Go the Maltesers!

[sustento]

http://attitude.co.uk/malta-legalises-sex-civil-unions/

[onthemoon]

Law-makers in the Maltese parliament voted 37-0 to introduce the measures, which afford registered partners the same legal rights as married couples.

Great! Does that mean that Malta recognised civil partnership before?

In fact, legal equality is the goal, not the term "marriage". They seem to have achieved it.

Edited April 15, 2014 by onthemoon

[sustento]

Law-makers in the Maltese parliament voted 37-0 to introduce the measures, which afford registered partners the same legal rights as married couples.

Great! Does that mean that Malta recognised civil partnership before?

I think it means 'newly registered partners' i.e. those who take advantage of the new law to register a civil union.

[Jingthing]

Congratulations to Malta.

[Jingthing]

Law-makers in the Maltese parliament voted 37-0 to introduce the measures, which afford registered partners the same legal rights as married couples.

Great! Does that mean that Malta recognised civil partnership before?

In fact, legal equality is the goal, not the term "marriage". They seem to have achieved it.

I generally agree that the goal is full legal equality regardless of label.

Based on the article, those couples will have full legal equality within Malta.

However, how about international recognition? Marriage is generally universally understood. Civil unions or whatever name is used are often different things in different countries. That could be an issue for these couples to be recognized SAME AS married when abroad, in the countries that do recognize same sex marriage.

Also, I bet you the house it's just a matter of time before Malta changes to gay marriage. Why? Because there is no logical reason for there to be segregation in this matter. In some ways even more so if all the rights are exactly the same.

[sustento]

Law-makers in the Maltese parliament voted 37-0 to introduce the measures, which afford registered partners the same legal rights as married couples.

Great! Does that mean that Malta recognised civil partnership before?

In fact, legal equality is the goal, not the term "marriage". They seem to have achieved it.

I generally agree that the goal is full legal equality regardless of label.

Based on the article, those couples will have full legal equality within Malta.

However, how about international recognition? Marriage is generally universally understood. Civil unions or whatever name is used are often different things in different countries. That could be an issue for these couples to be recognized SAME AS married when abroad, in the countries that do recognize same sex marriage.

Also, I bet you the house it's just a matter of time before Malta changes to gay marriage. Why? Because there is no logical reason for there to be segregation in this matter. In some ways even more so if all the rights are exactly the same.

Malta is a staunchly Catholic country. I suspect that gay marriage might take some time.

The majority of gay people who choose to get married/enter into a civil partnership aren't likely to leave their home country and have little or no concern about the legal validity of their relationship in any other country than their own.

[Jingthing]

Not as Catholic as Italy, apparently. Yes it will take some time. Some time isn't never. I agree it's good. I don't agree there is any logical reason for there to be segregation except in a theocracy and that isn't logical, that's just caving to pressure.

You can choose to see the FACT that internationally people really don't know exactly what a "civil union" is from any particular country but they DO know what a marriage is as a triviality. Sometimes civil unions are very strong such as Malta and sometimes they offer much less actual legal equality.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

I would venture a guess that countries that are open to gay rights will recognize a union whether it is civil or a marriage. I would guess that those that don't won't recognize either.

It's a little like being baptized a Christian. If you change denominations, they usually don't re-baptize you.

[onthemoon]

Law-makers in the Maltese parliament voted 37-0 to introduce the measures, which afford registered partners the same legal rights as married couples.

Great! Does that mean that Malta recognised civil partnership before?

In fact, legal equality is the goal, not the term "marriage". They seem to have achieved it.

I generally agree that the goal is full legal equality regardless of label.

Based on the article, those couples will have full legal equality within Malta.

However, how about international recognition? Marriage is generally universally understood. Civil unions or whatever name is used are often different things in different countries. That could be an issue for these couples to be recognized SAME AS married when abroad, in the countries that do recognize same sex marriage.

Also, I bet you the house it's just a matter of time before Malta changes to gay marriage. Why? Because there is no logical reason for there to be segregation in this matter. In some ways even more so if all the rights are exactly the same.

Isn't the problem rather the countries that don't recognise the word "civil union"? It has been discussed worldwide for a number of years now, I don't think that people - or governments - don't understand it.

Let's fight for equal recognition of civil unions around the world! That would be a better achievement than following the loaded word marriage IMHO.

