Malta Today: US Military to accept openly gay recruits

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/world/us-military-to-accept-openly-gay-recruits
Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Openly gay American recruits can now sign up to play soldier - following a federal court ruling striking down the "don't ask, don't tell" law, under the caution that they can still be discharged should the ruling be overturned.

A Pentagon memo signed by Clifford Stanley, undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness, gave gay recruits the green light to begin the enrollment processes but should be told what could lie in store as "a certain amount of uncertainty now exists about the future of the 'don't ask, don't tell' law."

He stated that, "during the process, they (recruiters) will say, 'You have to be mindful that this could be overturned.'" In reaction, the Marine Corps issued a directive to recruiters Tuesday to the effect that "homosexual conduct, by itself, is not currently considered a bar to accession."

Advocates for repealing the policy warned gays interested in serving to be cautious, warning them against “coming out now” in case it can be used against them by the Pentagon in the future - said the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, has said most Marines oppose reversing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which permits gays to serve as long as they are not open about their homosexuality. Critics have slammed reversing the policy because it could hurt the effectiveness of troops during war. Conway added that opposition to homosexuals serving openly is particularly strong within combat units.

On the memo, Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith, said the suspension of "don't ask, don't tell" is in response to the September 9 decision of a central California federal judge that ruled the law implemented under President Clinton in 1993 was unconstitutional.

The judge, Virginia Phillips, on Tuesday denied a government request to delay her order, media reported. The Justice Department said the Obama administration will appeal to the appellate court in San Francisco.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was also reported to have ordered a task force to investigate the consequences of repealing the policy. Results are due on December 1. President Obama supports legislation to end the policy.

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

Times: Gay couples too are human

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101017/letters/gay-couples-too-are-human
Sunday, 17th October 2010 by Ken Cowan, Paris, France

Mr J. Bonett Balzan wrote a letter defending marriage and the family (The Sunday Times, October 3).

Strangely, he began with a snide, bigoted comment about how, luckily, the Maltese were not forced to host the German Foreign Minister’s male partner during an official visit.

He doesn’t seem to understand that, despite traditional attitudes, we are talking about people, not theological hypotheses.

Whether Mr Bonett Balzan likes it or not, the German Minister’s partner is his family.

More to the point, many men or women have married and had children before realising their homosexuality and divorcing.

So, again, despite Church grumblings, the fact is that many homosexuals are parents via ‘natural’ methods.

And of course, many people end up with homosexual children, not to mention gay aunts and uncles.

Homosexuals are not from some distant planet – just because someone is gay it doesn’t suddenly mean he is no longer part of a family.

Mr Bonett Balzan goes on to quote the Pope, who said: “It is a principle... that the human being should be protected precisely in situations of weakness; the human person always takes priority over other aims”.

How strange, then, to condemn gay couples as if they aren’t human, as if they don’t also form long-lasting loving relationships, as if they do not also have the right to a priority called respect.

And why shouldn’t they be protected from a legally weaker position? Perhaps it is time to remember Jesus’ words about not casting the first stone.

I find nothing particularly ‘Christian’ in these comments by people who forget that he told us not to judge others but to love.

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

Malta Today: Human rights court slams Moscow’s ban on gay parades

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/world/human-rights-court-slams-moscow%E2%80%99s-ban-on-gay-parades
Thursday, October 21, 2010

The European Court of Human Rights has condemned the city of Moscow for violating the rights of gays and lesbians when it enacted bans in 2006, 2007 and 2008, on gay pride events simply because it disapproved of homosexuality.

The court it ordered Moscow to pay event organizers €29,510 ($41,300) for damages and court costs.

The ruling orders Russia to respect human rights. Should it not, it faces ejection from the Council of Europe, the organization to which the rights court belongs.

The court's action coinciding on the same day that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's chief of staff was named the new mayor of Moscow – replacing Yuri Luzhkov, who was removed by President Dmitry Medvedev last month after 18 years in office.

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

Malta Today: Banning sperm, egg donation will stop gay couples from becoming parents – MGRM

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/banning-sperm-egg-donation-will-stop-same-sex-couples-from-becoming-parents-%E2%80%93-mgrm

NATIONAL Thursday, October 21, 2010; By Matthew Vella

MGRM: "The decision to provide access to assisted reproduction treatments to cohabiting couples in stable relationships is most welcome, the fact that this has been limited to heterosexual couples is discriminatory."

Malta Gay Rights Movement says limiting IVF to heterosexual couples goes against principle of equal treatment.

The Malta Gay Rights Movement has raised objections to a report by the parliamentary select committee on assisted reproduction, that limits IVF to heterosexual couples only.

Referring to the banning of sperm and egg donation by third parties, Calleja said this directly affects the possibility of single women as well as same-sex couples of becoming parents and is therefore deplored.

