Sunday, 10 January 2010

MaltaStar: Portugal gives go-ahead to same-sex marriage legislation

http://www.maltastar.com/pages/ms09dart.asp?a=6487
09 January 2010 10:27

Portugal's parliament has passed a law to legalise same-sex marriage, but rejected proposals to allow homosexual couples to adopt.

The bill was approved with the support of the governing Socialist Party and other parties further to the left.

Prime Minister Jose Socrates opened the debate with an appeal to back the law, saying it would put right an injustice that had caused unnecessary pain.

The law has been fiercely opposed by conservatives in the Catholic country.

Rightist parties had sought a national referendum on the issue following a petition that collected more than 90,000 signatures, but their proposal was rejected.

The bill will now be reviewed in committee before coming back for a final vote in parliament.

If the law is ratified by President Anibal Cavaco Silva, it could come into effect in April - just a month before a visit to Portugal by Pope Benedict XVI, a staunch opponent of gay marriage.

The ratification would make Portugal the sixth country in Europe to allow same-sex marriages after Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway.

Many other countries have introduced civil partnerships, which give lesbian and gay couples some of the rights of married heterosexuals.

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on MaltaStar's website.]

Friday, 8 January 2010

BBC News: Same-sex marriage law backed in Portugal's parliament

8.1.10

Jose Socrates, file pic from January 2010
PM Jose Socrates had appealed to MPs to back the same-sex marriage law

Portugal's parliament has passed a law to legalise same-sex marriage, but rejected proposals to allow homosexual couples to adopt.

The bill was approved with the support of the governing Socialist Party and other parties further to the left.

Prime Minister Jose Socrates opened the debate with an appeal to back the law, saying it would put right an injustice that had caused unnecessary pain.

The law has been fiercely opposed by conservatives in the Catholic country.

Rightist parties had sought a national referendum on the issue following a petition that collected more than 90,000 signatures, but their proposal was rejected.

Friday's debate was at times heated, says the BBC's Alison Roberts in Lisbon, with Socialists attacking as discriminatory a counter-proposal from the centre-right Social Democrats for a new so-called civil union for same-sex couples.

The bill will now be reviewed in committee before coming back for a final vote in parliament.

If the law is ratified by President Anibal Cavaco Silva, it could come into effect in April - just a month before a visit to Portugal by Pope Benedict XVI, a staunch opponent of gay marriage.

The ratification would make Portugal the sixth country in Europe to allow same-sex marriages after Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway.

Many other countries have introduced civil partnerships, which give lesbian and gay couples some of the rights of married heterosexuals.

Wednesday, 6 January 2010

Insiter: LGBT society to be reinstated at University

http://www.insiteronline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=764:lgbt-society-to-be-reinstated-at-university&catid=1:news&Itemid=1
SUNDAY, 03 JANUARY 2010 22:56 STEPHANIE CALLEJA

Following a two-year absence from campus, the University of Malta LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) society is to be reinstated as a fully-fledged student organisation.
The first attempt to set up such an association had been unsuccessful as members had finished their studies and consequently terminated their student life at university.

Kurt Cassar, the student behind this initiative, told insiteronline.com that the resurgence of an LGBT society was steered by both the necessity for the LGBT community to be represented on campus and the need for someone to be a source of support for any students who are in the process of coming out. “Gays and lesbians at university will now have someone to reach out to, that is, whenever they feel the need to do so,” he said.

The formation of this student organisation is still a work in progress. Mr. Cassar is currently allocating roles for an improved Executive Board and doing away with major paperwork.

Mr. Cassar has also set up a Facebook group which has already drawn in more than 200 members. “The Facebook group has helped us a lot in terms of getting an idea of how many students are willing to put themselves forward and give us a hand. It feels great to know that we are not alone in wanting to have a say in this plan.”

Soon after Christmas recess, meetings will be held exclusively for members so as to fill them in on the society’s progress.

“Some students have raised concerns about the society leading up to a sense of division between ‘gay people’ and ‘the others’. That’s the complete opposite of what we want to achieve. Our intent is to integrate gay people with the rest of the community as much as possible”, Mr. Cassar explained.

Anyone who wishes to contact the University of Malta LGBT society may do so by sending an E-mail to uom_lgbt_society@hotmail.com. To join the facebook group, click here.