[Scott]

The recognition of gay marriage is probably most relevant in the US because of the constitutional concerns and the history of Supreme Court rulings on separate but equal status. In most other countries the terms are less relevant to the legal status.

I think if we are going to get into a discussion about the terminology and semantics, we will end up with the circular argument that has been circled this forum and ended up no where.

[David48]

Isn't the problem rather the countries that don't recognise the word "civil union"? It has been discussed worldwide for a number of years now, I don't think that people - or governments - don't understand it.

Let's fight for equal recognition of civil unions around the world! That would be a better achievement than following the loaded word marriage IMHO.

... +1

[Jingthing]

The point I was making ... OBVIOUSLY ... was that civil unions in actually often DO NOT translate into 100 percent equality to marriage in any given country. So internationally, unless you're some kind of super geek on international laws, if a gay couple from Boomfuchsylvania says we're "unioned" you don't know what percentage of legal rights they have in back in Boomfuchsylvania relative to married persons there.

These Maltese unions are Grade A ones, that's for sure, and again, congratulations to Malta for taking this big step.

If this detail was a trivial as some people think, then why is it that the clear trend in various countries is to start at some kind of unions and then eventually when people realize the world hasn't exploded, go on to marriage? As will Malta as well, it's just a matter of when.

Sorry Scott, you're right that this thread shouldn't get steered this way, but I felt I needed to clarify the issue of international understanding of what marriage actually is (everyone knows) vs. civil unions (varies a lot). That is real.

Cheers.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Thanks and hopefully that clears it up.

[onthemoon]

The point I was making ... OBVIOUSLY ... was that civil unions in actually often DO NOT translate into 100 percent equality to marriage in any given country. So internationally, unless you're some kind of super geek on international laws, if a gay couple from Boomfuchsylvania says we're "unioned" you don't know what percentage of legal rights they have in back in Boomfuchsylvania relative to married persons there.

These Maltese unions are Grade A ones, that's for sure, and again, congratulations to Malta for taking this big step.

If this detail was a trivial as some people think, then why is it that the clear trend in various countries is to start at some kind of unions and then eventually when people realize the world hasn't exploded, go on to marriage? As will Malta as well, it's just a matter of when.

Sorry Scott, you're right that this thread shouldn't get steered this way, but I felt I needed to clarify the issue of international understanding of what marriage actually is (everyone knows) vs. civil unions (varies a lot). That is real.

Cheers.

You don't get the point. The fight is - or should be - for equal rights. If the civil union in some countries does not offer that yet, it's work-in-progress. This does not change the fact that the fight is for equal rights, not for equal terminology.

Thinking that the term 'marriage' is the ultimate goal is a very US-American idea. Kerry was applauded when he said that same-sex marriages will be treated equally with opposite-sex marriages, buy civil unions won't! Europeans don't necessarily share that view but are appalled. But then, we give the US time to adjust to the 21st century. Kerry's announcement is seen as a first step into the right direction.

We've discussed this many times, please do not pretend you are not aware that your ideas are not shared across the world. Please stop lecturing that your US view should be shared by the whole world - you are not doing your country a favour. Instead, please open your mind to equal rights rather than equal terminology.

[Jingthing]

Overly and absurdly personalized rant marked as read.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Jingthing

[sustento]

A thread about a small island in the Mediterranean transmogrifies itself into a thread about the USA. Quelle surprise!

[Jingthing]

A thread about a small island in the Mediterranean transmogrifies itself into a thread about the USA. Quelle surprise!

That would be indeed be wrong.

[David48]

The point I was making ... OBVIOUSLY ... was that civil unions in actually often DO NOT translate into 100 percent equality to marriage in any given country. So internationally, unless you're some kind of super geek on international laws, if a gay couple from Boomfuchsylvania says we're "unioned" you don't know what percentage of legal rights they have in back in Boomfuchsylvania relative to married persons there.

These Maltese unions are Grade A ones, that's for sure, and again, congratulations to Malta for taking this big step.

If this detail was a trivial as some people think, then why is it that the clear trend in various countries is to start at some kind of unions and then eventually when people realize the world hasn't exploded, go on to marriage? As will Malta as well, it's just a matter of when.

