Is the gay marriage debate sidelining other gay rights?

In Malta, gay men and lesbians must be careful not to put the cart before the wheel especially when gay marriage extends rights to some but not all gay men and lesbians.

Let me begin by laying my cards on the table. I support gay marriage. I do so chiefly for two reasons. First, gay men and lesbians have as much right as heterosexuals to be part of a patriarchal and oppressive institution. With that comes the right to ditch one's spouse with the aid and connivance of the State. Secondly, marriage opens the way to a raft of rights that the law denies to other mere mortals.

Even so, I am somewhat uneasy about 'our' obsession with gay marriage.

The modern gay and lesbian movement was not simply a tussle for rights. Most certainly, it entertained no desire to mimic straights or reproduce their language, such as calling one's male partner 'fiancé' or 'husband'. It was all about liberation, sexual liberation, liberation from traditional institutions like marriage, freedom from conventional gender roles and deliverance from heterosexism. Many gay and lesbian groups took great pride in proclaiming 'gay liberation'. Ending equality was a stride towards that liberation, not an end in itself. When we walked the streets of Sydney, London and San Francisco and chanted slogans like "not the Church, not the State, we shall decide our fate" we knew full well what we were demanding. We were not asking the state to give its stamp of approval to our relationships. Yet at the end of the day, what I or anyone else thinks of 'gay marriage' is immaterial. It all boils down to freedom of choice.

Still, gay marriage is not and can never be a panacea to all our ills. After all, there are many partnered gay men and lesbians who want nothing to do with the institution of marriage, not to mention those who are not partnered. When it comes to gay and lesbian rights, Malta faces challenges that are more significant than gay marriage. Malta has no adequate protection against discrimination at work and in the areas of goods and services, accommodation, educational authorities, clubs, sport and local government.

Malta has no anti-vilification legislation. There are no educational programs at schools offering balanced information on sexual orientation and gender identities. Magistrates and judges continue to parade homophobic mind-sets as they go about reinforcing a status quo that is damaging to gay men and lesbians. Conservatives, including priests, peddle in hate on the pretext of freedom of expression, and they do so with impunity. Gay men and lesbians are not permitted to foster or adopt children on the pretext that it is not in their best interest.

Nor must we forget that every so often, the flipside to marriage is divorce or separation, sometimes under the same roof. And gay men and lesbians will be no exception. Some or many of those who will settle for marriage may well find that marriage spells the death of romance - a prelude to divorce. I have often wondered whether this new breed of conformists may well end up doing more damage to the movement than our most strident of critics. What if the divorce rate among gay men and lesbians turns out to be significantly higher than that among heterosexuals? And it will invariably be! No, not because gay men are promiscuous but because society offers little by way of preparation for marriage to gay men and lesbians.

Yet gay marriage is a good thing... for the few. It is part of our gay and lesbian struggle for liberation, never the full story.

In Australia and the United Kingdom, the struggle for gay marriage began to surface only after gay men and lesbians made significant gains and acquired basic human rights. In Malta, gay men and lesbians must be careful not to put the cart before the wheel especially when gay marriage extends rights to some but not all gay men and lesbians. Of course, there are those who toy with the idea that gay marriage will end up subverting the institution of marriage. I think not. More likely it will prop up a crumbling institution and produce a new generation of conservative gay men and lesbians.

***

Let's face it, marriage - as an institution - has not been particularly gay and lesbian-friendly. Parents have ostracised their gay and lesbian children or forced them into marriages of convenience. Gay men and lesbians have often counteracted by sending up the institution of marriage. Mock marriages have been a staple diet of our humour, and, in Malta, many gay men (and lesbians) have lampooned weddings, especially during Carnival festivities.

I often wonder why we are putting so much energy into 'gay marriage' when so many heterosexuals are deserting it in growing numbers and why we are or appear to be less reluctant to celebrate and take pride in our difference. Are we slowly sliding towards a homonormativity that can be as destructive as its hetero variety? Or are we still finding it hard to think beyond the life of blessed matrimony, as couples? Be that as it may, there is nothing more wonderful than seeing gay men and lesbians mobilise around a single issue, in record numbers, as conservatives squirm at the prospect of two men or two women walking 'down the aisle'.

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti, a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of Australia, is the author of Queer Mediterranean Memories.

avatar
I'm not quite sure I follow your argument Mr Chetcuti. Surely the pursuit of one right can only be a good thing? Regardless of which order rights get achieved, we should be celebrating all. If today's activists are focusing on equal marriage that will be because of one of two reasons: Either a) it is the most pertinent or most symbolic to them or b) externalities suggest it might now be achievable. Equal marriage was for a long time a mirage; pursuit of it was as unlikely to yield any real results. The validity and symbolism of equal marriage is still the same as it was for as long as anyone can remember - all that has changed now is that we have a (possibly very short) window of oportunity of international public support. We'd be fools not to jump on this bandwagon.
avatar
Thorny is not only not confused, but he/she is very correct.
avatar
Thorny is very confused. Two married people need not identify themselves as husband and wife. A spouse or partner will do.
avatar
I like it when some Maltese try to criticise someone else's use of the English language. Re "cart before the wheel", I suggest Ken goes back to school or at the very least consult the Oxford English Dictionary. Worse still Ken must be commenting on someone else's article as it appears he failed to udnerstand what was written in plain English. Politics is about prioritising. The trouble is that some members of Malta's gay movement mimic what is happening overseas with little recognition of the differences. Before Malta embarks on marriage, it is important for the gay movement to identify those areas of the law that discriminate against gay men and lesbians. This is a complex task and calls for experts in the law. The idea that marriage will somehow do away with this kind of discrimination is nonsense and shows immense ignorance of the law.
avatar
Jurgen Cachia
Spot on, Joseph. I especially like the balance you achieve between arguing that liberationist argument against marriage and supporting the right to choose.
avatar
There should be no homosexual rights in malta as the maltese are a family based island that needs to keep family values.My nanu allways said that a woman like my nana knew how to keep the children clean and feed while he worked and breed his birds .My nanu has allways installed the value of a woman and that woman should be valued.My zejtun isn't homosexual its a home.Keep malta a good catholic island for families .Maltese australian
avatar
"be careful not to put the cart before the wheel" The correct expression is "The cart before the horse"... As for "why we are putting so much energy into gay marriage" - it is because anything less means that gays are being treated as second class citizens. Everyone should have the same rights. Period. If straight couples can adopt, then gay couples should be able to as well - until the courts and legislators can PROVE that leaving a child in an orphanage is better than letting it be brought up by loving gay parents (and in fact - study after study shows that children brought up by gay couples are just as happy as other children). Legislators are supposed to have the intelligence AND the integrity to at least study a situation in an unbiased manner; if they vote only from emotion - they should resign. They are not competent to make such ill-informed decisions. There is one other point which should be made. Why does a couple who is married automatically get all kinds of advantages? A single person might be single simply out of bad luck... being ugly or whatever. Why should society penalize a single person when it is those who have been lucky enough to find a partner who ALREADY have it better? Two people can afford a bigger apartment; two people give each other emotional support. Two people can look after each other when they are sick. If anyone needs the extra advantages, it is the single person, not the married ones.
avatar
The use of the word ‘marriage’ can be misleading. Most gays I know living in a committed relationship welcome any form of recognition by the state of their commitment, be that in the form of registered partnership, civil union or marriage itself – as long as the rights and obligations are as similar to those enjoyed by heterosexual couples as possible. ... One needs to start somewhere and gaining even the most ‘basic’ of recognition is a huge step in the right direction. No country in the world went from zero to full recognition!!! Society too needs time to adjust, and this interim (from granting the most basic recognition to gradual improvement), can be a good thinking space – once people see that gay couples can be as ‘normal’ as themselves, they may feel free to rethink their ideas on the subject. ... This first step is however also the most difficult to achieve, however a failure to make this first step will mean that all future dialogue will again have to start again from zero. If on the other hand, some basic rights are already enshrined in the law of the country, these can be used as a stepping stone for further incremental improvement – for example in further educating society. ... There is a very good article on the subject in this week’s Economist which captures the essence of this debate, I encourage anyone with a serious interest on this subject to read it. ... It is a fact of life that we are moulded by the society we grew up in, and our personal successes or failures in life also leave an imprint on our beliefs. However one should not let one’s personal views bring doubt on, or cloud the issues at hand. If I do not have anything good to contribute I should have the decency to keep silent and let the others work in peace. In these trying times it is of the utmost importance to show unlimited support and gratitude to the LGBT activists who worked so hard to achieve even this very first step, and not second-guess their actions from the comfort of one’s armchair thousands of miles away. ... Last but not least, we should ask ourselves: what will the recognition of gay relationships take away from the rest??? NOTHING!!! No one is being be forced to anything, gay or straight – simply that gays may start enjoying some of the rights and obligations available to the rest of society for centuries. And as long as these new rights don’t take away anything from heterosexual couples, why should I as a heterosexual person feel threatened that gays may now also get married??? Respect, Love, Laugh!
avatar
Let me begin by laying my cards on the table....I am gay and this is my personal agenda. Good luck , but it should have been the opening phrase.
avatar
Luke Camilleri
Gay marriage is just a parody of marriage! How can one in all honesty define a union between a man and a man marriage or between a woman and woman "marriage"???? ----------------------- How do they go abut introducing one another, this is my husband or this is my wife when one is of the same sex? Can be a bit confusing..... --------------------- Call it a civil union with rights of a couple living together but for God's sake don't call it marriage!