Calleja added that the suggestion that individuals who undertake fertility treatment abroad could be obliged by law to register the donation of sperm in Malta, raised serious human rights concerns particularly with respect to the right to private and family life.

"While the decision to provide access to assisted reproduction treatments to cohabiting couples in stable relationships is most welcome, the fact that this has been limited to heterosexual couples is discriminatory and goes against the principles of equal treatment as established by the European Court of Human Rights," spokesperson Gabi Calleja said.

Calleja was referring to the case of Schalk and Kopf against the Austrian government, which held that same sex couples living in a stable relationship constitute family life. In other cases, states like Austria and Poland had acted in violation of article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) when they treated cohabiting same-sex couples differently from cohabiting opposite-sex couples.

"The decision to restrict assisted reproduction services to couples is inconsistent with the government's current legislation and policy with respect to fostering and adoption both of which allow individuals to apply as single parent," Calleja said.

The MGRM said it supports the recommendation to allow the freezing of embryos, but disagrees with any pressure on the parents to make use of all the embryos frozen. "Any such obligation would be an infringement of the CEDAW convention which establishes the right for women to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children… (Article 16.e)."

"The MGRM therefore urges government to ensure that any legislation enacted is inclusive and respectful of international human rights principles as enshrined in various treaties and conventions and to provide equal treatment to all its citizens, particularly in access to health services."

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

Di-ve: Assisted reproduction legislation should be inclusive, MGRM insists

http://www.di-ve.com/Default.aspx?ID=72&Action=1&NewsId=77681&cache=false

21 October 2010; editorial@di-ve.com

Although a step forward, the Parliamentary Select Committee's report on assisted reproduction is discriminatory against same-sex couples, contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights, the Malta Gay Rights Movement said on Thursday.

The report suggests the provision access to assisted reproduction treatments to married couples and cohabiting heterosexual couples in "stable relationships".

The MGRM said that while providing access to cohabiting couples was welcome, preventing it to same-sex couples was discriminatory. It noted that in the Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights had ruled that same-sex couples living in a stable relationship constituted family life, and other cases found that states acted in violation of anti-discrimination principles when they treated cohabiting same-sex couples differently from heterosexual ones.

It also noted that restricting assisted reproduction services to couples was also inconsistent with the government's current legislation, which allows individuals to apply as single parents. Moreover, banning the donation of gametes by third parties directly affected the possibility of single women and same-sex couples to become parents.

The movement backed the recommendation to allow the freezing of embryos, but disagreed with any pressure on the parents to make use of all the embryos frozen. It said that such pressure went against the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which established "the right for women to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children".

The MGRM also expressed concern on the suggestion that those who undertake fertility treatment abroad could be obliged to register the donation of sperm in Malta, noting that this raised serious human rights concerns, particularly with respect to the right to private and family life.

It therefore urged government to ensure that any legislated enacted is "inclusive and respectful of international human rights principles".

Parliamentary Question on legislation for the recognition of same-sex couples by MP Evarist Bartolo

16.10.2010 by the Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM)

A Parliamentary Question asked by Opposition MP Evarist Bartolo received a blunt and dismissive reply by Justice Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici in Parliament yesterday. MP Bartolo asked when the Maltese Parliament would put forward a clear signal that equal rights to same-sex couples cannot be held back by people hiding behind religious beliefs and prejudice. MP Bartolo mentioned the case of Ireland, where the Irish media recently carried this headline:"Irish politicians have passed a bill granting gay and lesbians couples the right to civil partnerships. The bill passed in the Dail yesterday without a vote and justice minister Dermot Ahern said the move reflected change in Irish society"

The Minister's reply was that what happens in foreign countries should have no effect on Malta, and that Maltese legislation and policies are not drafted based on what takes place abroad.

The full version of the Parliamentary Question is reproduced, in Maltese, below:


Legislatura XI Kategorija ORAL Mistoqsija Numru: 19152 Data: 05/07/2010
Seduta: 258 - 05/10/2010 06:00 PM
Titlu: Repubblika tal-Irlanda

L-Onorevoli EVARIST BARTOLO staqsa lill-Onorevoli CARMELO MIFSUD BONNICI (Ministru tal-Gustizzja u l-Intern):

Peress li fil-bidu ta’ Lulju 2010 l-istampa tar-Repubblika tal-Irlanda rrappurtat li: "Irish politicians have passed a bill granting gay and lesbians couples the right to civil partnerships. The bill passed in the Dail yesterday without a vote and justice minister Dermot Ahern said the move reflected change in Irish society", jista' l-Ministru jghid meta hemm il-hsieb li jitressaq abbozz ta’ ligi simili fil-Parlament Malti u jghaddi wkoll bla vot kif ghadda fir-Repubblika Irlandiza biex ma jkunx hemm min juza r-religjon u l-pregudizzji omofobici biex dawn il-persuni jibqghu mcahhda mid-drittijiet umani shah?