Sorry Scott, you're right that this thread shouldn't get steered this way, but I felt I needed to clarify the issue of international understanding of what marriage actually is (everyone knows) vs. civil unions (varies a lot). That is real.

Cheers.

You don't get the point. The fight is - or should be - for equal rights. If the civil union in some countries does not offer that yet, it's work-in-progress. This does not change the fact that the fight is for equal rights, not for equal terminology.

Thinking that the term 'marriage' is the ultimate goal is a very US-American idea. Kerry was applauded when he said that same-sex marriages will be treated equally with opposite-sex marriages, buy civil unions won't! Europeans don't necessarily share that view but are appalled. But then, we give the US time to adjust to the 21st century. Kerry's announcement is seen as a first step into the right direction.

We've discussed this many times, please do not pretend you are not aware that your ideas are not shared across the world. Please stop lecturing that your US view should be shared by the whole world - you are not doing your country a favour. Instead, please open your mind to equal rights rather than equal terminology.

+1

(Have ran out of likes)

Nice post ...

Everyone has different opnions ... onthemoon, you have expressed yours well.

[Swiss1960]

Not as Catholic as Italy, apparently. Yes it will take some time. Some time isn't never. I agree it's good. I don't agree there is any logical reason for there to be segregation except in a theocracy and that isn't logical, that's just caving to pressure.

You can choose to see the FACT that internationally people really don't know exactly what a "civil union" is from any particular country but they DO know what a marriage is as a triviality. Sometimes civil unions are very strong such as Malta and sometimes they offer much less actual legal equality.

I do agree with you that the term "marriage" would be much easier understood and the question is obviously, what legal rights each country gives to same sex couples under the term "civil union", some of the rights being from legal representation to visitor rights in hospitals to adoption of children. So far, each country has different legal rights attached to the term "civil union".

However, besides the clear opposition from the religious organisations, there is a much broader problem with regards to the international accpetance: Even when your relationship will be called "marriage" in your home country, it does NOT mean that other countries will accept you as being married. I can't imagine islamic states to accept such marriages. I can't imagine Thailand to say "hey, we don't accept same sex unions or marriages, but because your country does, we will also do it for the foreigners"..

No way this will happen soon. When Switzerland discussed this "problem" (then naming of the relationship), the justice department clearly said, that all international bilateral treaties about recognition of one countries marriage in the other country (as it currently does between Switzerland and Thailand) would need to be revised in order to (for most countries) exclude same-sex "marriage" from those contracts.

Therefore, even if your home country calls your relationship a marriage for the ease of understanding, it does NOT mean that it will be of any help in countries that still oppose (don't recognize) same-sex relationships in their laws.

[Jingthing]

Good post, Swiss1960.

I acknowledge the power of religious bodies but my POV is that they have no business to mess with ANY government on earth.

Realistically, I know they do and always will.

But that's not the same thing as supporting that or thinking there is any good to that.

[Jingthing]

The point I was making ... OBVIOUSLY ... was that civil unions in actually often DO NOT translate into 100 percent equality to marriage in any given country. So internationally, unless you're some kind of super geek on international laws, if a gay couple from Boomfuchsylvania says we're "unioned" you don't know what percentage of legal rights they have in back in Boomfuchsylvania relative to married persons there.

These Maltese unions are Grade A ones, that's for sure, and again, congratulations to Malta for taking this big step.

If this detail was a trivial as some people think, then why is it that the clear trend in various countries is to start at some kind of unions and then eventually when people realize the world hasn't exploded, go on to marriage? As will Malta as well, it's just a matter of when.

Sorry Scott, you're right that this thread shouldn't get steered this way, but I felt I needed to clarify the issue of international understanding of what marriage actually is (everyone knows) vs. civil unions (varies a lot). That is real.

Cheers.

You don't get the point. The fight is - or should be - for equal rights. If the civil union in some countries does not offer that yet, it's work-in-progress. This does not change the fact that the fight is for equal rights, not for equal terminology.

Thinking that the term 'marriage' is the ultimate goal is a very US-American idea. Kerry was applauded when he said that same-sex marriages will be treated equally with opposite-sex marriages, buy civil unions won't! Europeans don't necessarily share that view but are appalled. But then, we give the US time to adjust to the 21st century. Kerry's announcement is seen as a first step into the right direction.

