Gay marriage and the end of the PN
During these last two or three weeks, Maltese society ended up discussing same sex marriage. In truth, whether gays should be allowed to marry has ceased to be an issue. For the Nationalist Party, this has become a question of grave concern.
Dr Simon Mercieca is senior lecturer, Department of History any among the rank and file of the party are considering the stand taken by Simon Busuttil as a betrayal of the party statutes, where it is explicitly stated that the PN should follow a Christian Democratic policy. Those in support of this law are insisting that all Nationalist MPs should follow the party whip.
It now appears that situation among the Nationalist MPs is not straight forward as this vote goes against the very basis of the conservative principles of the PN. Many are openly declaring that Busuttil‘s leadership smacks of Communist tactics. Therefore, Wednesday’s vote has implications that go beyond issues of terminologies and whether father and mother can be both used for heterosexual and individuals of same sex marriages.
I agree with those within the rank and file of the party who are stating that this law does not propagate any issue of legal equity. First of all, there are basic differences between heterosexual marriages and same sex marriages. Once heterosexual marriages are no longer the sole established norm, then, all other forms of marriage should be admissible. If the Government believes in equality, as the Prime Minister is repeatedly stating, then this government should allow for polygamous and polymorphous relationships. It should also allow for individuals to marry non-human beings whether animals or objects. Even incest should cease to be illegal. Individuals should be allowed to marry their parents or siblings.
The heterosexual marriage is primarily a marriage contracted for the creation of a family and/or the procreation of children. Same sex marriages are by their very nature biologically sterile. Therefore, nature itself is putting these two different sexual relationships on an unequal platform. More importantly, the changes proposed in this law will not achieve equity.
They represent only an attempt to enforce a male hegemony, whether straight or gay because when one looks at the wording of this law, it reflects in toto masculine diction. This is probably the most innovative aspect.
Traditional marriage by its very nature is female oriented. It was the structure adopted in the past to accommodate women. In the past, marriage gave women the right to a dowry. More important, it was considered the medium through which women became mothers. This brings in another important aspect, that of the right of inheritance.
The word marriage in English derives from the Latin word “mater” meaning mother. This law is seeking to annihilate such an important concept under the guise of progress. Statistics are now showing that the majority is seeking to support the institution of marriage.
Meanwhile, a small clique within the Nationalist Party, instead of supporting those who believe in the value of the family, has decided to challenge its own conservative voters. Those in favour of this law are presenting tradition as something “obsolete”. To further worsen the situation in this debate, these Nationalist MPs are painting traditional marriage as an inconvenience or a hindrance to progress.
Just like when Russia embraced Communism, the social changes proposed are being sold as being progressive. This was how economic and social changes in Russia and the rest of the Communist world were sold after the Russian Revolution in 1917.
This reform reminds me of a story that happened in a cafe in Vienna. Two gentlemen, Joseph Schumpeter and Max Weber, old friends, sat at a table discussing the latest reforms in Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution. Both were enthusiastic about what was happening in this country and were eager to read the news. Max Weber was convinced that this revolution would bring great change to Russia and the world, but was extremely worried about the thousands of casualties resulting from this revolution. Schumpeter too was enthusiastic but for different reasons. He saw Russia as a laboratory where social and economic change was going to be experimented. But unlike Weber, he had a different view. He saw in these reforms a recipe for disaster. In hearing Schumpeter’s argument, Weber felt personally offended to the extent that he rose from the table, pulled down his hat savagely on his head and left without even saluting his old friend. The two never spoke to each other again.
Schumpeter was a great economist and father of neoliberalism whose theories were put into practice years after his death with great success. Weber was a sociologist who held Marxist thoughts. This discussion about equality in sexual norms appeals to Socialists and leftist groups. For this reason, I can understand Labour wanting to propagate and experiment with these ideas. But they do not appeal to parties who declare that they hold conservative principles. The truth is that after the fiasco of the Russian revolution, no one in his right mind applies the ideals of equality to the economy. Socialists, however, still think that they can apply them in the field of sociology.
What is forgotten is that even progressive social mores were introduced back then in the name of equality. To achieve this aim, there are those now considering themselves Marxist thinkers who have the tendency to depict tradition and conservatives as some sort of social inconveniences that needs to be destroyed. This is why I am convinced that by embracing these thoughts, the PN has now entered into an auto-destructive mode.
Whatever appears patriarchal is depicted as negative and since fatherhood and motherhood promote biological disparity, they are now time-barred. However, when it comes to politics, those who claim themselves to be progressives, do not have gay MPs nor did they did present any transgender candidate. On the contrary, Labour’s political campaign ended with a manifestation of the patriarchal model of the family. Joseph Muscat, together with his wife and children took centre stage. For many, this may appear as a contradiction in terms. In truth, what is known as the traditional family model is a strong social construct and it is wrong for the PN to have joined the chorus to destroy it. Ironically, Labour knows how to be traditional far more than the PN. This is why Labour’s technique is winning, because it is playing a dual role.
Speaking in patriarchal terms, the same individuals who paraded the traditional family role model at the end of each campaign meeting are now attacking the conservatives for being non-inclusive. Instead of unmasking this political hypocrisy, the Nationalist Party has now joined the Labour bandwagon in this suicidal law. Thus who want to stick to conservative principles are being branded traitors by a liberal faction within the PN that was never interested in the common good but was solely interested in sailing with the wind and lining its pockets. Conservatives now risk being attacked and labelled homophobic or heterosexist for standing up for the biological family.
The PN is today victim of the political confusion, which the party itself has created by embracing these pseudo-Marxist thoughts. The Nationalist Party is today victim of lobbies. Instead of gaining brownie points out of the gender confusion that Labour is creating, it continues to lose support. Muscat is now stating that he is sticking to his party progressive principles. The PN has no more principles to fight back, since under the leadership of Simon Busuttil, all the PN principles were thrown to the wolves. More disturbing is that shady PN characters are being allowed to assume a moralist role.
French historian, Pierre Chaunu states that population increases or decreases in two ways: through the umbilical cord or through the cultural code. The first implies sexual copulation between heterosexuals. The second that sexual desires are regulated by cultural codes that are being transmitted through language.
What this law seeks to achieve is to control sexuality through a new cultural programme. The problem here is that this new cultural code is being created by individuals, whose sexuality, is considered by demographers, as sterile by its very nature.