Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt told Parliament on Monday that it would be better if candidates standing for the forthcoming general elections were asked by the people what their views were on same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia.
Speaking during the Divorce debate, Dr Gatt said one would have to be short-sighted if one did not see that the next steps after divorce, would be efforts to introduce same-sex marriages, abortion and euthanasia. Matters would go quiet before the election, but during that time, it would be better if candidates declared their position, he said. In that way, the people would not be in for a surprise by MPs who might, after the election, propose abortion in certain circumstances, such as after rape.
He also said he would vote against the Divorce Bill in all stages, not capriciously but with a well-formed conscience which he would maintain because he had heard nothing to make him change his opinion.
Dr Gatt said his beliefs were not based on religion but on a lay sense that should inspire all MPs, whatever religion they followed. Whatever the teaching of the Church and however proud he was to follow it, he had to take his decision on divorce and any other issue of conscience or morality from the lay aspect.
It was obvious that although an MP was elected on his or her party ticket, 90 to 95 per cent of what they voted on was not in the electoral manifesto. Their constituents had trust in them and gave them the power to decide on things they had never been consulted about. If those constituents did not like an MP’s decisions, they had the right not to return him or her to Parliament at the next election.
While still representing their constituents in Parliament, and generally taking decisions on their mandate, MPs had a slightly different obligation: to give weight to what the party said but even more weight to a well-formed conscience to vote for what was right.
Dr Gatt said that what was right could have different perspectives, which meant nobody had a right to judge others on how they saw right. What was right certainly could not be what paid one better. Even in matters that had nothing to do with conscience they must think of Malta’s best interests.
Drawing an analogy with divorce, he said that up to some years ago adultery and homosexuality were criminal acts, but Parliament had depenalised them in order to do what was right for a different-thinking Maltese society. Yet civil rights did not exist intrinsically in society – they became civil rights only if so recognised by Parliament.
Legitimate and illegitimate children used to be distinguished by succession. Parliament had decided that that distinction no longer made sense, but it had never been a civil right. The same argument could be applied to gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia. And anybody who thought these issues would not surface was not seeing beyond the tip of their nose.
Dr Gatt said society’s sense of relativism was growing, but the relativist reasoning that everything went was wrong. It was easier to be popular and leave well enough alone unless it was manifestly against society.
He respected the result of the referendum and all other forms of vote, but he could not respect the opposition for trying to tell others what to do after the result. The referendum had been imposed on the government side, which had wanted legislation first and then referral to the people on the final Bill. When Labour had seen that stand it had changed strategy because many opposition MPs were going to vote against the Bill, so it had sought to bind their vote with the referendum result. This had amounted to moral pressure.