I believe in marriage

Sandro Mangion, the co-ordinator of the Malta Gay Rights Movement, wants the gay community to partake in the “richness of marriage”, because as things stand, the gay drain is sending more Maltese homosexuals to more tolerant countries

Sandro Mangion’s defence of the institution of marriage is music to the ears of any traditionalist who believes in the “richness of marriage”. The co-ordinator of the Malta Gay Rights Movement, Mangion does not consider marriage an outdated institution. Like most traditionalists he believes that cohabitation is not an alternative to marriage. And while critics of this institution point out at declining marriage rates in Europe, the international gay and lesbian movement is calling for a revitalisation of this institution through the recognition of same sex marriage. Is this not ironic?
“Yes it is ironic. Especially when one considers that while some heterosexuals are fighting for the right to divorce the homosexual community is fighting for the right to get married. Yet apart from the irony I don’t see a direct relationship between the two phenomena. Just as most heterosexuals who choose to marry do not intend to divorce, not all homosexuals want to marry. Many homosexuals want to remain single. We are simply fighting for the right to marry.”
And yet, nothing stops gay couples from simply living together, so why all this fuss about marriage?
“Marriage is attractive because it gives social validation,” Mangion candidly states. “It validates the love between you and the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. Through marriage society is saying: I recognise that there is love and commitment between you and the other person.”
But can’t gays simply get their rights through a less controversial adjustment in the law endowing all cohabiting partners with certain rights and obligations. Even the MLP and AD in Malta agree with such a change. Why risk a culture war in the name of gay marriage?
“Many ask what makes a married couple different from couples who simply cohabit. Through simple changes in legislation, it would be possible for cohabiting couples to get certain rights without even marrying. Laws can be changed to ensure that when one of the partners dies the other would automatically inherit. Laws can be changed to enable one of the partners to take major decisions in case the other partner’s ability to take decisions is seriously impaired through sickness.
“As things stand now a gay person who has been living with his partner for decades has no say on life and death decisions regarding the therapy of the his or her partner. I describe these as the riches of marriage. I don’t think heterosexual couples marry for these things. At least I hope not. They don’t say: let’s get married so that we could make a joint income tax declaration. They don’t say: let’s get married for the sake of inheriting each other’s property. These are the riches of marriage not the richness of marriage. We want the richness and not just the riches of married life.”
Sandro Mangion considers the introduction of same sex marriages in Spain as very encouraging for the Maltese gay and lesbian community. “Apart from being EU members, Malta and Spain are similar in various ways. Both of them have a Catholic tradition and both of them are Latin Mediterranean countries. The time will come when even Malta will treat its citizens equally.”
Yet many still consider the demand for gay marriages as a threat to the institution of marriage. “I don’t think heterosexuals need our help to destroy the institution of marriage. They can do this by themselves.”
Some argue that the social meaning of the word marriage has always been understood as bond involving a man and a woman, so who are we to reinvent the wheel? Conservatives describe the gay demand for marriage as another experiment in social engineering aimed at changing the natural order of things.
Sandro Mangion’s reply smacks of the optimism associated with the philosophers of the enlightenment. He gives the standard answer the philosophers have given since the 18 century. “Society is moving forward not backwards. There was a time when marriage between blacks and whites was not allowed. So did society regress when it accepted mixed racial marriages? There was a time when women were treated like second-class citizens. Society is evolving and the more we understand each other the more we adjust social structures and lifestyles to give dignity to everyone.”
The Spanish bishops have made a marked distinction between heterosexuals and homosexual couples. According to the bishops “a married couple producing and educating their children contributes in an irreplaceable way to the growth and stability of society.” On the other hand, “a homosexual couple could never have such characteristics.”
Sandro Mangion lays down the statistics: “The homosexual community is composed of 5 to 10 per cent of the population, 40,000 men and women in Malta. Let us assume that all these marry - something very unlikely. Are we saying that 20,000 couples will destroy our future as they will not produce children? This is the mentality of the Catholic Church, which associates sex with procreation and the perpetuation of the human race.
“The Church is free to believe in this but it should not expect civil society and the state to exclude anyone. Producing children is not the only criteria for calculating the contribution of households towards society. Is the Church stating that heterosexual households composed of two persons do not contribute anything to society? I can speak about current social realities. There are gay and lesbian couples in Malta who are rearing children in a loving way. Are these not also contributing to society?”
In this aspect Spanish legislation is the most far reaching in Europe as it allows adoption. But would this be feasible in a conservative society like Malta? Would allowing gays and lesbians to adopt young children who will be brought up in homosexual households mean allowing them to be exposed to the discrimination of the rest of society. One could only imagine the comments of their peers.
“So using the same logic was it wrong when years ago some parents started adopting children from Pakistan? It was obvious that these children were being exposed to a discriminatory racist society. So should we have denied these children from the love of a family? I don’t think that anybody thinks that these should have been denied a loving home. Children should not be denied the opportunity of being reared by a loving family because of the wrongs of society.”
Sandro also points out that the greatest incidence of violence against children is found in heterosexual families. “If someone wants to present the heterosexual family as a ‘sacra famiglia’ and same sex marriage as an intrinsic evil they should consider the facts. In my opinion being a good parent does not depend on whether one is married even if I believe in marriage and I want to get married. Nor does it depend on one’s sexual orientation.”
But is the gay and lesbian community sending the right message to society? In the media gays and lesbians participating in gay parades are often portrayed as transgressive and promiscuous. Don’t these images conflict with the Malta Gay Rights Movement’s attempt to portray gays as loving parents?
