that many heterosexuals were not cohabiting out of choice but because they were excluded from the institution of marriage. In fact the introduction of divorce ensured that this category of separated persons could marry again. The same logic underlines the new law for gay people who aspire for the sort of lifelong commitment entailed in marriage.

Surely one alternative to gay marriage would be to grant all the rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples to couples in registered civil unions. It is not clear whether Labour is proposing this when it refers to civil unions. If this is the case it would be an improvement over the bill proposed by Said.

But the same criticism I made so far can be levelled against civil unions if this regime does not entail full equality or if it excludes certain rights like adoption or access to IVF for same-sex couples. Labour leader Joseph Muscat has already underlined his opposition to gays adopting children. More fundamentally, this option fails to recognise that the very idea of two separate regimes for heterosexuals and homosexuals militates against full inclusion even at the symbolic level.

For marriage is not just about rights and obligations; it is mostly about making a public commitment with the full blessing of a cultural and social ritual. That is why even where civil unions granting full rights including adoptions are in force as in the UK, the gay community still struggles for gay marriages.

In the past I have criticised the Green party for stopping short of proposing gay marriage despite advocating full equality between same-sex and different sex couples, in all aspects of family life. I am pleased to note that the greens have now embraced full marriage equality and are proposing the inclusion of gay partners in the institution of marriage.

This raises the bar for the two other parties, which is exactly the role taken by Alternattiva Demokratika in other issues for the past two decades. Once again the Greens have assumed a vanguard role.

The new law also stands out as the first crucial test of the Gonzi-JPO coalition. Former Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's amendments could make the bill more inclusive. If meaningful these amendments would also test Labour's commitment to real reform. But in the absence of equality, the bill can never be regarded as satisfactory. 

The positive aspect of the bill presented by Chris Said is that at least it can set the basis for extending the legal rights of same-sex couples. For prior to Said taking over at the Justice Ministry the impression given was that gay couples would be put in the same category as cohabiting siblings.

Probably, for the Nationalist Party this legislation is already a step too far in a liberal direction. But that in itself confirms that confessionalism remains the party's major drawback in courting liberal voters. For what else apart from prejudice can stop a modern secular party from embracing full equality between same-sex and heterosexual couples? Why should a democratic party proud of its European credentials be cornered in a position of defending inequality?

