Rights for homosexual couples
The government’s cohabitation law has probably enjoyed one of the longest gestation periods in Maltese legislative history. It is wheeled out every time the “Christian-Democrat” Nationalist Party finds itself in electoral or other difficulties.
The promised introduction of a cohabitation law – which first saw the light of day in the then Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami’s 1998 manifesto and received another brief flurry of attention in the divorce referendum last year – is now getting another airing. The government is seeking to garner electoral votes wherever it can find them in the run-up to the imminent general election. It is also seeking to erase its image as the nasty party and, in the process, wrong-footing the opposition Labour Party.
It has linked the “soon to be announced” cohabitation law with the introduction of rights – yet to be specified – for homosexual partnerships (same-sex partners who live and set up home together).
The decisive result of the national referendum on the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta last May marked a notable advance for Maltese civil rights. Not since the mid-1970s, with the decriminalisation of homosexuality and adultery, which were until then offences punishable by imprisonment, and the introduction of civil marriages, had Malta struck such an important blow for justice and civil rights.
There remains one more outstanding item of civil rights business to be confronted. There is no single law that safeguards the position of homosexuals in society and a whole raft of laws that deny basic financial and work-related entitlements to homosexual couples in the fields of, for example, pensions, housing, inheritance rights and fiscal benefits and entitlements.
Will the proposed cohabitation law right these present injustices? I set out below a checklist of the main points against which the new Bill, once it has been published, can be judged.
The overriding practical consideration that the cohabitation law must deliver, if it is to be judged worth the paper it is written on, is that it should give those homosexual partnerships falling under it the significant majority of the rights and obligations that marriage confers on heterosexual married couples. (I do not enter here into a discussion about the introduction of same-sex marriages in Malta – although there are perfectly respectable arguments for this – since, by definition, the cohabitation law will not deal with that vexed issue.)
But the cohabitation law must make a significant difference to the currently vulnerable position of same-sex cohabiting partners: By giving them the opportunity to gain legal recognition for their relationship; by giving them rights and responsibilities concomitant with those affecting heterosexuals who are married. Or it will simply be condemning them to the same legal limbo that exists today.
The main features to be sought should therefore include, as a minimum, that the same-sex couple would go through a recognisable public ceremony equivalent, to all intents and purposes, to that for civil marriages.
They should have the right to recognise each other as next-of-kin.
Each partner would have the right to claim from the estate of a deceased partner, whether or not the latter had made a will. In relation to pensions, the couple should be placed in the same position as spouses by making the surviving partner entitled to a survivor’s pension in the same way as a surviving spouse.
Where a cohabiting homosexual couple share a home (regardless of who owns it), a partner should not be able to sell, lease or mortgage the shared home, or offer it as security for a loan, without the prior written consent of the partner.
As to tax and social welfare, the position of homosexual cohabiting couples should be on a par with married persons under the relevant social security and tax laws.
If the cohabitation law were to cover these basic aspects, Malta would be going at least some way towards publicly accepting stable, same-sex relationships, where couples have made a serious decision to seek legal recognition of their relationship.
I personally remain doubtful as to whether a cohabitation law on its own will suffice. I believe that the need for enacting more extensive and comprehensive legislation covering same-sex civil partnerships, or even possibly same-sex marriages, cannot long be postponed if the unfair discriminatory treatment of homosexual couples in Malta is to end.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
28 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Evarist Saliba
Mar 18th 2012, 13:05
I do hope that when the law comes to be changed this will not lead, eventually, to the following provisions which have already appeared in other countries.
* Birth certificates will no longer record the father and the mother but only progenitor A and progenitor B.
* Children may be recorded as having more than two parents. (The limit has not yet been established.)
* The recoded gender of the child has to be changed at the request of the person concerned, thus leading to a person registered as female, being changed to male, after which s/he gives birth to a child.
All these in the name of "rights". Calling something a right seems to ensure that it is not wrong.
,"Equality" is quoted to justify all this, ignoring the realities of biological facts.
"Tolerance" is demanded from the majority, but when it suits it, the minority will not show tolerance to those who disagree with it. "Conscientious objectors" and "conscience clauses", terms long established in law, will have to fade way in this "brave new world".
