On the issue of marriage, gay or otherwise

by Dr. Michael Asciak

It seems that Parliament is to meet fast after the election and it also seems that one of the first issues on the agenda is that of gay marriage. Now let me make some things clear from the start. I am not against some kind of arrangement or civil union for gay people, I am not against any kind of dialogue and rapprochement with them, I am against any type of discrimination against anyone for that matter. I feel sorry for the discriminatory way the world has treated LGBTQI people in the past and I feel I ought to apologise for any such behaviour from others. Even in the Church of which I am a lay member, let me be clear that I am not against any of this bridge building to the point that the Church should welcome everyone with good intentions, that the Church encourages real relationships as long as the distinction between the moral object and the moral act is maintained. I am ready to accept blessing of relationships, Holy Communion, LGBTQI prayer groups and Masses as long as the distinction between moral object and moral act is maintained.

I am ready to accept even the adoption of children in contingent, not necessary, situations (the difference between necessity and contingency is an important distinction in philosophy and I use this distinction entirely within this context) but I question whether the Church can ever stand where secular society stands today on the matter of gay marriage. If the relationship between two men or two women is ever called a marriage then what would one call the relationship between a man and a woman that God created, because in all respects, it is not and can never be, the same! I am a human being and a human person with full natural rights, but being diabetic I can never exert my right to eat cake, ice cream, bread, sweets, chocolate, pasta and several other goodies in the same amount like other people. We all have restrictions imposed on us by our nature or nurturing development, genetic or epigenetic!

I am writing this letter to try to activate a dialogue because to have gay marriage introduced to our society without any form of dialogue, especially as it seems that all Members of Parliament might be voting in favour not to upset the party applecart. This smacks of political conformity that is idiotic, far from democratic and more akin to the democracy in North Korea. I always say that if everyone agrees with something then some people must not be thinking at all! The Labour party has made this issue one of its siren calls for its own reasons but ought the PN to follow suit without a proper discussion and questioning of this issue, because I know for a fact that many of its supporters are asking profound questions on this single issue? Make no mistake, my hobby is sailing and I know which way the wind is blowing. It is not my intention to obstruct the passing of this law or to hurt anyone by what I say, but the PN and society ought to realise that there are other people who have a different ethical take on this issue, as it provides a watershed in social behaviour and its effects. These people have a right to have their say in accord with their own ethical beliefs. But how are these people supposed to vote on an issue that goes against their ethical beliefs without betraying their own consciences and such beliefs? What is there left to live for then, money, power or social benefits?

The issue might be construed as a religious one, and even on those grounds people of a religious persuasion have a right to make their voice heard, but this goes beyond religion. It is an issue steeped in anthropology, in philosophy, in psychology and in sociology. It is a question for anyone with a pair of eyes to see that a gender norm exists, and for those such as me who rationally accept principles of normative ethics, that norm has a natural outcome. The outcome of an exclusive physical and emotional binding union between a man and a women resulting in a special communal relationship called ‘marriage’. Nothing can compare to it, nothing ever will. The marriage relationship is not only an emotional outlet for love and charity but it also includes an obligation, and that obligation is to provide a home for the natural fruits of that relationship. Marriage is not only composed of the rights of fidelity and love of the couple or “fides” but also the rights and obligation of “proles” or procreation. This is singular to marriage and can never be replicated by anyone of whatever other sex at least not in the human race (parthenogenesis not known to happen). Therefore, the rights and obligations of marriage are in tandem with the couple who bring children into the world and are responsible for raising them as the children normally receive their own individual identity from being raised by their genetic parents. It is their singular right entrenched in the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child (which we have signed). There are contingencies for which we have laws. This singular obligation of marriage cannot be replicated by any other form of relationship because the dissonance between the fides and the proles parts of a marriage changes the nature of the relationship. Other forms of relationships may exist but not a marriage by self-definition. Again I am here talking about necessity not the contingency of couples who cannot have children through no fault of their own! That is still marriage because the absence of proles is a contingent issue beyond the intention of the married couples. This is what I and many other Maltese people believe.