avatar
@fairplay31: Did you chose to be straight? For my part, I didn't chose to be gay. Cause if I had had the choice, I would have chosen a much simpler way to live my life, and would have chosen to be straight. Anyway, people don't chose to be gay. But they decide not to leave in denial, and not force themselves to live with someone of the opposite sex, and lie to everyone, and make everyone unhappy. Now does it really matter if homosexuality is natural or unatural? The fact is that it has always existed : most people are attracted to opposite sex, and some are attracted to same. As most couple people eat meat, and some don't like it. As most people are dark haired, and some are red. Now if the fear is that there would be more and more homosexuals, and less and less procreative couples, I really don't think so : again, sexuallity is not a choice, right?.. So, Fairplay31, if I'm not attracted by opposite sex, isn't that better that I didn't marry one? If I fell in love with someone the same sex, isn't that normal that we want to live together? But if one of us dies, wouldn't it be normal that the other would have the same right than a straight couple?
avatar
@fairplay31: Did you chose to be straight? For my part, I didn't chose to be gay. Cause if I had had the choice, I would have chosen a much simpler way to live my life, and would have chosen to be straight. Anyway, people don't chose to be gay. But they decide not to leave in denial, and not force themselves to live with someone of the opposite sex, and lie to everyone, and make everyone unhappy. Now does it really matter if homosexuality is natural or unatural? The fact is that it has always existed : most people are attracted to opposite sex, and some are attracted to same. As most couple people eat meat, and some don't like it. As most people are dark haired, and some are red. Now if the fear is that there would be more and more homosexuals, and less and less procreative couples, I really don't think so : again, sexuallity is not a choice, right?.. So, Fairplay31, if I'm not attracted by opposite sex, isn't that better that I didn't marry one? If I fell in love with someone the same sex, isn't that normal that we want to live together? But if one of us dies, wouldn't it be normal that the other would have the same right than a straight couple?
avatar
@fairplay31: there is plenty of reason (and evidence!)to believe that homosexuality is found throughout nature...that you pretend that finding such info on a "gay website " (gee, is Google a gay website?)suddenly makes facts unbelievable is just a red herring. Try looking up "bonobos"... 98% of their genetic make-up is the same as humans'. Your reply to glorfindel was the same as to me... as soon as LOGIC and FACTS are applied to your own diatribes, you suddenly want to cut off discussion so as not to "waste your time". How about not wasting OUR time any more with your lies, bigotry and ignorance of all things biological? Yes, procreation needs male and female, obviously - but the FACT that humans are one of the few mammalian species (besides bonobos) where sexual activity takes place outside the period of estrus (when the female can actually conceive) - shows that human sexuality is not ONLY for procreation. That homosexuality is found in EVERY culture and always has been suggests it is part of the "natural" plan. That male porpoises, elephants etc etc ad infinitum not only get aroused but play with each others' genitals and exhibit emotional attachments as well goes far beyond YOUR claim that it is false to talk about homosexuality in nature simply because seen on a "gay website". So go ahead - continue to close your eyes and ears to everything that doesn't fit into YOUR world view... but at least spare the rest of us your simplistic arguments.
avatar
@fairplay31 -- OMG! How can we ever reach nirvana if you will deprive us of your bigoted right-wing homophobic fascist views?!? Who can ever replace your wisdom and guide us mere humanoids through the misguided path of straight and narrow?!? ... LOL yes straight and narrow actually fits perfectly here LOL! Take care Fairplay and may the forces be with you!
avatar
@ Ken - It would appear that your own knowledge of Biology, rather than mine, is open to question. Your example of homosexual relations in nature has obviously been taken from a pro-gay website on the Internet, rather than from any recognised Biology text. You have obviously not yet reached the stage of recognition that structural and physiological anomalies (arising both during development and after birth)are encountered in a number of animal species and their occurrence, even if fairly common, does not make them normal or natural. History has nothing to do with the matter at issue, as is the case with the last part of your post, which is completely beside the point. Finally, I see no reason why I should continue to waste my time in futile argument with people like you.
avatar
@ Glorfindel - Your latest ultra-passionate diatribe makes your situation perfectly clear. Any continuation of this exchange of views (if one may call it that)would therefore appear to be a complete and utter waste of time. Good-bye
avatar
@fairplay31 -- So according to you if I had a personal axe to grind I would know what I’m talking about (LOL at least that is what the English you wrote implies!). Since I took the trouble to write here it is obvious that I consider the subject important, and although you probably wrote your sentence to reduce the argument to the personal level and try to insult or hurt (typical of your mould I may add), I thus feel empowered that I then know what I’m talking about (contrary to you, LOL) … However such a sentence is even more sinister than simply a feeble attempt at trying to reduce an argument to the personal level and hurt: it is also a show of intolerance and trying to silence those who ‘may have an axe to grind’. But it is exactly those people who have to suffer your suffocating intolerance that in fact know what they are talking about!!! … Go study some psychology and you will soon learn what is or is not ‘natural’, and if that is too much for your brain cells to handle, go look at Nature itself. If you are honest and look with an open mind and heart you will soon realize that what you call ‘natural’ is in fact anything but! … Live up to your chosen name and be ‘fair’. No one has a right to decide what is indeed natural. My problem with you and your mould is that you are