We've discussed this many times, please do not pretend you are not aware that your ideas are not shared across the world. Please stop lecturing that your US view should be shared by the whole world - you are not doing your country a favour. Instead, please open your mind to equal rights rather than equal terminology.

Contrary to what you suggest there, the goal for actual gay marriage is hardly only an American thing. It is clearly part of an INTERNATIONAL movement and trend.

In my opinion, in almost all or all nations that have reached the level of seeking or having legalized gay civil unions, the actual GOLD STANDARD goal is actually offering actual MARRIAGE actually called marriage to gay couples (as an option).

I get it that in some countries, there is the concept of having civil unions and marriage available to BOTH gays and straights, but really that is an outlying concept.

The clearly MAINSTREAM international concept, which BTW, certainly did NOT start in the USA, is that the best goal is actual marriage being available to gays.

Now of course compromises can very good too. Basically some kind of civil unions that have SOME of the rights of marriage, or ones that have all of them.

As we are speaking of MALTA here, here is evidence to support my POV:

...

Speaking to Malta Today, the MGRM said: “It is hugely disappointing that the [co-habitation] bill proposed does not accede to most of MGRM’s demands and fails to attain even the minimal level of recognition acceptable, that is civil unions at a par with marriage.”

http://purpleunions.com/blog/2012/08/malta-gay-activists-let-down-by-cohabitation-bill.html

Please examine that text closely. The implication is crystal clear. From Malta. The CLEAR best goal is actual marriage available to the gay people of Malta. Civil unions with full rights of marriage is the minimum acceptable. Civil unions without full rights of marriage is NOT acceptable.

Yes this is an older link about Malta, not reflective of the more current news. But the underlying point remains, the goal of gay activists in Malta was actual gay marriage, and you can bet the house, IT STILL IS. It might five years, it might take fifty, but you can be sure that is the direction Malta is going ... just as the U.K. made the graduation step as well.

If the above link expressed my point too indirectly, I have one that is much more direct.

Again ... expressing the ultimate desire of gay activists in MALTA:

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2012-07-01/news/we-are-seeking-marriage-equality-312401/

We Are: Seeking Marriage equality

Note well, not equality to marriage. Marriage equality.

They didn't get it ... yet ... so the aspiration continues.

Their aspiration is from their lovely Maltese hearts, there in lovely Malta.

Of course, again, this is GREAT NEWS from Malta. Not to be discounted. But clearly from the Maltese POV, the complete victory is not quite YET won.

Suggestion: any possible replies to this post, please keep it about Malta, and not about the USA, because this thread is about Malta. Thank you very much.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

JT, I give up. You are saying the same thing again without even stopping to think that rights are more important than terminology, and that people may not even want to use the term "marriage".

Please just note that you are not speaking for all of us, in particular not for me.

[Swiss1960]

JT, i have to agree with onthemoon. You are too obsessed with the word "marriage". Now I am not gay, but followed the discussion closely here in Switzerland when civil unions were introduced.

My point of view? The term marriage is to heavily loaded with all the religious crap and I think the way out is for lawmakers to say this: two people, no matter what sex, can create a civil union with a given set of rights and obligations towards each other and towards the state - and marriage is what the churches can offer / perform on top if they want.

This would finally give equal rights to all couples, take into account the segregation of church and states and stop the useless terminology discussion...

Sent from my HTC One XL using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited May 17, 2014 by Swiss1960

[Jingthing]

JT, I give up. You are saying the same thing again without even stopping to think that rights are more important than terminology, and that people may not even want to use the term "marriage".

Please just note that you are not speaking for all of us, in particular not for me.

I never suggested I speak for you personally, of course.

There is no position that everyone will agree on.

If you've got 60 percent support, you've got more than enough for anything in most democratic countries, that is a STRONG mandate.

Do I think that MOST gay people in countries where legal unions have become an issue do prefer actual and full MARRIAGE equality over civil unions?

Yes, I do. Very much so.

Just because a conservative vocal minority on this rather odd gay forum doesn't seem to be with this obvious majority, does not mean it does not exist.

I observe historical trends INTERNATIONALLY, and based on that I am totally convinced that in MOST cases when civil unions are the first step ... they are indeed the first step and the graduation step is full marriage equality.

To see that trend hardly makes me obsessive about marriage. It's just what has happened and surely what is likely to continue to happen.