Twegiba:
Ma jidhirlix li l-kejl tal-ligijiet li jghaddu mill-Parlament Malti ghandu jkun jiddependi minn dak li jigri f'Parlamenti barranin.

http://www.maltagayrights.net/PQ_Oct2010

MGRM: Assisted Reproduction

PRESS RELEASE: REACTION TO REPORT BY SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSISTED REPRODUCTION BY THE MALTA GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT
21.10.10; Gaby Calleja

It is the position of MGRM, borne out by human rights experts, that: "(e)veryone has the right to found a family, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Families exist in diverse forms. No family may be subjected to discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of any of its members (Yogyakarta Principles, 24) ." This implies that States should: "Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure the right to found a family, including through access to adoption or assisted procreation (including donor insemination), without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."

Following the publication of the Select Committee's report on Assisted Reproduction the Malta Gay Rights Movement is raising the following considerations:

- while the decision to provide access to assisted reproduction treatments to cohabiting couples in stable relationships is most welcome, the fact that this has been limited to heterosexual couples is discriminatory and goes against the principles of equal treatment as established by the European Court of Human Rights, which in the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria held that same sex couples living in a stable relationship constitute family life and in a number of other cases held that states acted in violation of article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) when they treated cohabiting same-sex couples differently from cohabiting opposite-sex couples (P.B. and J.S. v. Austria; Karner v. Austria; & Kozak v. Poland);

- the decision to restrict assisted reproduction services to couples is inconsistent with the government's current legislation and policy with respect to fostering and adoption both of which allow individuals to apply as single parents;

- banning of donation of gametes by third parties directly effects the possibility of single women as well as same-sex couples of becoming parents and is therefore deplored;

- the MGRM supports the select committee's recommendation to allow the freezing of embryos but disagrees with any pressure on the parents to make use of all the embryos frozen. Any such obligation would be an infringement of the CEDAW convention which establishes "the right for women to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children…" (Article 16.e).

- while the title of the document refers to assisted reproduction the proposals focus almost entirely on IVF. It is unclear how and to what extent the proposals refer to and will have an effect on such treatment as artificial insemination;

- the suggestion that individuals who undertake fertility treatment abroad could be obliged by law to register the donation of sperm in Malta raises serious human rights concerns particularly with respect to the right to private and family life (Article 8 ECHR).

The MGRM therefore urges government to ensure that any legislation enacted is inclusive and respectful of international human rights principles as enshrined in various treaties and conventions and to provide equal treatment to all its citizens, particularly in access to health services.

Pink News: Major Legal Victory for Russian Gay Rights Campaigners

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/10/21/major-legal-victory-for-russian-gay-rights-campaigners/
By Jessica Geen • October 21, 2010 - 11:00

Bans on Moscow Pride were found to be against international human rights laws (Photo: Chad Meacham)

Gay rights activists in Russia are celebrating after the European Court of Human Rights today upheld three complaints over Moscow’s ban on gay Pride marches.

Russian gay rights leader Nikolai Alekseev complained to the court that the parade bans in 2006, 2007 and 2008 breached the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court agreed and ordered Russia was to pay to Mr Alekseev 12,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 17,510 euros for costs and expenses.

The city’s last mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, repeatedly banned the marches on pretexts of health and safety and has called gays and lesbians “satanic”.

Since 2006, campaigners have attempted to hold the events but these were broken up by police.

In May 2006, more than 120 people were arrested and in 2007, British gay activist Peter Tatchell was severely beaten by neo-Nazis. In 2008, marchers accused police of brutality.

Today’s victory comes after years of legal attempts to hold Pride marches.

The ruling said: “The main reason for the bans on the gay marches had been the authorities’ disapproval of demonstrations which, they considered, promoted homosexuality.

“In particular, the court could not disregard the strong personal opinions publicly expressed by the Moscow mayor and the undeniable link between those statements and the bans.

“Consequently, the court found that, as the government had not justified their bans in a way compatible with the Convention requirements, Mr Alekseev had suffered discrimination because of his sexual orientation.”

Speaking to UK Gay News, Mr Alekseev said: “This decision is a major victory for us because no judge, no lawyer and no politician will any longer be able to tell us that the bans of our events were lawful.”

He added: “The decision is the first judicial blow for former mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov who declared on several occasions that gay Pride organisers and participants were satanic, weapons of mass destruction and faggots.”

He added that October 21st would be celebrated in the future as Russian LGBT Liberation Day.