Now if Joseph Muscat wants to go ahead with this for his own political reasons, well let him. It seems that the Labour Party is not prone to much ethical behaviour judging by the way that they behaved before and during the electoral campaign. If any within the PN want to go along with this issue, then let them, they have a right to their own views. However, what about those people in the PN who are against this issue of marriage between two people of the same sex? Should we be forced to agree with this situation as well and forced to vote for it to boot! I think not! I therefore publicly ask the party to sort this out through internal dialogue and reason. To allow the space for everyone to express their views is only an element of real democracy and if there are MPs who wish to vote against this issue, or at least not vote in favour in Parliament, they should be given a free vote and allowed to do so. I am against any witch hunting and those who like me believe that there are natural rights based on natural law and based on right reason and have their reasons to abstain from voting in favour of, or wish to vote against this law, then the PN should give them the right to do so. We are not a herd of cattle but neither are we trees and, not being trees, we have a right to move where our ethical beliefs take us!

I am very aware that following the recognition of the right of gay people to marry, other so-called rights that are not in line with natural law will directly follow, like the right to have children. Since children cannot be had by natural means, they will be had by other possible ones – so much for the fides part of the relationship. If the proles part they wish to enjoin involves having children through third parties through IVF, gamete donation and even worse through the slavery of surrogacy, then bang goes the children’s’ rights of identity by their genetic parents. If this right goes, then so does the right to life of innocent early human life, because embryo freezing will be made legal to facilitate the rights of LGBTQI couples, as not many female egg donors are willing to go through the dangerous and painful hyperstimulation process procedures just to donate eggs for use by others. Therefore, extra embryos left over after embryo freezing in IVF become an essential item, which then justifies the introduction of embryo freezing during IVF, which although not currently needed because egg freezing is just as efficient, leads the Labour Party strangely enough, to be already committed to, wonder of wonders, embryo freezing. The slippery slope to “A Brave New World” is then in place and we create a world of human products with few rights, rather than human beings with personal rights. I ask the PN to please allow me to disagree with this developing scenario and to allow others who think like me to do the same! If not, and the gay marriage proposal is carried, please allow someone to table a Bill in Parliament which calls the relationship between a man and a woman something else other than marriage, because it would not be a marriage according to the new law, but something else entirely for which we might want to find a modern appropriate neologism!

michael.asciak@parlament.mt

 

“The crisis we experienced started the day abortion became law”: Jaime Mayor Oreja

The Symphony of Life is a tribute to the French doctor Jérôme Lejeune, discoverer of the genetic cause of Down syndrome.

“Doctors who continue to practice abortions would ask them if they believe that ending a life helps the mother”: The winner of the II One Of Us Prize, John Bruschalski

 

 
On May 27th, Budapest gathered around 600 representatives of life-support organizations from all over Europe at the II European Forum of One of Us, with the main goal to show the support of many Europeans for the policy developed by governments such as Hungary or Poland in favor of life, family and motherhood.  

 

Jaime Mayor Oreja, President of the Federation One of Us, affirmed that “The crisis we experienced started the day abortion became law: from there, the doors open to the imposition of gender ideology  and all those trends that attack the person and the values ​​of true humanism.  Here we are the ones that do not resign ourselves, we come to look at the roots of the crisis and to face them.”

María San Gil, former deputy in the Basque Parliament and a member of the Values ​​and Society Foundation, said: “Today we defend that life is not the heritage of any ideology and in its defense we have to be absolutely radical. The world has values ​​that deserve to be radically defended, that we do not use double meanings, double arguments, that we do not have complexes of any type and we defend them from the front, with truth and with forcefulness.” 

The One of Us Forum concluded with a presentation of its vision of the future, in which the political and social context has changed, but values ​​and convictions can not be absent from the European and national public debate.

