Tuesday, 1st July 2008
Maltese law 'discriminates' on same-sex partners
An EU agency has held that Maltese laws discriminate against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals, and argues that Malta should start recognising same-sex marriages or partnerships contracted abroad.
The conclusion was reached in a legal analysis drawn up by the EU's newly set up Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA).
According to the FRA, Maltese law goes against the principle of equality in the Charter of Fundamental Rights by not allowing for the recognition of same-sex unions performed abroad.
The analysis was based on opinions by legal experts from the 27 member states. Prof. Ian Refalo was the Maltese representative.
The report, published yesterday in Brussels, analyses different aspects of equality rights based on sexual orientation in areas of EU competence.
According to the report, one of the areas in which Malta is most evidently lacking relates to free movement.
Under the Free Movement Directive, EU member states should ensure that spouses or partners of citizens of the Union, having exercised their free movement rights, are recognised as such even when they are same-sex spouses or partners. However, this is not the case in Malta.
The FRA states that Malta and another 10 EU member states appear to reject the recognition of same-sex marriages contracted abroad. It might, therefore, refuse to consider as a spouse, for the purposes of family reunification, the same-sex married partner of a citizen of the Union.
"This constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, in violation of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the general principle of equality, as reiterated in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights," the report states.
FRA said that this legal situation in Malta results in a situation that restricts the freedom of movement of those of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual orientation (LGBTs).
According to the EU agency, recognition should also apply for same-sex registered partnership or de facto same-sex partners, meaning a same sex couple with a common household or a durable relationship which is duly attested.
Maltese law is also deemed discriminatory where it comes to refugees.
Under the Family Reunification Directive, the spouse of a refugee should benefit from family reunification. According to the FRA, the same-sex spouse of the sponsor should be granted the same rights as would be granted to an opposite-sex spouse.
According to the report, in Maltese law, "the notion of spouse would probably not extend to same-sex spouses, even where the marriage has been validly concluded in a foreign jurisdiction.
"This constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and cannot be justified."
The report finds other discriminatory aspects against LGBTs in Maltese legislation, such as where it comes to the implementation of the EU Employment Equality Directive and on legal measures for the protection of transgender persons.
RSS
Comments
I'm not saying that Christians who don't read atheist (or literature from other religions) are not good Christians. What I mean is that in my opinion, there is no particular merit in believing something just because that's all you know, and that it's what you have been brought up believing. Also, the only way to have approximate certainty (one cannot be 100% certain on complex things such as philosophy or religion) about anything is to test it against other sides, beliefs and opinions.
People who make use of zodiac, palm readers, fortune tellers etc. are obviously superstitious. Atheism, apart from being disbelief in God, is against all kinds of superstition. So no, people who stop believing in God usually do not become more superstitious...the opposite is actually the case.
Of course, I'm not making a case for atheism. I'm only explaining facts. I'm a firm believer that a good Christian reads atheist literature while a good atheist reads the Bible and other religious books.
Also you commented: "Regarding the millions killed by Lenin/Stalin, these millions were not killed for atheism. They were killed because Lenin/Stalin..." YES, They were killed by atheism. The root of Soviet communism was Marx adage: "Religion is the opium of the people".
What I wrote was: "Regarding Stalinism/Marxism, Dawkins is neither. But even if he was, you cannot dismiss the science (or atheism for that matter) just because Lenin and Stalin were atheists. After all, all inquisitors were Christians".
Basically, what this means is that you will find both evil and good people in all religions (and atheism/agnosticism). You'll also find people using religion or science for good or evil purposes. This makes all the examples you give very valid indeed.
The two current explanations for homosexuality are the following:
Either there is a gene for homosexuality which is dormant in the father/mother but transferred to the son/daughter and becomes active in the son/daughter...
or...
Homosexuality comes about through the combination of more than one genes (inherited from both mother and father) which would also explain how a heterosexual couple could produce a homosexual son/daughter.
Of course, the reason I provided the link to the wikipedia page is because I know that people who dogmatically believe that homosexuality is just a culture one chooses, would not be interested in reading books that explain more fully on this topic. I already suggested Richard Dawkins, but I don't expect most people to go rushing to the library or bookstore.
If you read the whole page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals ) and not just the first paragraph, you will find some examples of non-human animal homosexual penetration (anal sex). In the above linked page, scroll down to "Some selected species and groups".