intolerant and think that you must subject others who perceive things differently to your way of thinking. The misguided bishop of gozo seems to be a similar breed. Let us not forget what damage intolerance has brought upon others throughout time: did you know that people with red hair – yes RED HAIR – were also considered unnatural or of the devil, and were then burned at the stake?! Or the fear of the herbal women who because they knew a thing or two about healing herbs in the forest were also considered a threat – or rather labelled unnatural – and also burnt at the stake … Throughout history we can see a whole trail which the intolerant left behind, using their ‘power’ to subject or torture others unfortunate enough to be different and thus be considered as ‘unnatural’. What two consenting adults do – as long as they do not hurt anyone – is entirely up to them! Live and let live – or get a life and stop poking your nose into other people’s business  … So is Gay love second class? No it is not, and it is the duty of mature politicians to ensure that the rights of all citizens are safeguarded, and to stop bullies from manipulating what is natural or not.
avatar
@fairplay: Saying that " Sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex is unnatural" just shows your ignorance. Homosexual relations take place in "nature" in dozens of dozens of species...including apes, porpoises and elephants - all mamalian species. And NOT just when there are no females available;it is obvious that sexual attraction between members of the same sex is part of the BIG PICTURE... NATURALLY speaking. As it was in Ancient Greece and Rome by the way - until the Judeo-Christian religion started making people feel guilty for their "natural" urges. So obviously you know nothing of biology or history. Try a little research before commenting on subjects you obviously know little about! As for using "unnatural" as a reason for refusing something... antibiotics are not "natural", neither is IVF... I don't see you refusing that to straight people. You might start studying logic too...
avatar
well said fairply31. my thoughts exactly. To all you --er...gays. Stop trying to re-invent nature and the wheel. You will not pass over us. normal is normal.
avatar
@ Glorfindel You appear to be unable to comprehend simple biological facts, and obviously do not know what you are talking about (unless, of course, you have a personal axe to grind). Your comment is a perfect example of mixing lettuce with you-know-what. Nature gave us feet to walk with. If you started walking on your hands, rather than on your feet, THAT would be unnatural. Using bicycles and cars is called progress.
avatar
@fairplay31 --- by extending ur 'logic' our forefathers could say it is 'natural' to have only feet, thus building bicycles and later cars to enable u to go from one place to another faster is 'unnnatural' and should be condemned! And then we are surprised that galileo was condemned for claiming the world is round! --- what is wrong with him? Isnt it obvious for all to see that the world is flat??? ... No doubt in about 300 years thexhurch will also seethe light and in its eternal love will issue an apology for the living hell it created! Who cares that people suffered, it showedhow great and loving it is with its apology ...
avatar
It is not a question of first class or second class. Human reproduction takes place between a male and a female, and sexual attraction TOWARDS THE OPPOSITE SEX is nature's way of ensuring procreation. Sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex is unnatural, and that is all there is to it.
avatar
Why was my post not published? i used to buy Malta Today and Illum every Sunday. now i will reconsider.
avatar
Remembering how it took 5 days for the police in Hamrun to charge two brothers for attacking two lesbian girls recently... and this only because the Press finally talked loudly about the incident - is good proof that when it comes to gays, JUSTICE in Malta still considers them as second-class citizens. And yet they are tax-payers like everyone else. And human, like everyone else. Why is their love not accepted too? There is NO reason why gays should not be allowed to marry...one does not need the Church for that;and the State and the Church are supposedly separate, so the possibility of marriage should not even be an issue. Why should gays not have the same possibility of IVF? Thirty years of studies have proven that gays make just as good parents as everyone else. If the State continues to treat them like second-class citizens, then gays should at least be given the possibility of paying a lower tax-rate... after all, they only get second-class service!
avatar
Stop trying to re-invent nature you ...gays. Whoever said that marriage is a right for all? Well said Dr.Chris Said. Marriage = one man and one woman. That is normal, and that is how it should be. aqtawh dan-nelh dear gays you are only attracting derision and disgust from 95% of us.
avatar
I did not expect anything better from PN. What s needed is EQUALITY and not a lot of jargon of saying one thing or another s0 then it can be interpreted in a 100 different ways. PL should take the necessary steps to make this happern. AD are the only ones with BALLS
avatar
Is gay love second-class? According to GonziPN YES. Shame on all those LGBT individuals (and there are many) who will vote again for GonziPN. You are supporting a government who is actively working to deny you basic civil rights!!!
avatar
The Nationalist Party is too much of a coward to grant us marriage equality. I will never forget Eddie Fenech Adami and Lawrence Gonzi boasting of SOCIAL INCLUSION. Do they really know what this phrase means? Bet you not. There are two alternatives to the PN, the PL or the AD. Best bet at this moment would be the AD but unfortunately that are not that strong electoral wise so we have to go for the 2nd best if we what to move somewhere.
avatar
The Nationalist Party is too much of a coward to grant us marriage equality. I will never forget Eddie Fenech Adami and Lawrence Gonzi boasting of SOCIAL INCLUSION. Do they really know what this phrase means? Bet you not. There are two alternatives to the PN, the PL or the AD. Best bet at this moment would be the AD but unfortunately that are not that strong electoral wise so we have to go for the 2nd best if we what to move somewhere.
avatar
Love, what love? According to Chris Said they're merely cohabiting - flatmates as it were.