L-Orizzont: L-Isqof ta’ Għawdex jisħaq fuq id-dritt tal-konvinzjonijiet morali u reliġjużi

6.1.10

L-Isqof ta’ Għawdex, Mons Mario Grech qal li l-insara f’pajjiżna, flimkien ma’ dawk kollha ta’ rieda tajba, għandhom joħolqu moviment li jimbotta l-konvinzjonijiet morali u reliġjużi tagħhom fil-ħajja pubblika biex “il-maġi” ta’ llum – fosthom il-politiċi, il-leġislaturi, in-nies tal-kultura u l-midja – jagħrfu jieħdu direzzjoni korretta u jekk ikun meħtieġ, jitbegħdu minn dawk “il-palazzi” moderni tat-tmexxija u tal-ġustizzja li f’xi waqtiet isiru jixbhu “il-palazz ta’ Erodi”.

F’messaġġ li għamel waqt quddiesa pontifikali mexxa nhar il-Ħadd li għadda fil-Bażilika ta’ San Ġorġ, f’Victoria, Għawdex, fl-okkażjoni tal-festa tal-Epifanija, l-Isqof Grech irrifera għall-fatt li f’Novembru li għadda, grupp ta’ Kattoliċi, Anglikani, Ortodossi u Evanġeliċi permezz tad-‘Dikjarazzjoni ta Manhattan’ sejħu lil dawk li għandhom kuxjenza Nisranija biex jingħaqdu flimkien u jwasslu lill-”Maġi” kontemporanji messaġġ dwar il-valur tal-ħajja, in-natura taż-żwieġ u l-libertà reliġjuża – deskritti minnu bħala tliet prinċipji fundamentali tal-ġustizzja u l-ġid komuni.

Filwaqt li jfakkru fid-dmir ta’ kull ċittadin li jobdi l-liġijiet ġusti, iddikjaraw li mhux lesti li joqogħdu għal “liġijiet immorali”. Huwa qal li l-istituzzjonijiet ta’ dawn il-komunitajiet insara jirrifjutaw li jagħmlu abort, riċerki li jeqirdu l-‘embryo’ uman, assistenza li min irid jagħmel ewtanasja u kull azzjoni kontra l-ħajja.

Huma jtennu wkoll li ma jridux jmielu quddiem xi liġi li titlob minnhom li jbierku “partnerships sesswali immorali”; li b’xi mod jikkunsidraw dawn ir-relazzjonijiet daqslikieku huma żwiġijiet normali; u li ħadd ma jpoġġilhom sarima fuq fommhom biex ma jgħidux il-verità dwar il-moralità u l-immoralità taż-żwieġ u l-familja.


Fl-istess waqt li dawn jaffermaw id-dritt tal-libertà reliġjuża u d-dritt għal libertà tal-kuxjenza. “Quddiem kultura li trid li d-diskors reliġjuż jibqa’ bejn l-erba’ ħitan tas-sagristija, hemm bżonn jiġi affermat li f’soċjetà demokratika, bħal kull ċittadin ieħor, in-nisrani għandu d-dritt li jitkellem fil-pjazez. Dan kollu japplika għar-realta tagħna!”, saħaq l-Isqof Grech.

MaltaToday: An open letter to Simon Busuttil

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/12/27/l3.html
27.12.9 by Joseph Carmel Cehtcuti, Melbourne, Australia