An interesting book on the topic would be British historian Robert Service's book "Comrades (Communism: a world history)" that incidentally I am currently reading. You'll be surprised to learn that there were/are Christian communists as well as atheist ones. Communism is not necessarily Marxism/Stalinism/Leninism - it actually predates all three.
The book you refer to (by Richard Dawkins) is called The God Delusion. The Root of All Evil is a documentary made for the BBC, if I'm not mistaken. The title was not chosen by Dawkins. In any case, one cannot judge a book without reading it (I have), and one cannot discredit the science just because the scientist is an atheist, just as one cannot say that smoking is good for your health just because Hitler opposed smoking.
Regarding Stalinism/Marxism, Dawkins is neither. But even if he was, you cannot dismiss the science (or atheism for that matter) just because Lenin and Stalin were atheists. After all, all inquisitors were Christians.
Regarding the "qualifying clause - not necessarily sex", "not necessarily" does not mean that sex is out of the question. In the context it means that not all animals who display homosexual behaviour go all the way and perform sexual acts. You'll also be surprised to learn that some animals (mostly sea creatures but perhaps also some insects) change sex in their lifetime.
Seeing that homosexuality has been seen in humans for millennia, I would be surprised if other animals did not have it.
and dont you think '99 is a bit in the past when citing it for scientific issues??
'A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.'
Note the qualifying clause: not necessarily sex.
And this out of millions of species ranging from gut worms to primates. Further comments are superfluous.
Besdies, especially here in malta, this right-wrong moral are heavily based on our religious beliefs, which to be honest is not a so moral religion after all!! besides what problems does the church have with gay people, probably they would be the best of their orgainzation, as they wont have babies before marriage, can do without the sacrilege of using condoms and so on, seems like they are natural allies to me
there is enough evidence to show that certain people could have a YY chromozone instead of an XY and be more 'effeminated' (or gay or whatever term you want to use) than other people.
do poeple have so much spare time to stay discussing others people sex life and decide for them??
Or better still, read some good books on evolutionary biology. I would suggest anything by Richard Dawkins.
I thank Aldo Gatt for his contribution.
Also, while we're at it, does "I am one of those who refused to submit to blind faith" mean you've read the Bible (or at least the most important parts of it) and decided against it? Or have you taken a "blind" leap of faith by heeding to others and considering others that try to live a life similar to that portrayed in the Bible (mainly Christ's) as faithfully blind?
................I have a very staunch Catholic background and I am proud of it...though I find the Church's ideas on homosexuals as too close minded and ,at best, confusing this does not mean that I am going to spend my life bashing every Cikku or Peppi who goes to mass.......lets stop attacking each other, lets stop this "them" and "us" mentality............gay people do not hate the church, they are not anti-catholic.....they just yearn for more understanding and more legal and civil recognition............
A recent comment on June 30th by representatives of both major Political Parties was to the effect that the Maltese do not actually want Divorce:these are the Parties who are most conscious of the multitude of fornications that daily occur in our Island.Malta must grow up and come to terms with reality otherwise the abuses will keep augmenting which will end up engulfing our State: so much for Family Values! Why do we not construct a Manipulative Meditative Mistra Mission to illuminate our Parliamentarians` Moron Minds ? Alpha Emmy.
So you think that by saying that, and i quote: "In fact you can probably find more lies in the bible than any other book" you are helping your anyone undertand the situation any better?!
Perhaps you should refer to an English dictionary to find out the meaning of 'equality', but then, of course, people who would ask such a question would not even bother interpreting the word! Your question does not even deserve a reply!
Dear Kenneth Zammit Tabona
I never meant to get personal.
I never meant to checkmate you.
Feel free to end a brain to a brain civilized debate. Still I respect you.
Good bye
Definitely not you on both counts
KZT
It seems Mr Ellul is misinformed since Bonobos which are primates similar to Chimpanzees living in the Equatorial Guinea, and whose DNA is closest to the human race (with more than 98% of their DNA is identical to the human species) also exhibit gay relationships.
Moreover Gay and Lesbian brains are structured differently: http://patrickattard.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-scientist-gay-brains-structured.html
Dear Kenneth Zammit Tabona
I would really love you give me your pundit touch on:
What constitutes normal?
What constitutes modern or being civilized?
