In reply to the editorial The Church and homosexuality (TMID, 1 December), I would like to point out a few discrepancies with respect to the stance taken by the Malta Gay Rights Movement.

Let me begin by stating clearly that the MGRM is not a Catholic group and does not have any religious affiliation. It does not in fact express any “desire to be accepted within the Church”. Its interest in the Catholic Church’s teaching is expressed on behalf of those homosexuals who are practicing Catholics and for whom their religious faith is important.

Stating that those who do not adhere to all the Catholic Church’s rules should refrain from becoming members, is oversimplifying to the extreme. Most practicing Catholics would disagree with one or other of the Church’s rules – be it contraception, sex before marriage, divorce, celibacy, women’s ordination, IVF – in fact the list is endless.

If all these had to leave the Catholic faith, Maltese churches would be empty! Moreover, most Maltese are raised within the Catholic tradition from birth.

On coming out, they are a lot less familiar with what being gay entails than they are with being Catholic. At most, the choice is not about becoming members, but about rejecting what for many years has been a part of their identity.

The movement also reacted to the Bishop’s and Vatican’s statements because the Catholic Church in Malta still exercises considerable influence in the political, public, educational and social sphere. MGRM has no difficulty separating itself from the Church. The same however cannot be said for the State, which continues not to recognise same sex couples and denies them rights heterosexuals take for granted.

The editorial goes from stating that homosexuals should be afforded basic rights to equating homosexual couples with cohabiting couples. The experience in other countries has shown that equality for homosexuals is only possible when marriage – with all its attendant rights and responsibilities – is extended to same sex couples. Civil unions and registered partnerships, while a significant step forward, still do not constitute equality, which is what a secular democratic state should provide.

The final point I wish to make, regards access to adoption. The MGRM in no way regards adoption as a right for either homosexual or heterosexual individuals or couples. The well-being of children is paramount and all potential adoptive parents should be assessed irrespective of sexual orientation.

However, the argument put forward, that the concept of same-sex parents is beyond a child’s ability to understand, is unfounded. Children are versatile creatures and have no difficulty in accepting diversity when it is presented to them. Many students are nowadays enriched with the inclusion of children with a disability in their classroom.

Numerous studies have found that no psychological, social or other damage is suffered by a child, simply because they are raised by same-sex parents.

Gabriella Calleja

Malta Gay Rights Movement