The Symphony of Life arrives in Budapest promoted by the European Federation One of Us

The musical work, promoted by the Spanish association Symphony Orchestra and Choir JMJ, is a tribute to the French doctor Jérôme Lejeune, discoverer of the genetic cause of Down syndrome and great defender of life.

The composition has been made by the Spanish Carlos Criado and the Russian Kuzma Bodrov, and for its execution has required the presence of more than 300 musicians on stage.

In addition to the musicians of the JMJ Symphony Orchestra and their choir, the Children’s Choir of the Hungarian State Opera and the Vox Mirabilis Choir in Budapest have also taken part in the performance of the Symphony.

One of Us gives the II European Prize “A hero of the life” to the American doctor John Bruchalski

This year also gave the One of Us ‘A Hero of Life’ Prize to the American doctor John Bruschalski, a former abortionist doctor, who currently runs one of the United States’ life-support medical centers, the Tepeyac Family Center.

Dr Bruschalski spent part of his professional life promoting abortion until he felt a complete disregard for what he was doing: “I do not see happiness and joy in my clinic. More abortions means more broken relationships, more infections, more destruction, more bitterness” says the Hero of Life.

Dr. Bruchalski: “Doctors who continue to practice abortions would ask them if they believe that ending a life helps the mother. It is very hard for a mother not to worry about her son, and I would ask them if they really think that abortion is the best answer; If they do not believe there are better solutions, and if you are interested, contact me.”

 

The ONE OF US European Federation brought together more than 600 people in Budapest for the second European forum for life. It was placed under the high patronage of the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán and the minister for Families, Katalin Novák.

The forum brought together Europe at the service of life: European and national politicians, associative personalities, health and ethics experts, all gathered around the theme “Protecting life: the heart of a new cultural debate”.

The forum has revived the debate on issues of life in Europe and on the strongness of values, being at the forefont of the debate the protection of vulnerable human life . The forum also sent a message of support to governments developping policies to defend human life.

During the opening of the Forum, Bence Rétvari, Hungarian Minister of Human Capacities: “I am pleased that ONE OF US has chosen our city to hold its forum. We, Hungarians,The are proud that Budapest is the capital of families … The Defense of life is one of the most important values ​​in Europe, we have added it in the Hungarian constitution by committing a fundamental declaration upholding human dignity. For the stakes of life, you can always count on Hungary.”

Jaime Mayor Oreja, President of the UN FEDERATION, reminded us that “the crisis we are experiencing began the day abortion became a right, from there the doors were opened for the gender ideology, GPA and all those ideas that go against humanism. We are the ones who refuses to accept this situation and want to fight the roots of the crisis”.

Malta was represented by Dr. Miriam Sciberras, Chairperson of Life Network Foundation Malta.

https://www.oneofus.eu/

A survey was sent to each and every candidate asking them about their position on life issues.

Here are the results:

Court of Justice to Hear One of Us Application

 

• One of Us requests that the European Court of Justice rules whether the European Commission erred on the decision to refuse the submission of the proposal of the European Citizens’ Initiative One of us to the European Parliament for its debate

• The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:30 am in the courtroom of the Blue Court before an extended composition of judges.

• The European Commission’s refusal to act on the initiative One of Us, one of the most supported in history since the creation of this instrument in 2012, has called into question the legitimacy of the European Citizens’ Initiatives

 

Brussels, 12 may 2017. – The One of Us European Federation is pleased to announce that the Court of Justice of the European Union will be hearing the One of Us application on Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 9:30 in its Blue Court room with an extended composition of judges. The case surrounds the question of whether the European Commission erred in refusing to submit the One of Us proposal to the European Parliament for debate.

The One of Us European Citizenship Initiative [ECI] has been 1 of only 3 successful initiatives undertaken since the instrument was launched in 2012. With more than 1.7 million certified statements of support, One of Us has been the most successful Citizenship Initiative in history. The Initiative sought the legal protection of the dignity, the right to life and the integrity of every human being from the moment of conception in areas of EU competence.

The European Citizenship Initiative was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon in recognition of the perceived democratic deficit in the European Union. It allowed for the possibility of direct democratic participation of European citizens in the development of EU policies.

The Commission’s refusal to take action on the successful One of Us ECI, despite it being the most supported ECI in history, has brought into question the legitimacy of the ECI all together. President of the One of Us Citizen’s Committee, Dr. Gregor Puppinck, commenting on the case before the Luxembourg court stated: “This case is about protecting the ECI from bureaucratic discrimination where the voices and tireless effort of European citizens to introduce legislation that matters to them is not thwarted because the Commission find the subject matter of the proposal politically inconvenient”. The highly anticipated ruling in this case will determine whether the ECI is indeed an instrument of democratic participation or whether it is in fact dead letter

 Contact 
+34 645734423
www.oneofus.eu

Can you imagine a world in which only scientists considered climate change; where only women cared about women’s issues; where just children held opinions about other children; where only farmers cared about animal welfare; a world in which only Catholics had an opinion on the value of human life?

The way some opine about abortion within the pro-choice (pro-abortion) and pro-euthanasia movements, you would think such a strange world actually existed. Such people describe a universe in which people blindly support causes, from which they may never deviate and for which they must somehow “take the blame” since such issues are important to them, topics about which they might have a broad knowledge.

That is the kind of world that some wish us to think that Catholics, for instance, inhabit. As a vociferous commenter on many subjects, Martin Scicluna, an inhabitant of this curious universe, recently launched a salvo against pro-lifers, including Ivan Padovani and myself. For some reason, he felt it necessary to name and lamely try to shame people who respect life, to make some kind of “examples” of us.

Unlike Scicluna, none of us might disingenuously claim never to ignore comments made regarding their articles. It was obvious from his approach that he did read our comments and that he was clearly bothered by them on behalf of womankind. The sort of article he wrote is a common occurrence these days.

The label “religious fundamentalist” is often bandied about, now the standard liberal way to describe anybody with whom they disagree. And what about those with no religious faith who respect human life? What kind of “fundamentalists” are they? Since Scicluna raised the issue of religion, clearly, his own brand of Catholicism never prevents him from taking the opposite view.

Those making such accusations fail to check themselves in their determination to sully the reputations of those who fully support life. It is blatantly obvious that, in their often nasty verbal attacks upon pro-lifers, they are themselves attempting to ensure that their own opinions are taken seriously and, indeed, to be imposed upon society through the making of statutes. Yet, they have the gall to accuse pro-lifers expressing their own opinions as “imposing” on others.

Whatever happened to basic respect for humanity? Humanists claim to respect human rights. Yet, the most basic right – the right to life – is carefully presented as non-existent, though only for the unborn segment of humanity. Only the “actual born” may have rights – any rights they like. For unborn life, the lack of laws which provide protection is cited as their sole reason why no such laws should be enacted.

This right to life is further eroded by deliberately dehumanising life before birth. Many humanists deny the most basic science surrounding human reproduction, always pointing the finger at religious fundamentalists as the authors of such truths solidly backed up by science. They cover their ears and eyes to avoid truthful facts, the inconvenient and most basic facts of life.

Cheap, sarcastic, unscientific remarks about sperm and eggs being on a par with human embryos are commonplace among those in denial about human biology. In a post-truth era (that is, where truth is no longer the most important objective of discourse), even the widely-known medical complications which result directly from the effects abortion has on a woman’s body, such as the vastly-increased risk of breast cancer, are dismissed as fiction by pro-abortionists. This has less to do with the fact that they know it is true and more to do with their claim that such facts are “scare tactics” invented by Catholics, so somehow unworthy of belief.