Thank you mate
I would never stoop so low as to attack anybody personally. I merely passed a comment about your level of understanding. A comment that you promptly re-inforced by asking yet another question; the answer to which was already plainly stated by Antonio Amato himself: "I could not visit him during family visiting houirs as, even though we were together for 26 years, Malta did not recognize me as his de facto partner."
The truth is, that we shouldn't be discussing this issue at all. Or a number of other issues for that matter. I cannot for the life of me understand why heterosexuals care two hoots whether homosexuals got married; or why happily married people should give a damn whether divorced is introduced; etc. etc. etc. Keep on dreaming Anne.......
M. Mercieca
I will answer you question.
If all men were gays and all women were lesbian. Human being will extinct within years.
All lover and respect to all human being though :)
' MARRIAGE THE SACRAMENT MUST BE DIVORCED FROM MARRIAGE THE INSTITUTION'
Before this is achieved we will still have an almighty confusion in people's minds.
homosexuality is NOT a human invention but a human orientation. It is part of Nature; very much so. Do not jump to silly conclusions
@ AJ Muscat
thanks for loving everybody. It would however be very boring should everyone be lesbian or gay. None of us want that but simply wish people would understand that there is something called diversity which is an integral part of life. Also if only it were the strawberries in the greenhouse that are responsible for global warming! That's a howler and a half!
@Mr Spleenovich
Thanks for your kind words however let me assure you that if it pays the Church to recognise same sex partnerships/marriages to survive it will do so long before the abovementioned gentlemen. A more pragmatic organisation has never existed in the history of mankind!
Mr Aquilina et al
All we seem to have here is a storm in a teacup that stems from the extension of use of one word 'marriage' . As long as the more acceptable word 'partnership' gives the same civil rights as a marriage I really couldn't care less what it is called.
My Civil Partnership has meant to me recognition of my relationship by the state. Like all families we contribute to society's well being by being upright citizens, by paying taxes, voting, being role models for our nephews and nieces (I am a very proud god-father to our niece). Our CP also means that if I were to die first, my partner would not need to pay taxes on what he inherits from me. If things were to go wrong with my family and they refused to have him present at my death bed, they would not be able to as he is my next of kin.
Once, as a student in Italy, I was at the house of a Catholic priest, influential in Maltese circles. Since he shared his house with his male lover, we spoke of relationships. He insisted that gay love cannot be placed at the same level as that between a man and a woman. I pitied the poor fellow. He obviously had issues - a priest who believed in a religion that despised him (practicing not what he preached), he was convinced his love for another was inferior.
So "homosexuality is a human trait not found anywhere in nature" and is therefore "a human invention" according to you. Since when do we take animal behaviour as our moral standard? And then you are wrong. You will find homosexual behaviour in most animals and some even form homosexual pair bonds.
@A.J.Muscat
The fact is that not everybody is a homosexual. And thank goodness for that - it would be an extremely boring world if everyone were the same. You cannot hold that as reason to claim homosexuality is self destructive. With your same argument anyone who's main aim in life is not that of procreation is superfluous to society (say Roman Catholic priests).
Sorry, but where do you get your information from? The green house effect that you speak of is not the same as the green house one grows vegetables in, sweetie. One does come across some funny notions!
cont.
And why are you not more specific on comments in my regard?... still miffed?? Whhaaa
Some of the examples you give have nothing to do with marriage. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a criminal offence and hence I suggest that you report the incident to the police. The law gives you this right. Why complain?
Issues with inheritance can be solved by paying a visit to a notary of your choice. So once again the issue is not related to marriage. I can do the same and leave all my possessions to anyone of my choice.
The only example you give which is related to marriage is a joint computation of a tax return. This is not always advantageous - separate returns may save you tax. However I understand that this may not always be the case and maybe the system needs to be revised.
I do not veto any body else's love. That is a private matter. But marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It has always been that way and should be that way forever.
Same sex partnership is another thing as I have already explained. Read it.
As I have implied, the problem is with the law. Hence explain what lesser rights are enjoyed by gays and lesbians.
I guess that I have the right to say what I believe. This does not automatically translate into imposition of beliefs. And yes you are worthy to lead a happy life with a partner of your choosing - this is in tune with what I said.
@Anne Calleja
Attacking me personally is not going to get you anywhere. You have not yet argued in favour of your cause. Also, if you know what lesser rights Antonio Amato enjoys, kindly share them with the rest of us to assist the discussion.
