Sep 07 - New Bishop Issues Statement Condemning Same Sex Marriage Bill
The day before being ordained in Malta, Gibraltar’s next Bishop Monsignor Carmelo Zammitt has expressed his concern about same sex marriage in Gibraltar.
A statement from the church read:
In the coming days, the issue of marriage between partners of the same sex will be debated in Parliament.
As the Bishop of many who live in Gibraltar, I am writing this letter to express my concern about this matter and to share the following considerations.
1. The religious belief regarding what constitutes marriage is quite concordant among the major world religions. Marriage is considered as the union between a man and a woman. The main aims of marriage are mutual help between the parties and the procreation and education of children within the context of a family. The ideal has always been that children should be brought up by their own parents. Although such an ideal may not always be reached, it is still an ideal to be promoted.
2. The civil concept of marriage from time immemorial and in most societies also has been the union between a man and a woman. This union is based on the fact that sexually the two complement each other. It is only very recently that in some countries the definition of marriage has been changed in law to embrace also a partnership between two persons of the same sex. This redefinition of marriage has been culture-driven, claiming discrimination if such a redefinition is not accepted. Strictly speaking, applying the term marriage to a partnership between two persons of the same sex is not based on reason but on emotion. Upholding the diversity between a union between a man and a woman and a partnership between two persons of the same sex is not discrimination.
3. The main question to be answered when changing or introducing laws is: How is this law going to promote the common good? The good of the community certainly includes the promotion of strong family values and the strengthening of the marriage bond. The common good is that which benefits society as a whole, as opposed to the private good of individuals and sections of society.
4. The institution of marriage is already under threat, and by introducing same sex marriage and thus changing completely the legal concept of marriage, this institution is diluted. In fact in such a scenario marriage changes its meaning in legal terms and there is the obvious danger that the deference reserved to marriage by heterosexual couples will be lost.
5. Changing the legal definition of marriage is a radical step, and its consequences should be taken seriously. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. Marriage would be reduced to just the commitment of two persons who are emotionally involved. With the proposed change in the law the complimentarity of male and female and that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children will be lost in the future. I believe that as a society we have a duty towards those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations. If this law goes through, there is no turning back.
6. The State and the Church are both independent of each other as societies with their particular functions although they have the same citizens appertaining to both of them. The Church only proposes what she believes to be the best for society, it does not impose. It is worth remembering that although cooperation between Church and State is to be recommended, the Church does not depend on the State to confirm or safeguard its beliefs or moral teaching. In other words the Government does not stand in the service of religious truth, but the Government has the duty of safeguarding freedom of religion in society. Religious freedom and freedom of conscience are both fundamental human rights.
7. All persons have the same dignity and deserve to be treated with equal respect. Any unjust discrimination against persons with a different sexual orientation must be avoided. The fact that all persons are equal however does not take away the reality that not all are the same. There is diversity in equality. The Catholic teaching on marriage is not a judgement about persons who experience same sex attractions, but a statement about how the Church has always understood the nature of Marriage itself.
8. The terms ‘marriage’ and ‘civil partnership’ affirm this diversity. The Civil Partnerships Act already gives to same sex partners all the rights mutatis mutandis that one has in marriage. The very nature of a union between a man and a woman, and a partnership between two persons of the same sex, is basically different. It is important that this distinction is upheld.
9. The political decision whether to apply the term marriage to same sex partners or not should not be based on satisfying the wish of a small section of the community, but on whether the acceptance of the term marriage to apply to all kinds of unions is beneficial for the Community as a whole or not. If it is not beneficial, such a change in the law becomes unreasonable, unnecessary and potentially counterproductive to society and future generations.
10. Members of Parliament should vote in accordance with their consciences and also reflect in their vote their beliefs. It is very clear that the debate about allowing same sex partners to get married is not a question of rights but of terminology. Seeking the legal right to have a partnership between same sex persons called marriage is basically fuelled by the wish to be seen as identical to heterosexual couples getting married. Giving in to such an emotional wish will have its consequences in the long run on the institution of Marriage itself, which in my view will not be beneficial.
11. Whatever the decision of Parliament regarding this matter, the Church will hold fast to the authentic understanding of marriage which has been written in the human heart, consolidated in history and confirmed by the Word of God. Any civil law allowing same sex marriage has no bearing on the teaching of the Church regarding the Sacrament of Marriage.
12. Issues of religious freedom and freedom of conscience may arise in the future if there are no clear safeguards in the law which would accept marriage as applicable also to same sex partnerships. It is hoped that the proposed law, if it goes through, would make sure that such issues will be clearly safeguarded, and such safeguards must apply not only to sacred places, church ministers and believers, but also to conscientious objectors and the use of property belonging to religious institutions or conscientious objectors.
13. Much has been written and said about this issue and at times antagonistic language and behaviour were evident. There is no place for such attitudes in a civilised society and I am sure that Gibraltar is such a society, where all may express their opinions in freedom and there is reciprocal respect towards such opinions. Disagreement is not discrimination. People with different views of Marriage will hopefully be able to express their beliefs and convictions without fear of intimidation or hostility, and that religious freedom and liberty will be supported and defended. We do not force people to agree with us, but we ask to be granted the same freedom to hold our beliefs.
14. Gibraltar has always been looked upon as one big family with different religions and cultures living peacefully together. In spite of our different opinions and beliefs, it is my hope that all of us will continue to live together without hostile feelings alongside those with whom we agree to disagree, whatever the final outcome of this debate.
{fcomment}