The smart money is for Malta to have marriage equality within 50 years at the most, it would be extremely foolish to bet against that based on international trends.

Of course everyone knows civil unions are an easier sell to religious types, which largely explains the political utility of this compromise in so many countries.

Without the religion issue we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

JT, i have to agree with onthemoon. You are too obsessed with the word "marriage". Now I am not gay, but followed the discussion closely here in Switzerland when civil unions were introduced.

My point of view? The term marriage is to heavily loaded with all the religious crap and I think the way out is for lawmakers to say this: two people, no matter what sex, can create a civil union with a given set of rights and obligations towards each other and towards the state - and marriage is what the churches can offer / perform on top if they want.

This would finally give equal rights to all couples, take into account the segregation of church and states and stop the useless terminology discussion...

Sent from my HTC One XL using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I don't agree that the institution of marriage is useless and it does have a name and the name is marriage. If the terminology is irrelevant why is there often strong resistance to allowing gay people to use the same terminology as fellow citizens? Answer -- the terminology is not irrelevant. If it was the powers that be that resist it's use by gay people would not ever care.

Again, to be clear, in a previous post I have strongly connected the desire for actual marriage equality to the specific country of this topic ... Malta.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

JT, i have to agree with onthemoon. You are too obsessed with the word "marriage". Now I am not gay, but followed the discussion closely here in Switzerland when civil unions were introduced.

My point of view? The term marriage is to heavily loaded with all the religious crap and I think the way out is for lawmakers to say this: two people, no matter what sex, can create a civil union with a given set of rights and obligations towards each other and towards the state - and marriage is what the churches can offer / perform on top if they want.

This would finally give equal rights to all couples, take into account the segregation of church and states and stop the useless terminology discussion...

Sent from my HTC One XL using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I don't agree that the institution of marriage is useless and it does have a name and the name is marriage. If the terminology is irrelevant why is there often strong resistance to allowing gay people to use the same terminology as fellow citizens? Answer -- the terminology is not irrelevant. If it was the powers that be that resist it's use by gay people would not ever care.

Again, to be clear, in a previous post I have strongly connected the desire for actual marriage equality to the specific country of this topic ... Malta.

Please just admit that you are not getting the point... We understand your opinion but just have a different one. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

[Jingthing]

JT, i have to agree with onthemoon. You are too obsessed with the word "marriage". Now I am not gay, but followed the discussion closely here in Switzerland when civil unions were introduced.

My point of view? The term marriage is to heavily loaded with all the religious crap and I think the way out is for lawmakers to say this: two people, no matter what sex, can create a civil union with a given set of rights and obligations towards each other and towards the state - and marriage is what the churches can offer / perform on top if they want.

This would finally give equal rights to all couples, take into account the segregation of church and states and stop the useless terminology discussion...

Sent from my HTC One XL using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I don't agree that the institution of marriage is useless and it does have a name and the name is marriage. If the terminology is irrelevant why is there often strong resistance to allowing gay people to use the same terminology as fellow citizens? Answer -- the terminology is not irrelevant. If it was the powers that be that resist it's use by gay people would not ever care.

Again, to be clear, in a previous post I have strongly connected the desire for actual marriage equality to the specific country of this topic ... Malta.

Please just admit that you are not getting the point... We understand your opinion but just have a different one. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

I accept it fully as your opinion. I don't have to AGREE with it just as you don't have to agree with mine. Also, just because your opinion may enjoy majority support (from gay and non-gay members) on this odd and very poorly attended forum is no evidence at all that it enjoys the same majority support among gay people in most of the nations who are at the point of working towards (or already have) legal unions and/or same sex marriage. Like what happened in the UK recently, the GRADUATION to marriage equality. I simply will never believe that did not enjoy majority support among the gay people of the UK. It seems to have majority support in the entire population, so it's obvious among gays, the support must have been even higher, likely MUCH higher.

Perhaps it is you who do not understand me. Even though I have said this before, maybe one more time. OF COURSE the gay people of Malta have plenty to celebrate in their recent massive achievement there. I do not mean to minimize that. But, I am just saying I doubt it's over and I doubt it's the final step.

We might agree there is no point in any further discussion on this aspect of this topic. It's not as if anyone's mind is going to be changed!

Cheers.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Jingthing