@to all who attacked me personally:
How do you expect people like me to appreciate you position without explaining it? Also, you need to understand that marriage is a fundamental pillar of society which mankind instituted on the basis that procreation is a heterosexual act - hence marriage between a man and a woman.
This does not however deprive anyone from living with the partner of his or her choice.
I love and respect everybody. However I will not wish all males to be gays and females to be lesbians. This self-destructive to human being existence I believe.
How many are old enough to remember the 1970’s era? Then, we used to read in papers that, scientist have discovered a method to end human hunger. Then the famous green houses came into being and revolutionized conventional agriculture.
.Having the green houses enabled us to eat strawberries in winter. Yet to have many vegetables and fruits all year around. Excellent idea so far
What happened after just three decades? Now we have climate change, ozone problems, thanks to the green houses. (Simply, because scientist tempered with the natural course of seeds and environment)
………………………………
I read some funny statements. Why do we associate such debate with being modern or backward? Open, closed or ajared minded peoples? Is the USA is not calculated (by some) as a progressive country?
......................
God and church don’t exist in EU laws. Many EU countries oppose same sex marriage merely because of TAXES.
Prosit to
Alex Ellul – M. Mercieca – L Galea
I appeal to the homosexual community to refrain from continuing the annual gay parades. These parades put you in a very carnivalesque bracket, making you lose the respect of the community in general. That some politician(s) attends for poltical correctness sake is even more carnivalesque. I know that these parades are organised by a section of the gay community, but those that have the brains, and there are many, must put their weight to stop the stupid act.
@Wain: Try it.
I have already expressed myself in other bloggs, namely that I do not care what other people do in their private lives as long as they don't hurt third parties or innocent persons, such as children, handicapped persons or old infirm people, be these consenting adults heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual polygamists or hetero-homosexual polygamists or any other -ist one can imagine. No matter how hard you try to justify your claim for the right of marriage for homsexuals, it must be accepted that homosexuality is a human trait not found anywhere in nature.
Dear mr Galea! Where I come from we have a minority whose interpretation of the cristian faith is very different from the official way. In my old country its the catolics who are the minority. An do you know what mr Galea? Almost everyone in this country Denmark are willing to die for catolics right to to have their believes and positions, even if they dont match the social model. So franklý YOU cloud learn something about tolerance there!!
Believe me mr Galea there will never be a society or country where everyone will be homosexual! Who have tried to tell you that!
The main problem with your question (expected answer) is that it does not reflect the world as it is. Anyway, as if a consenting loving relationship between two adults has to result in the bearing of children.... very dangerous argument indeed!!! And don't worry, there are enough virile heterosexual couples around, no chance of the human race being wiped out by gay culture!!
You both say you do not know what lesser rights LGBT people 'enjoy' (JP Aquilina's word). Surely 'enjoy' does not logically fit anywhere in the argument here - nobody 'enjoys' having less rights: if anything one suffers from the fact that he/she is entitled to less rights because some erudite majority decides that not everyone is equal.
Now as to in what issues LGBT people are discriminated against, here you go: issues of inheritance, inability to file for a joint tax return form since couples are not legally recognized even if they live together for 50 years, discrimination with regards to employment, higher premiums with regards to life insurances for no other reason other than sexual orientation, a much lengthier time frame when a same-sex couple applies for a bank loan. The list could go on... the sole fact that some people want to dictate what rights are given to other people constitutes discrimination. When someone decides that someone else does not fit the requirements of an open legal institution such as marriage, that in itself is also discrimination. Who am I to veto other people's love? :)
As I said last week in my article The Pursuit of Love which concerned Divorce; it is about time that marriage the sacrament was divorced from marriage the institution; they are totally distinct.
Even Fr Tabone commenting about the high incidence of one parent families admitted that today the family can be described in various ways and in various forms however he always maintained (how could he say otherwise?) that the union between a man and a woman will always remain The Ideal One!
So what is it that bothers anti gay marriage persons so much? What is it that bothers the anti-divorce persons so much? Why should these people give a damn about what other people do? Is it religion? I doubt it.
It has always made me very curious to know why a homophobe is a homophobe; a rare and dying breed thank goodness.
I am lucky to be surrounded by family and friends who love and understand me. My worst problem was always trying to accept myself!