Evarist Saliba
Mar 18th 2012, 16:34
And of course, the words "husband" and "wife" will have to disappear from a marriage certificate.
Paolo Bugeja
Apr 12th 2012, 00:24
Not to defend minorities, but it is far more difficult for minorities to defend themselves. The term itself is self explanatory. However I make a plea to you. Go through the comments below and ask yourself which of the two, whether majority or minority, shows traces of intolerance.
As to parenthood, it is NOT a direct consequence of civil partnership.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Mar 17th 2012, 22:35
Cohabitation law will not suffice as no cohabitation law can address all pieces of legislation that discriminate against gay men and lesbians. There has been no commitee set up to investigate and list all such pieces of legislation. So the answer is obvious. This is merely another attempt to fool the gay and lesbian constituency.
George Camilleri
Mar 17th 2012, 21:10
After divorce, gay marriage, and then... This is the secular agenda for Malta, following in the footsteps of other 'enlightened' societies that are threading unmistakeably the primrose path to hell. Hell even now, on earth, in the form of social unrest and disintegration, accompanied on a personal level by spiritual void and unhappiness. This quest for a lifestyle free of the 'shackles' of moral law, using the buzzword of 'rights' to hide our depraved vices, is futile. We all have a choice, either to follow the Martin Sciclunas or Jesus Christ.
Andy Farrugia
Mar 17th 2012, 23:07
Mr George Camilleri, how dare you demean Mr Martin Scicluna by pitting him against Jesus Christ!
Mr Peter Barbara
Mar 17th 2012, 16:41
@Staines
What do you mean "grow up" and "adapt or die"...Mr J.C.Borg was perfectly within his right to point this out, Do you think throwing out of the window all that is legal and proper makes you more fashionable, avant-garde or intelligent? If it was not for "old fashioned" people living a normal life, most of the people writing about anything and everything on the blogs would not be around anyway
G G Debono
Mar 17th 2012, 14:42
To ...................................Andy Farrugia
."You and your ilk are the parasites of society."
As usual, you are lost for valid arguments and resort to insults.
Please keep away from debates if you have nothing constructive or worthwhile to say.
Karl Consiglio
Mar 17th 2012, 16:24
Amen to that.
Andy Farrugia
Mar 17th 2012, 16:58
Quote mining will not help you to make sense, (Dr?) (G?) G Debono; as for insults and lack of substance I graciously admit that I can never be in your league.
PS re the advice you kindly proferred in your last sentence, all I have to say is "Dream on, GG".
Andy Farrugia
Mar 17th 2012, 18:00
Hahaha! Here comes K Consiglio to add to the jolly crowd of "Think-tankers". On another thread, this character seemed miffed at Mr Cowie for telling him "God bless you", now he feels it is appropriate to resort to "religious" formulaic expressions - "Amen to that". Must be something wrong in the nether regions, much as I suspected long ago. Endlessly hilarious.
G G Debono
Mar 17th 2012, 20:57
Andy Farrugia
RE "as for insults and lack of substance I graciously admit that I can never be in your league."
Golly! and you're still at it -
Give something better .......c'mon!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Mar 17th 2012, 22:38
Andy, do you have anything against people with qualifications? Do you somehow feel inadequate? What are yours?
Karl Consiglio
Mar 18th 2012, 09:35
"Amen to that" as a figure of speech Andy, come on grow up!
Andy Farrugia
Mar 18th 2012, 10:45
@ J C Chetcuti
The answer to your first question is NO;
The answer to your second question is NO;
The answer to the third question is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Victor Gelfo
Mar 17th 2012, 13:44
Continue dreaming. Conservatism shal have the upper hand soon!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Mar 17th 2012, 22:36
I wonder who is dreaming!
Robert Callus
Mar 17th 2012, 13:29
@Gerry Cowie
Who cares about political correctness (choosing the right words)?. The article above is about rights, which unlike words, make a real and significant change in people's lives.
http://robertcallus.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/political-correctness-can-create-barriers/
Andy Farrugia
Mar 17th 2012, 13:46
Which rights? From where do they emanate? What right does any individual have to become a parent? Callus, you and your pseudo Communist ideology are all about rights and never mention the word responsibility. You and your ilk are the parasites of society. And stop advertising your obnoxious blogs.