In a recent article (‘The principle of non-discrimination’, Times of Malta, 9 December), you put your case against the recognition in Malta of same sex marriages contracted in other countries. The controversy followed the debate surrounding the Stockholm Programme and your successful opposition to the mutual recognition principle as far as it affects married or de facto same-sex partners and couples. You think that the mutual recognition principle should only apply to countries that accept same-sex marriages.
You no doubt are aware that the mutual recognition principle provides a strong impetus to intra-national and international co-operation. In some instances, it may also be taken as a sign of respect towards the customs and values of other countries.
At the intra-national level, particularly those countries with a federal system of government, as is the case in Australia, it was not unusual for a state to put up barriers against service providers from other states. In 1992, and in response to this problem, the Commonwealth government passed the Mutual Recognition Act to facilitate the freedom of movement of goods and service providers between Australian states. As a result, a lawyer registered in one jurisdiction is now able to practice in another jurisdiction. States followed on from where the federal government left off. In Victoria, the Legal Profession Act 2004 enabled interstate practitioners to engage in legal practice in Victoria subject to them meeting some conditions. Significantly, under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth), legal practitioners from New Zealand can apply to practice in Victoria.
At the international level, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1971) (to cite one example) set out to establish common provisions on mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions rendered in signatory countries. You are no doubt aware that on 15 and 16 October 1999, at Tampere in Finland, the European Council called for, amongst other things, the enhanced mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgments.
The principle of mutual recognition is anything but new in Malta. Take, for instance, the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Act (2002). Even on issues that are seen by some as contentious such as divorce, Malta has not been slow from applying the principle. Let me quote from an internet article by Aaron Mifsud-Bonnici: “With regards to divorce, annulment and the capacity to remarry, one may note that prior to 1975 the Maltese Courts categorically refused to recognise foreign divorces on the ground of public policy. Following the enactment of the Marriage Act in 1975 foreign divorces were recognised if they conformed to the requirements of Section 21. Section 21 provides that the decision of a foreign court on the status of a married person, or affecting such status, shall be recognised for all purposes of law in Malta if the decision is given by a competent court of the country in which either of the parties to the proceedings is domiciled or of which either of such parties is a citizen.” (http://www.mifsudbonnici.com/lexnet/articles/pil.html)
So what is so different with applying the principle of mutual recognition to same-sex marriages as it is applied to divorce granted in other countries? May I respectfully propose one answer: prejudice.
And the question is: Let us stop all this nonsense about the principle of mutual recognition and countries telling Malta what to do. If the Nationalist Party government was serious about maintaining Malta’s sovereignty, it would not have applied for membership of the European Union in the first instance.
You have already stated that you do not “favour” same sex marriages. Why is this so? Why are you opposed to same-sex marriage? What public policy grounds, if any, are you relying on? Why not come out with it?
Gay men and lesbians in Malta are tired of Nationalist Party politicians telling them how much they really love them and doing nothing about it. It is a love affair we do not enjoy. Some spice and stimulation need to be injected into the relationship. Sadly, the Party has a history of stonewalling (it did it in 1973 when Dom Mintoff decriminalised homosexuality). It is stonewalling now and will invariably continue to stonewall until the next election when a fed-up Maltese electorate including many Nationalist Party supporters will finally throw it out into the dust-bin of history. As for your assurance that you are “committed to co-operate to combat discrimination and to strive towards a more inclusive society, including the gay community”, I have to say that I can only take your declaration with a pinch of salt. After all, gay men and lesbians demand to be respected not only as individuals but also as couples and as families… and that includes same-sex marriage.

Independent: No evolution of marriage

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=99670
5.1.10? by Paul Kokoski, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Two Russian lesbians have travelled all the way to Canada to be “married” under Canadian law in order to try to force Russian authorities to recognise their union.

The couple is hoping to exploit a loophole in Russian law which does not specify the gender of those married abroad.

Irina Fedotova-Fet and Irina Shipitko came to Canada with the help of the homosexual advocacy group Egale Canada, and were “married” in Toronto by Harvey Brownstone, a well-known openly homosexual judge.

Marriage is an institution that predates civilisation, ordained by God, and exclusive to one man and one woman who are given the responsibility to procreate the human race, and to nurture, educate, and pass on shared values and mores to their offspring. To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is to strip marriage of an essential component, namely the ability and obligation to procreate. This would render marriage meaningless and open it up to endless revision and redefinition.

There is simply no evidence that the primary purpose of marriage has evolved to include gays and lesbians. First, the Bible clearly and unequivocally condemns homosexual acts. Secondly, there is no scientific evidence to confirm homosexual activity as normal behaviour. The so-called “gay gene” has never been found. Dr Francis Collins, who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his work sequencing the human genetic code, has stated that homosexuality is not genetically “hardwired.”

Not surprisingly, every credible study supports the fact that children do better in school, live healthier lives, and become better contributors to society when raised by both a mother and a father in the same household. Society is now seeing the results of “causal divorce” from the 70s and the “out of wedlock children” of the 80s, as the children of this generation now have all these psychological problems.

Once legal the state’s coercive power will punish those who refuse to embrace gay marriages. Under a legal regime that permits homosexual marriage, public officials will be obliged to officiate at same-sex “weddings,” public schools will be required to teach children homosexual marriages’’ acceptability regardless of their parents wishes. This is already happening in Canada.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. The family is the fundamental cell of society. The family – and through it, all human society – have their source and origin in marriage. Marriage is ordered to the procreation and education of offspring.

As the basic expression of man’s social nature, marriage exists solely between a man and a woman who through their personal gift of self to each other, perfect one another into a communion of persons. This human development of the spouses and the proper nurturing of children who are the fruit of such unions make an immense contribution to the common good of society. One does not need to have any particular religion or belong to a particular political party to recognise this, or that the family based on marriage is the best way to bring up happy, productive children.

Caesar Augustus, a pagan, sought to strengthen Roman society by outlawing adultery and sodomy and by encouraging traditional marriage and procreation. He understood that there is such a thing as public morality. Emperor Augustus saw this, but it was too late to overcome the sexual licence of the late Roman Republic. This was the real reason why it collapsed. Let us hope that the same does not happen in Russia.

In defending traditional marriage and family one does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

Tuesday, 5 January 2010

Times: Blog: Students' View: We're human beings, not human doings

http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20100105/students-view/were-human-beings-not-human-doings
Tuesday, 5th January 2010 by Stephanie Calleja

"Is life not a hundred times too short for us to stifle ourselves?" - Nietzsche

I was raised in an unduly conservative environment. That is to say, my mother, being the overprotective individual that she is, always took me to church on Sundays and to Catholic doctrine on Tuesdays and Thursdays, never leaving my side until she would see me entering the building. I wouldn't dream of watching television after eight-thirty in the evening.

She would never switch off my bedroom lights until she would hear me utter my bedtime prayer. I'm 19 and my curfew still hasn't been lifted, so you get the idea. The point I'm trying to make is that all these limitations have, to a great extent, constricted my beliefs.

This ‘tunnel vision', as I like to call it, is the reason why unbeknown to my mother, when I was fifteen, I had gone to the cinema to watch Brokeback Mountain, and unknowingly spent half the movie with my face buried in my hands. The idea of two men loving each other in that way grossed me out to the point of feeling queasy. To add fuel to the fire, my friend was accompanied by her two gay friends, and that had really keyed me up.

If it wasn't for one of those two gay people, who eventually became a really close friend of mine, I would still be in the dark about homosexuality and a handful of other taboos constituting the evolutionary puzzle.

About a fortnight ago, I was sitting in a café situated near University, a pen in one hand (which I fervently clicked until the spring reached its elastic limit) and a notebook in the other, tensely waiting for two students to show up. I had been assigned to write an article about the re-launching of the LGBT society at University.

I knew what I had to ask and when to ask it, yet I let that unrelenting fear of wrongdoing override me. The two gay students made an appearance, the atmosphere simmered down to informality, and the interview turned out to be amusing, to say the least.

One thing I realised while I was re-reading the transcript of the interview was the constant referral to the word ‘love'. Quite a cliché, I know. One particular comment that struck me was: "People should seek love of themselves and of others. Whoever we are, we should never give up trying to find love." That got me thinking. The fact that I used to consider people belonging to the LGBT community ‘different' says more about me than it says about them.

Sexual orientation is merely a component of one's identity. There are so many other qualities that make up a human being: honesty, morality, self-acceptance, compassion, affection. The list goes on. Regardless of our sexuality, each of us needs the same things and is equally deserving of them.

Another thing which has been consuming my thoughts is the issue of gay marriage. I see marriage as a civil right, and not as a religious privilege. So, when I read the strong statement issued by the Imam in Malta about permissiveness of homosexuality (among other things) incurring the wrath of God, I cannot help but wonder why two straight people who don't love each other have more of a right to be together than two gay people who are sure of their love for one another. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody, as writer Rita Mae Brown has righteously said.

Uganda's same-sex marriage ban, which is one of the most ruthless anti-gay legislations I've ever encountered, not only outlaws gay people, but is also criminalising to straight alleys who fail to report any gay people they might know. Isn't the whole point of marriage to establish some sort of socially recognised relationship that will enhance a couple's emotional status?

Then there's the argument against children being raised by gay parents. I've recently come across several studies conducted by the American Psychiatric Association which show that the optimal development of a child is not based on their parents' sexual orientation, but on the intensity of their connection with "committed and nurturing adults".

I also came across the studies conducted by Evelyn Hooker, an American psychologist who, upon administering the Rorschach Ink Blot Test, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and the Make-A-Picture-Story (MAPS) Test to thirty homosexual males and thirty heterosexual males, found out that both groups are psychologically similar. Her studies had a major say in the American Psychiatric Association's decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness.

Thankfully, these baleful barriers are being demolished, and it is not just due to mainstream empathy. Fostering a culture of acceptance will undoubtedly continue the legacy of people such as Harvey Milk, whose determination was larger than life, and whose cause of rebellion was more than justifiable.

Stephanie Calleja is a second-year B.Communications student and Events Editor of insiteronline.com

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]

Pink News: US HIV travel ban lifted today

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/04/us-hiv-travel-ban-lifted-today/
By Jessica Geen • January 4, 2010 - 10:28

The ban on HIV-positive people entering the US officially ends today.

The 22-year-old law was one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world for people with HIV but was lifted by President Barack Obama in November.

He described it as a "decision rooted in fear rather than fact".

According to On Top magazine, the first HIV-positive person to enter the country since the lifting of the ban will be Clemens Ruland, 45, a youth worker from the Netherlands.

He and his partner Hugo Bausch, 50, will be welcomed by gay group Immigration Equality when they arrive in New York today.

The lifting of the ban was praised by UK-based HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust.

Lisa Power, head of policy at the organisation, said: "It's ridiculous that for over 20 years people living with HIV have been banned from entering the US simply because of a medical condition.

"Removing the ban is long overdue and we congratulate the US government on seeing economic and medical sense. Terrence Higgins Trust and many others have campaigned against the ban since it was introduced.

"Blanket entry bans have no justification on public health grounds and only increase stigma. We hope other countries with similar bans in place will now remove them too."

The ban had also barred long-term foreign residents from obtaining resident status, purely on the basis of having HIV.

Only a handful of other countries, such as Yemen and Qatar, have similar policies on barring entry to HIV-positive individuals.

HIV experts criticised the ban in the past for encouraging people not to get tested out of fear.

Obama said that lifting the ban is a "step that will encourage people to get tested and get treatment. It's a step that will keep families together, and it's a step that will save lives".

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on Pink News' website.]

Pink News: Gay son prevented from donating blood to dying mother

4.1.10 by Jessica Green

A gay man whose mother died from cancer is calling for a change in the law after he was prevented from donating blood to help her.

Dij Bentley's mother Christine, 47, died from acute myeloid leukaemia in August last year.

Prior to her death, she had developed an infection and needed a blood transfusion.

Friends and family members were asked to give blood to see if they were a match for her. Although Bentley did not know whether he was a match, he was prevented from donating under rules which bar men who have had with another man from giving blood.

She died ten days after developing an infection in her brain on August 14th.

Bentley, a 21-year-old student, told the Herald he had tried to give blood aged 17 but was told by a nurse he could not.

He said: “My eyes have been opened to this since my mum died. Maybe gay men do have a right to give blood if they want to. Certainly for me, who was in a monogamous relationship, I think it would have been acceptable in these circumstances.”

Both the Scottish Blood Transfusion Service and the National Blood Service (England and Wales) bar gay and bisexual men from donating blood for life.

People who have injected drugs, prostitutes and those who have ever had syphilis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C are also excluded.

Last month, Sweden lifted the lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood. It announced on World AIDS Day that a 12-month ban would instead be implemented for anyone having "risky" sex, which includes gay sex. The change will come into force on March 1st.

A number of groups such as National AIDS Trust, Stonewall and the Anthony Nolan Trust have all previously supported the UK lifetime ban but are now against it.

The government's Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) is currently undertaking a review of whether the comprehensive ban should remain. It is expected to report back this year.

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Pink News' website.]

Times: Men arrested for gay wedding denied bail

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100104/world-news/men-arrested-for-gay-wedding-denied-bail
4.1.10 by Reuters

A court in Malawi today denied bail to two men arrested last week on charges of public indecency after becoming the first gay couple to marry in a country were homosexuality is illegal.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza were married in a traditional but symbolic ceremony in southern Malawi last month, attracting hundreds of curious onlookers.

Homosexuality is banned in the conservative southern African state and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

Today magistrate Nyakwawa Usiwausiwa told a packed court that he could not grant the couple bail and said, saying the ruling was for their own protection.

"The public out there is angry with them," Usiwausiwa said.

Government prosecutors had asked the court to detain the couple for a longer period to allow for more investigations.

Police said the two men had been taken for medical tests to prove whether they had intercourse.

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]