Nobody, niether the President, the PM, the Leader of the Opposition, the Archbishop is going to dictate to me what I should and should not do with my private life as long as it is in good concience and does not hurt anyone else. Lets get this absolutely clear.
I have absolutely no intention in propositioning Mr Pullicino so he can rest assured that whether I marry or not he is not and never will be part of my life's equation. Who I marry is my own business.
I happen to be gay. Why I am gay I haven't a clue. If and when I fall in love with someone who I feel can share my life and whose life I can share in equal measure there is no power on earth that is going to stop me.
Your heterosexuality on the other hand may be natural but then so is my homosexuality, unless ,you can prove different of course
Live and let live.
I'm afraid though that the argument "You are a Catholic, discriminatory, third-world, close-minded Maltese citizen" does absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise. Homosexuals are not receiving any less rights than we do and therefore are not being discriminated. If you feel that you shouldn't discriminate me then please come up with an argument that doesn't involve awarding me with a new title.
As for living in the middle or dark ages, I do not consider myself to be so, but what I feel is wrong I say it is wrong.
Trying to bend the rules to include those who do not qualify for the granting of something is not right.
My warrant agrument clearly explains what I mean. If you do not fit the conditions for the granting of the warrant you do not change the conditions to suit you to be granted a warrant.
Marriage is between two persons of the opposite sex, so a union between two persons of the same sex cannot be called a marriage.
Why don't you answer the question on what will happen to society if all men were gay and all women were lesbians?
One needs however to bear in mind that we are a heterosexual race. It is our nature. Marriage is thus the union of a man and a woman, one of the reasons is to have children to further the human race ( I add that the choice to have children is that of the couple and should not be imposed). Hence I cannot recognise 'same sex marriages'.
@Matthew Saliba:
And what exactly do you mean by equality? Can you please elaborate further because I do not know exactly what you mean. Really, I do not know what lesser rights lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals enjoy.
We have to similarly recognise theirs.
Anyway, Mr. Saliba, homosexuals have as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex and I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex as myself so I don't see where inequality comes into this.
Mr. Muscat, be assured, that I will cry foul if such a type of marriage is allowed and yes "it is *these* hasty, loveless opposite-sex unions which destroy the real meaning of marriage".
Watch out, Mr. Ellul-Bonnici, people should not have rights that will eventually harm the majority of the society. Or else we'll need to out-date the same laws we've updated once again.
Fact is that you don't actually make any arguments! You simply say something is wrong because it is harmful. So tell us, how will same sex marriages do more harm then good?
The fact that most anti-gays are also anti-divorce, anti-immigrants, constantly quoting popes as if they are some sort of holy oracle, etc speaks volumes..... One thing they all lack is even an iota of sensitivity to the hardships of fellow human beings.... Just a modern-day reincarnation of the inquisition.
What right has the majority to impose on the minority, discriminatory laws that go against fundamental rights just because they are at variance with THEIR outdated believes?
@ David Wain
By any chance, do you think that because we are EU member state, by default we should rate Malta as a first world country? If, so, could you tell me in terms of what please?
But when a committed couple (same-sex, yes... so?) argues for its rights to get married equally, then all hell breaks lose. We are accused of breaking down the sacred meaning of marriage and of bringing upon the earth god knows what demonic ideals.
Britney Spears' 52 hour marriage to a friend of hers in Las Vegas some years back - the marriage which ended in divorce soon after their hang-over abated - was a real, valid, 'normal' marriage wasn't it? Just because the spouses were opposite-sex, right?
Make no mistake, it is *these* hasty, loveless opposite-sex unions which destroy the real meaning of marriage.
@Dr. Ing. Patrick Attard (AD)
I fully understand that AD are desperate for votes. This your right so far.
I would follow your ‘imagine’ rhythm
Imagine if all males are homosexual and all females are lesbians, and they got married. Can you imagine where babies will come from?
Shall I continue the result of such formula?
C Barbara, I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I do not "simply think it's wrong" but I'm sure you agree with me that something which is wrong shouldn't be allowed. I think that same-sex marriages (once again... marriage?) will do more harm than good (therefore, I think it is wrong; now refer to the previous sentence) such as when it comes to children, etc.
"Intolerant" are those that immediately said that I based my arguments on my religious principles (I didn't mention religion anywhere here). So please, avoid calling my arguments discriminatory, "dark age", old and out-dated. My arguments are as good/bad as everyone else's.
Everybody should have the right to be equal, and all LGBT's want is that...EQAULITY, nothing more, nothing less! When people wake up and realise that we are meant to be progressing and that being gay etc is not a choice (or contagious for that matter), maybe we will start moving forward. Otherwise we are doomed to live in a country of Neanderthals!
Science is driven by an open mind. So why bring science in? If all the great scientists/philosophers over time didn't have an open mind, they would have never come across new ideas and theories - starting from Socrates and ending up with Einstein. The sun is a ball of fire - kill him! The world is not flat - ostracise him! So on and so forth. Regarding your allegory - the 'positive' and 'negative' are only called so because we call them so. For all we know some of them might be a 'positive' and 'positive' but still appear to behave as a 'negative' and a 'positive' - and thus we say they're negative and positive. There's diversity everywhere - it makes the universe interesting. It's all subjective and relative. Food for thought?
People with one track minds are those who stall progress - being scientific, social or whatever. They will only understand the need for these social justices (including divorce) when they see family members or others close to them suffer from discrimination. Enough said I think.
With regard to whether these are new ideas or not, you should know, if you used the Internet in a more intelligent manner, that such principles have been part and parcel of society in other countries FOR DONKEYS' YEARS! So, don't come describing them as 'relatively new'. They may be new to you, but not to others.
And yes, we are WRONG in not adapting ourselves accordingly.
It is indeed ignorance which makes up afraid of what we perceive as new and strange.
We should grow up.
He died two days later. I lost everything we had built together... our home, our memories... but that did not hurt me as much as having been deprived from the opportunity of being with him in his last minutes on earth.
You're in my heart forever Max.
Thank God for the EU - we are finally being exposed for the bigoted, hypocritical society that we are. It's only a question of time until same-sex couples get the recognition they deserve, and I'm convinced it'll only happen once the EU forces our hand.
One last point: The Times yet again shows its bias: Did the FRA report put 'discriminates' in inverted commas, like the title of this article? Shame on you.
People like Ms. Pullicino, who are decrying the EU's supposed imposition of ideas, need to realise that it is they, not the EU, who are imposing ideas. Why pevent gay people from marrying simply because you think it's "wrong"? Why prevent couples who choose to divorce from doing so, just because your religion does not allow divorce? I see that as being intolerant.
If our social model is obcene then it must be changed.
Imagine if the person you love most in your life is seriously ill and you are not involved in the decisions of treatment taken.
Imagine if the person you love most in your life died, and in the most difficult time of your life, you are not entitled to bereavement leave, or organise the funeral.
Imagine if the person you love most in your life, isn't an EU citizen and cannot live or work in Malta.
Lawrence Gonzi refused to consider giving the right to urgent family leave to gays whose partner is, for example, severely ill in hospital. He also refused to include sexual orientation in the Industrial Law against discrimination at work and this was included only after pressure from the European Commission in 2002.
P. Attard
AD Spokesperson for LBGT Issues
http://patrickattard.blogspot.com
Also, I do not believe that a same-sex partnership is marriage because, I think, in that way, you'd be discriminating those couples that have taken the decision to marry.
Do you know what hardship and frustration this is causing? So we are happy with people living in sin but not remarrying and bringing there status back in line. What hypocrites we are!! We are pretending to be more catholic than the Pope.
I urge all progressive thinking people to uphold this plea and give a chance to our brothers and sisters who at the moment are treated as 2nd class citizens.
I compare gay and lesbian couples who want to be reconized as a married couple to the situation where a person requires a warrant to practice a profession.
Just because some persons do not qualify for the granting of the relevant warrant does not mean that the conditions for the granting of the warrant have to be changed to accomodate those persons who cannot qualify.
Such persons can never claim that they are being discriminated against because they do not qualify for the granting of the warrant since they do not satisfy the necessary conditions and requirements.
Just the same cannot marriage and its requirements (compare with the requirements the granting of a warrant) i.e. being only considered as a marriage if it is between a couple of different sex be changed to suit those gay and lesbian couples who do not qualify for their partnership to be called a marriage.
Such couples cannot claim that they are being discriminated against because they cannot qualify according to the requirements for marriage for their partnership to be considered as a marriage.
I'm not saying we should discriminate anyone, but I don't like this attitude of calling other countries discriminatory and rushing things.
I do hope something comes of this!