London-based gay rights activist Peter Tatchell added: “This ruling is a major rebuke to the disgraced former mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, and to his authoritarian allies in the Russian government.

“It is a huge embarrassment to the top Russian leaders, Putin and Medvedev, as well as to Luzhkov. Their suppression of peaceful gay pride parades has been declared illegal.”

He added: “This is an astonishing victory. Nikolai and his small band of daring LGBT activists have taken on the might of the Russian state – and won.”

Russia may still contest the ruling if it wishes.

Mr Luzhkov was sacked as mayor of Moscow last month.

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

Times: IVF proposals may breach human rights – gay movement

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101021/local/ivf-proposals-may-breach-human-rights-gay-movement
Thursday, 21st October 2010; Christian Peregin

Offering artificial fertilisation to unmarried heterosexual couples but prohibiting it for same-sex couples may breach human rights, according to the Malta Gay Rights Movement.

But Nationalist MP Jean Pierre Farrugia, who heads the parliamentary committee making this proposal, said opening IVF to gay couples would have been "impossible".

The MGRM is arguing it will be "very difficult" to legally discriminate between gay and heterosexual cohabiting couples, even on such an issue.

MGRM chairman Gabi Calleja said European case law had declared gay couples as "constituting family life" on the same level as cohabiting heterosexual couples, so there was "no valid human rights basis to deny this access".

Her logic was backed up by former European Court of Human Rights judge, Giovanni Bonello. However, he pointed out things could be viewed differently in the case of complex issues such as artificial fertilisation.

"Although the principle is that you cannot discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual cohabiting couples with things like inheritance and rent, I'm not sure whether the same rule will be applicable where family-oriented issues arise."

He said he did not think this had been challenged at ECHR level yet, so it would be difficult to give a definitive answer until there was a relevant ruling available.

The MGRM's criticism of the recommendation does not stop at the view it may breach human rights. Ms Calleja also pointed out it was "contradictory" for the state to allow single people the chance to adopt children but not allow single people to seek IVF.

"The state is already acknowledging that single parenting is possible and acceptable. So I think there's a contradiction there."

She said if the report was adopted it would send a very negative message that families with same-sex parents should not exist. "But, in effect, they do and should be treated in an equal manner," she stressed, adding there was no research showing that same-sex parenting had a negative impact on children.

The parliamentary committee's recommendation report, which had to decide on issues of eligibility, embryo freezing and donation of gametes, was published on Tuesday.

It suggested IVF treatment should be financed by the state to make it accessible to all infertile couples and that freezing of embryos should be permitted.

However, it did not accept the donation of sperm and ova by third parties. This is the main reason why IVF cannot be offered to single people or gay couples.

Dr Farrugia said due to "economies of scale" and a strict EU directive, it would be very difficult for Malta to provide the facilities to donate gametes. "Basically, at the moment we don't have the option of donation of gametes and for gay couples that's already a problem. If you can't get a gamete donated, a gay couple can never have a child."

He added that the committee's brief was to choose between giving this option to a married couple and opening it up to stable unmarried couples. "It wasn't in our remit to provide it to a single person," he said, adding, that the committee had, however, argued against surrogacy because the point of the legislation was to provide IVF to infertile couples rather than fertile couples who required artificial fertilisation to conceive.

However, Dr Farrugia, who drew up the report with MP Frans Agius and Labour MP Michael Farrugia, pointed out that their recommendations also had to be "achievable" and acceptable to the rest of the MPs.

"At the end of the day, politics is the art of the possible. It was impossible to try to go further. It's already difficult this way. If we tried to go further in one go it would have been impossible."

He said he was sorry the needs of gay people could not be met but pointed out that the MGRM never provided written submissions to this effect.

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

Times: US appeals ruling authorising gay marriage

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101014/world-news/us-appeals-ruling-authorising-gay-marriage
Thursday, 14th October 2010; AFP

The Obama Administration appealed a federal judge’s ruling giving the state of Massachusetts the right to authorise gay marriage.

In July, Boston-based US District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the 1996 federal law known as the Defence of Marriage Act (Doma), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, “imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funding”.

In its court filing, Justice Department lawyers said it was appealing the ruling and that its arguments would be presented in November.

Congress “has exceeded the scope of its authority” in passing the law, which limits marriage to men and women,”Judge Tauro wrote in his ruling.

The authority “to regulate marital status is a sovereign attribute of statehood” and not the federal government, he added.

The judge found that gay couples in Massachusetts, the first state to authorise gay marriage, must be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to issues like health insurance.

Only six of the 50 US states and the District of Columbia – the US capital – currently allow gay marriage in the US.

Referenda on allowing gay marriage have been held in 31 US states, but all have failed to be approved.

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