Robert Callus
Mar 17th 2012, 14:58
@Andy Farrugia
First of all we're discussing an issue here, no need to get personal. As for me being a parasite, I've worked all my adult life and declare every single cent I earn in taxes. Not that it's any of your business anyway.
Secondly, what has Communist ideology got to do with this? As far as I know the communists were the biggest enemy of human rights not the other way round.
Thirdly, responsibility is not mentioned since it is obvious. If a gay couple have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, the also have the same responsibilities.
Fourthly, as for "advertising my obnoxious blog", that shows the beauty of rights, doesn't it? I have every right to write it an link it, and you have every right not to click on it.
Andy Farrugia
Mar 17th 2012, 16:31
@ Robert Callus
1) Nobody asked you about whether you work or pay taxes, but guess what? You're not the exception but rather the rule. My reference to "parasites of society" was not intended in that way, but in your habitual tendency to attack all forms of institutions which form the fabric of society.
2) Pseudo-Communism, for which read relativism and assorted secular/humanist/ nihilist mumbo-jumbo, is precisely the kind of attitude which you repeatedly tout in all your postings/comments.
3) "responsibility is not mentioned since it's obvious": precisely, that is where you and your ilk are wrong. It is responsibility which should come first and then, once this is established , rights segue, particularly in this issue.
4) I was under the impression that "free rides" on the back of someone else (thus parasitic) would be a definite NO-NO; you PAY for advertising.
I never get personal in my comments - after all, I do not know you and am even less interested in doing so. The worst you can say about my comments is that they are abrasive and may at times hit "raw nerves".
PS. I was under the impression that I had made it clear to assorted "gigis" that I am not at all interested in their gibberish; please, do enjoy your inanities, I will still have supper this evening and sleep really well afterwards.
Gerry Cowie
Mar 17th 2012, 10:59
In the UK it will soon be politically incorrect to refer to one's husband or wife, with such words potentially disappering even from official documentation. How far do people want this to go? You have to say the word 'partner' to avoid offending a few people now! Whatever happens in Malta let us hope that political correctness does not go crazy, despite the state of the world!
Andy Farrugia
Mar 17th 2012, 11:35
Personally, I wouldn't be overly concerned about the disappearance of husband and wife from official documentation - after all some "special interest groups" have already appropriated, hijacked and 'relexicalised' quite a few words (nouns/adjectives). But I am concerned about the disappearance of the terms and roles of FATHER and MOTHER from real life. It is not just "political correctness" which is going gaga, but the whole notion of civilised society.
J.C. Borg
Mar 17th 2012, 11:48
A few years ago I went with my wife to make an investment in a Maltese bank. As the amount was large, I was told that i should sign the agreement too. I found that I had to sign under "Investor's partner" - I told the clerk that we had been married for over 40 years and have never been partners, but husband and wife. At first I was reluctant to sign, but in order not to cancel everything I signed 'under protest' and told the clerk to pass my message.
william staines
Mar 17th 2012, 12:36
Grow up! When you are speaking to other people you are perfectly wise to use husband or wife, people of same sex have to say 'partner'. Don't get confused, just adapt or die!
Andy Farrugia
Mar 17th 2012, 13:48
@ Staines
"Just adapt or die". Thanks for your great concern! What's this tosh? Communism by any other name? Or is it some kind of rehash of Darwinism, as preached by the Ditchkins Academy of Nihilism?
Joseph Calleja
Mar 17th 2012, 14:43
Gerry Cowie, you lost your cause in the Divorce Initiative and you will lose your cause here. There is nothing that you can predict or take for granted when a general election is in sight in Malta. Politicians are after votes and if " Partner " is the magic word that gets them votes, then that is the way they go. Right or wrong only the voters will decide that, if they care enough to show up to vote, because the word " Abstaining " seems to be catching on too! So who is to decide the terms? Husband and wife? Partner and Partner? Marriage or Civil Union? Getting somewhat confusing.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Mar 17th 2012, 22:26
Cowie writes: "In the UK it will soon be politically incorrect to refer to one's husband or wife, with such words potentially disappering even from official documentation." What nonsense! Do you think you are an expert in English affairs just because of your surname? So what if the word 'spouse' is introduced? It is inclusive. In any event, heterosexual couples can continue to refer to their partners by any name they want.
Please choose the reason of your report below: