In his classical masterpiece Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare pens a line which has become immortalised. Notwithstanding the traditional enmity between the constantly warring Capulets and Montagues, Juliet expresses her love for Romeo, even though they come from these respective families, by asking “what’s in a name, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet?” Juliet meant that whatever the name we give an object, its essence is what it is. Essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, which it has by necessity and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident; a property that the entity or substance has contingency, without which the substance can still retain its identity. We all know that this rhetorical question by Juliet was followed by the tragic events that followed as both Romeo and Juliet died.

Shakespeare was trying to drive a point home. A name actually underlines the essence of a subject which it then predicates. The predicate is the part of a sentence (or clause) which tells us what the subject does or is. It underlines the essence of the subject manner. I am called Michael Asciak, am called Michael Asciak is the predicate of the subject I, when it is a proper name it describes the essence of the I. If suddenly I decide to call myself Nuwanda instead of Michael Asciak, would it change anything in myself, my essence? It is just that other people know that the very essence of me is captured by my name. My identity, my essence, is found in the name Michael Asciak. When people want a lecturer on medical and bioethical issues or when they need a doctor, they ask for a Michael Asciak not Nuwanda, whatever else I might decide to call myself at the moment. By invoking this question, the Bard simply wanted to point our attention to the philosophy of essence, the law of identity, so rightly put forward by Aristotle in his Metaphysics following Socrates and Plato. The law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”. By this it is meant that each thing (be it universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features, which the ancient Greeks called its essence. Consequently, things that have the same essence are the same thing, while things that have different essences are different things. It is invoked by Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus among others who followed Shakespeare in time, such as John Locke who first penned the concept of natural rights!

Marriage is the name given to the loving relationship between a man and a woman which is open to procreation and the generation of children. It was always thus and thus it will always be! Changing the name of another law to marriage will not change its essence nor the essence of marriage itself. We have a Civil Union law in Malta, passed by the Labour government, which essentially gives the same rights to two people of whatever sex who live together, whether heterosexual or homosexual, as those enjoyed by married people. Now I would not have minded this law at all, had it just provided a legal framework for the civil recognition of two people wishing to live together with certain legal rights and obligations to and from the state and commutatively to and by others. However, I do not agree with the disposing articles of the law which ridiculously copies word for word the marriage law, especially on issues concerning the raising and adoption of children as a necessity (not a contingency). That having been said, the name of this particular law, which name is always voted in Committee stage in Parliament as the final article to be voted on, just because it denotes the essence of the law, is the Civil Unions Act. Some people may now argue that since this act imposes on individuals the same rights and obligations as the marriage law even for homosexual couples, we should simply change the name of this law to a law of marriage allowing homosexual couples the right to marry. This reasoning overturns one very important fact of logic, that marriage has its own essence and cannot be entered into by homosexuals by nature of their relationship. A marriage relationship has its own essence defined by philosophy, anthropology, sociology and psychology. Limiting myself to the first of these of which I have some knowledge, the essence of marriage is defined as Fides and Proles. The first is the emotional trust and fidelity of the couple, and the second the procreation of children brought about by the anatomical correspondence of the two individuals concerned, a man and a woman. One can see that faith only adds through revelation from God, what is the third of these conditions for a religious aspect of marriage which is the Sacramentum or sacramental grace from God, without detracting anything from the first two aspects which are determined through natural law or prudential reason itself!

Dr Joseph Muscat is a subjective ethical decision maker and power monger who is not the least bit interested in the truth and essence of things, just in votes! As a subjective power monger he can never believe in essence but is in effect an existentialist of the Jean-Paul Sartre genre. He believes that existence comes before essence and that therefore man does not have an essential nature which defines him but can do whatever suits him. He plays about with these issues just to access power, without in the least bit considering the ordering of truth and therefore the common good. As a member of the Nationalist Party’s (PN) executive committee and secretary of the Committee for ex-MPs and Party Officials, I strongly suggest that we do not play into the hands of this Joseph Muscat who thinks that people do not have a brain or any memory at all. I have some experience as an MP and member of the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Parliamentary Assembly, having been a member of the Human Rights Committee there and having penned many of its reports as rapporteur on issues of biomedicine and bioethics. I also have some experience in the European Parliament representing the CoE there, and also as a 10-year member of the EU’s National Ethics Committee meetings and debates. There are many different opinions on these issues and many of these opinions cut through party lines as they are a product of reason and conscience, and being a matter of conscience are always binding on the individual even if such conscience is improperly formed. I therefore suggest that when the issue comes up for debate, the PN should discuss the issue internally and widely and come up with a proper party position. Having done that, it should take up that position in Parliament but should not enforce a vote through its three-line whip, but allow a vote on these bioethical issues according to one’s conscience, showing the country that it respects liberty of expression and also giving voice to the various opinions within itself as is normal in civilized countries. A three-line whip on bioethical issues is unreasonable and disrespectful and only goes to show the lack of respect and freedom of expression for issues of the conscience, particularly with respect to human life and reproduction. Maturity is called for here. This would show that the PN is made up of different individuals with different trains of thought and beliefs which should serve to enrich the party in the public eye and express different national representations of thought. The PN is not or ever should be a confessional party, but should be united by its commitments to certain values which range from freedom to solidarity.

I for one am making my position clear now. I can never accept that a marriage can ever be contracted by a homosexual couple for the reasons I have explained above in detail. Equating marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals in law would also mean that prima facie there are issues such as reproductive rights that would then be quoted and played out in legal circles in order to obtain equality before positive law, such as surrogacy and gamete donation, impinging on the natural rights of women, men and children. I state my position from reason and revelation and, being a scientist, I also fear for the demographical outcome of diminishing the strengths of the core family unit understood by marriage, which demographics are sadly diminutive in Western culture with all the implications that these point to!

 

[email protected]