Similar overreactions occur concerning pictures or videos exposing truths about abortion. Though clear evidence, and despite their factual bases, these too are described as “scare tactics”. This comes from people who insist that all facts be known by women considering the life-changing decision to abort their unborn human children. They are very careful which facts get presented and which do not – facts required to make decisions, remember; life-changing also for the unborn child.

Pro-abortionists push abortion for their own reasons, the debate flooded with scare stories, erroneously suggesting women die through not having abortions. So why do so many die during abortions? Why do many abortions go wrong? Strange that they never mention these things.

Pro-lifers are not women-haters. Pro-life women, including mothers, are called misogynists for opposing the culture of death.  And not all who are pro-lifers are religious. They never seek to “impose” themselves on others, yet, are obliged to allow the culture of death to be imposed upon them.

Note this particularly demeaning humanist description of unborn human life, directly attacking humanity: “meaningless clumps of cells, worth no more respect than drops of blood”.

When challenged to ask their mothers exactly what they were carrying in the womb, humanists refuse or else invent a response. Neither would they challenge pregnant women by telling them what “meaningless parasites” they bear.

Rest assured that such descriptions, reducing the unborn to virtually nothing, come from those claiming to represent humanity while simultaneously denying that humanity, including their own.

Spin and sarcasm remain the stock in trade of the average pro-abortionist. Facts and basic truths are irrelevant to them; they distort what is said by pro-lifers in their attempts to discredit them.

How can one have a fair debate on the value of human life if we cannot even agree that life in the womb is human? Show me, with unequivocal evidence, that the “material of a pregnancy” or “contents of a uterus” are alien and I shall listen up!

Gerry Cowie is a teacher of English

A 1 day Pro-Life seminar was recently organised by Life Network Foundation Malta at Dar tal-Providenza, Siggiewi where local Pro-Life groups networked together in order to discuss the road ahead relating to important Life issues. Strategies for cultural change were also discussed. Dr. Miriam Sciberras invites all supporters and friends to join Life Network in order to build a force for defending life!

The One of Us Federation claims in the European Parliament the urgent need of our society to defend and protect human life, women and maternity

• Throughout these days it has become clear that the defence and protection of human life and women in their motherhood are matters of concern to the citizens of the different countries of the European Union
• In the absence of solutions by public authorities, member organizations of the One Of Us Federation take up the baton to support, and protect women until the institutions decide to take concrete and effective measures to protect motherhood.
• The public authorities must understand that the development of our society must be based on the protection of fundamental human rights, whose maximum expression is the defence of human life.

Brussels, March 23rd 2017. The One of Us Federation has participated in the 7th edition of the Week for Life at the European Parliament in Brussels. As in previous years, the One of Us Federation has had a special presence and participation in the European Parliament raising the voice, through the delegates of the organizations of the different countries that meet each year in the seat of the Parliament and whose main mission is the defence and protection of life.

Throughout this session the One of Us Federation, through a wide participation of the delegations of the different countries, has made it clear in the seat of the European Parliament – and therefore in the seat of the European citizens – through its representatives, that the defence and protection of human life and women in their motherhood are matters of concern to the citizens of the different countries of the European Union. Likewise, the report of commercial practices which seek to take up positions in the EU countries, through surrogacy, has been clearly described as practices involving the commercialization of women, their maternity, and their child.

In different panels shown, the lack of protection of life is seen as evident, a life that, today more than ever, is attacked in its different stages: the embryonic stage and the final stage of it. The need for protection of women in their maternity, as the great neglected by public authorities, shows how essential the involvement of social organizations that every day provide assistance, in different areas, to women in their maternity is.

Thus, in the absence of solutions by public authorities, the mediation by member organizations of the One Of Us Federation to support, and protect women in the various EU countries has become absolutely necessary and urgent, at least until the institutions decide to take concrete and effective measures to protect motherhood.

The One of Us Federation publicly states its concern about the practices that leave human life unprotected, and asks the public authorities for their urgent intervention so that the development of our societies should be based on their progress through the protection of Fundamental human rights, whose maximum expression is the defence of human life.