“It is a fact that the gay community is full of diversities. All minorities are full of diversities. Society always forgets this. When a black man vandalises a telephone box in Valletta we tend to blame all blacks… but when a white person does the same thing we say Mr so-and-so did this. I cannot fight for the acceptance of diversities without accepting the diversity within the gay community. Just as among heterosexual women one finds members of the MUSEUM, nuns, prostitutes, women in business suits and women dressed in mini-skirts flouting their body, one finds anything in the gay community and I am wary of being judgmental.
“It is also obvious and natural that the most striking images attract the media. A camera during a gay parade would focus on the most flamboyant protestors. Two gays walking together in Republic street holding hands would attract far less attention than someone who is very camp. It is a fact that the homosexual community is not homogenous.”
So was the election of Pope Benedict XVI a shock for the gay and lesbian community?
“Ratzinger was the driving force behind hostile comments passed by the previous pope. Some described these comments as hate language. I will limit myself to calling these declarations hostile. He even associated us with evil. The Spanish church has gone as far as using the word virus when speaking about homosexual persons. This is not very Christian.
“But at the same time the way people are responding to these declarations fills us with courage. Despite the election of Ratzinger, polls in Spain show that 62 per cent of the population supports same sex marriages. This shows that while many people identify with the Catholic Church they don’t believe in all the things preached by the Church. Do you think all Catholics believe the pope is infallible? Do you think that all the youths who cheered the pope never used a condom?”
But doesn’t the Vatican have a right to make its views clear on what is a sensitive issue.
“What I find unacceptable is that the Vatican State is contesting the decision of the democratically elected government of Spain. Whoever wants to follow the church is free to do so.”
The Spanish Church is also telling Catholic civil servants not to collaborate in the implementation of this law. Don’t these have a right for an objection based on what their conscience says?
“Let’s just imagine the majority of the Maltese population adhering to the Jehovah witnesses’ faith. In that case should a doctor professing this faith have the right to deny a life-saving blood transfusion to a Catholic? What would a Catholic Maltese say in this case? Should this doctor have a right to object because he believes blood transfusions are morally wrong?”
But is it not contradictory for someone believing in freedom of conscience for all humans including gay and lesbian people?
“Anybody who does not agree with this law has the freedom to resign from his job. He should make space for people who understand that the world is changing. There is no greater danger than the arrogance of those who believe that they possess the absolute truth. These persons are intolerant towards anyone challenging their certainties and truths. I do understand those who raise moral objections and refuse to perform work which violates their conscience but there is a price to pay. In my journalistic work I did risk my job by refusing to do things which I considered immoral. I had to face the consequences.”
But do you accept the rights of minorities to object to unfair laws? Does this not also apply to Catholics whether they are in the minority or in the majority?
“One cannot expect a democratic government to bow in front of a minority which wants to deny others of their rights by imposing their morality on others. I would agree with Catholics refusing to perform their duties if this meant collaborating in denying anyone of his or her rights. As a minority we expect respect for our rights but we do not expect the government to impose our morality on others. We never make demands which deprive others of their rights. Our demand for gay marriages is a call for an extension and not for a restriction of rights. When we demand the right to marry, we are simply demanding participation in the institution of marriage. We are saying that we value marriage so much that we want to share this value with others.”
But in Holland only 10 per cent of the 50,000 registered gay and lesbian couples are actually making the use of the law. Are gays simply engaged in a cultural struggle to spite the institutions?
“Numbers do not make a difference. It’s the principle that counts. The principle that our love is as valuable as any other expression of love. We are speaking of love between adults.”
When one considers that other European countries like Belgium, Holland, Spain are giving more rights to gay and lesbian people, is there a risk that the best gay and lesbian minds in the island will leave Malta? Does Malta risk a gay drain?
“This is already happening. Most of the persons closest to me are leaving. They are seeking greener pastures in more tolerant countries, countries respecting human dignity. In Malta we are expected to pay taxes like anyone else but we are not treated like everyone else. In other European countries we can express our full potential. In the end it is the country which is losing talent and human resources. It is a known fact that gay and lesbian people give a great contribution in sectors like the media, culture, the arts, show business, business and even politics… the country cannot afford to lose their talents. But everything indicates that this phenomenon will increase.”
Do you believe that pressure from the EU works?
“Yes in fact it helped a lot when it came to the Employment Equality Directive. At first the government insisted that there was no need to change the Industrial Relations Act. After pressure from our friends in the European Parliament two legal notices were issued to change the law. Before May 2004 we had the strength of the 40,000 gay and lesbians living in Malta. Now we have the strength of the millions who form the European gay and lesbian community.”
But in Europe gay politicians have no problems coming out. The mayors of Paris and Berlin are gay. So is the leader of the Italian Green Party, as was Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch anti-immigration right-winger. In some cases this is even seen as a political bonus.
“In Malta gays are everywhere. But declaring one’s sexual identity is risky. One risks losing popularity, power and friendships.”
But everybody knows that some politicians are gay. People still vote for them. Why do they refrain from stating the obvious?
“Some of the most popular and loved singers, actors, artists, media people and politicians are homosexual. Personally I believe that coming out in public is a good thing. Even if one stands to lose false friendships, coming to terms with one’s sexual orientation is on the whole a positive experience. By coming out one gains a sense of freedom. Only than can one express one’s full potential.
“By keeping one’s sexual orientation a secret one can be exposed to blackmail. This is very dangerous in politics and business. The risks are enormous. People holding positions of responsibility who keep their sexual orientation a secret end up in being in a very vulnerable position. I appeal to all these people to come out. People will only respect you more for being honest. There is a need for positive gay role models. People will start getting used to successful gay and lesbian people.”