Same-sex marriage deniers: an invitation to resistance

I hope the discursive power of the 'same-sex marriage deniers' gets the resistance it deserves.

Michael Briguglio 17 May 2013, 12:00am

2 min read

Just as more and more countries around the world are introducing same-sex marriages, and just as more and more leaders including socialists (Hollande), conservatives (Cameron) and democracts (Obama) are joining progressives for the introduction of this right, Malta's own Public Policy institute has said that Malta is not ready for same-sex marriage, and that it would be 'one step too far' to introduce it. Which reminds me of those who some years ago said that Malta is not ready for divorce, anti-censorship legislation, and so forth.

So here we are. The Today Public Policy Insitute wants same-sex couples who would like to express their love through marriage to be content with civil unions. To me, this is nothing but discrimination.

It does not make sense to speak of equality in family and social policy while only allowing opposite-sex partners to marry. Such exclusionary practice effectively means that symbolic and significant aspects of marriage, such as being "husband" or "wife" can only be articulated, experienced and recognised if one marries someone of the opposite sex. It is indeed ironic that in a day and age of increased separations and divorce, couples who wish to marry are denied this right solely because of their sexual orientation.

If anything, recognition of same-sex marriages can lead to the strengthening and democratization of the concept of the family, through a process of social inclusion and recognition of different family forms.

Whilst I accept that same-sex marriage is not the be-all-end-all of LGBT rights, and whilst I also accept the fact that the Labour Party pledged to introduce civil unions and therefore is working accordingly in Government, I insist that this policy is discriminatory and based on evolutionist philosophy which holds that we Maltese are some inferior people who are not ready for certain rights.

As Michel Foucault, the great social theorist once put it, for every power there is resistance. I hope that the discursive power of the 'same-sex marriage deniers' gets the resistance it deserves. In a way The Today Public Policy Institute can act as an incentive for such activism.

Michael Briguglio is a sociologist and senior lecturer at the University of Malta

More from Michael Briguglio Michael on Twitter

•

Salina, bigots like you do not determine what is moral and immoral. And one other thing, civil rights do not stop at your convenience or the convenience of your beliefs. Bigots like you do more harm to society than pronography. And if you think 15 and 16 year old are not having sex, you are dreaming. I find no objection to a man or a woman have two partners. It is their life after all. My view on the subject is a relationship with one person is hard enough. Why double the hardship? But that has nothing to do with morality.

•

lslsj and censinu - civil rights and morality/immorality have a lot to do with it. Who and what determines civil rights and morality/immorality? Is it the people, the Government, the Church or the individual's likes or dislikes? A hundred and one questions spring to mind. Why not allow public pornography - porno cinemas, magazines etc. Why not allow a person who is 15 years and 11 months old have sex rather than class them as a minor when there is a move to lower the voting age to 16? Why not allow bigamy or two or more wives or two or more husbands? What determines whether these are civil rights or not? The whole question centres around the phrase "where does one stop" and "who" or "what" determines where one stops. If gay and lesbian couples are in "love" there are also those who "love" pornography as well as those who "love" under-aged children. So now we start to define what "love" actually consists of. It is endless unless one draws a line and says - that is the line - full stop.

•

To be clear on this matter, I am totally in favour of same-sex marriage. I am not in disagreement with Mike Briguglio. But I am also in favour of civil unions. One AD candidate (not MB as far as I know) appeared to give the impression that civil unions were second-rate. I think this was both politically and strategically naive. I would also argue it was not in the interest of our community in Malta. I believe gay men, lesbians and others should have the right to decide whether they enter into a civil union, marry or agree not to involve the law in their relationship (subject also to such relief as may be provided by equity or other legal considerations such as duress). Subject also to none of these becoming homonormative. Gay men and lesbians, like other citizens, must be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

•

Mr Brigulio, thank God you no longer head the AD. Your stance on gay marriage and IVF is too radical. I will never vote AD again if the new leadership continues in this path.

•

Serracin fails to realise that 'queers' is no longer a pejorative term and does not only refer to gay men and lesbians. It also refers to heterosexuals. But I imagine queer theory is well beyond our darling serracin! Dare I mention queer theology? I imagine that will be like scattering a cat among the pigeons.

•

Salina, what has morality got to do with it. Mike Briguglio is only talking about a civil right. There are different brands of morality. So why should you expect anyone - gay, bisexual, straight - to have to follow your brand of morality? How is loving someone ever sexually immoral? Or why is having sex just for pleasure immoral?

•

Algan, bisexuals can marry a person of the opposite gender or enter into a civil union a la Maltese style. I imagine they will have to see a lawyer and have some kind of contract drawn up. With all due respect, that is foolish if the consultative body goes down that road as it will fail to draw a distinction between civil unions and cohabitation agreements. There are two major strands in the gay movement. Those who follow the road of gay liberation and want nothing to do with marriage. Basically they do not want the state to interfere. But sadly the new generation is all about being like the straights. Yes I support gay marriage (whoever wants to belong to an institution, good luck to them!) but how sad that the ideological debates of the past have gone by the board. Mind you, Malta has never seen a phase of gay liberation ... and will never see one. It is far too conformative and still has a strong bout of a siege mentality. Everyone wants to be so 'respectable' and so normal in the little island. I hope no one asks me to be a flower girl as I will probably throw the bunch of flowers at them.

Jean-Claude Pace •

@ Salina, gay marriages involve two consenting adults, the examples you mentioned don't. @ Algan, that's bigamy and as far as I know the LGBT community is not advocating such arrangements. And being bisexual doesn't mean you need to have two partners simultaneously @Malta please stick to using logic and reason

•

You just amaze me. If you advocate civil unions for all I would understand and like me you would just leave marriage for religious sacremental ceremonies.The word gay for many and from its ethymology does not mean being fettered with the institutional controls of marriage. In my college days in the uk I had many gay friends and I assure you that the last thing they wanted was a marriage as some of you people understand the word. As Oscar Wilde would I venture to say marriage is not for truly gay people. You remind me of the way some feminists betrayed their very feminism. Learn from what an honest gay person lawyer Joe Chetcuti told you about marriage . As regard flawed arguments I still insist you tell me what rights you would give a bisexual to fulfill himself sexually in your so called monogamous marriage.

•

Sur Briguglio, would you also be willing to legislate marriage between a 60-year-old man and a 13-year-old girl? Or otherwise, a 50-year-old woman with a 14-year-old boy? I suspect not. Perhaps you can explain your morality issues with these types of "marriages" in the light of lesbian and gay marriages?

•

@Algan what does bigamy have to do with equality? Bigamy is illegal for all. Not to mention that bisexual people are as capable of entering monogamous relationships as anyone else. The fact that you need to link bisexuality to bigamy is further evidence that the only tactics opponents of equality have left to resort to are baseless sensationalisms. Luckily most people today are capable of independent and critical thinking and can see past such flawed argumentation. Traditions constantly change, often for the better. Even marriage - which you consider set in stone - was traditionally a barter mechanism wherein families would sell their daughters to wed into rich families. Thank heavens we strayed away then and hopefully we stray again soon with the introduction of same-sex marriages.

•

The problem with those AGAINST gay marriage is that their arguments are never convincing, being lacking in logic or honesty or good faith. There are several countries which have had gay marriage(and adoption) for years, and in all that time NONE of the social horrors we have continuously been warned about has ever happened. So when the Maltese present these same STALE arguments, why bother? Just more emotional bigotry, masquerading as ... "concern". In reply to the facile comments preceding mine, I would like to say: @Algan: asking whether a bisexual would have the right to marry BOTH a man and a woman is a red-herring, an argument meant to CLOUD the issue rather than clarify. To you I answer that since what is being demanded is equality under the law, the problem of a bisexual with two spouses would not apply, until heterosexuals are also allowed two spouses. Duh! @serracin: your language could be more polite, and your point of view has nothing to do with illuminating the subject. So perhaps it would be better to remain silent until you have something worthwhile to say? To those who think that Malta is not "ready" for gay marriage... why should people's Constitutional rights have to wait until everyone is "ready"? By such "reasoning", the Blacks in America would still be slaves in over half of the United States. It is NEVER too early for people to be treated equally and with dignity.

•

I ask a question re discrimination and LGBT rights. What about a bisexual who wants to marry his male and female lover. Would this be allowed or will he have to gender discriminate in this case. If we allow a bisexual to have his dual marriage then will we not be dicriminating against those who want to take two wives or two husbands, I am only trying to reduce the argument ad absurdum to show that as soon as you stray away from the traditional definition of marriage you enter into dangerous water which should be fully explored before taking decisions going beyond civil union and /or partnership,

Emmanuel Mallia •

Your attempt to gain votes from queers failed completely.