I was surprised at Iain Sims’ letter (May 21) on equal rights, in which he implied that the Today Public Policy Institute’s report, Same Sex: Same Civil Entitlements, of which I was the lead author, advocated discrimination against homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A union scheme would give homosexuals legal recognition for their relationships

Two considerations were at the forefront of my mind when I wrote the report.

The first was the need to achieve long over-due social justice for gays and lesbians in our society. And the second was to make proposals which would stand a chance of achieving a measure of national and political consensus. The arguments on grounds of social justice are clear-cut.

Same-sex couples in Malta currently have no way of gaining legally recognised status for their relationships.

The lack of legal recognition means that they are denied access to most of the rights or responsibilities that are given to married couples to reflect the commitment they have made to each other.

The argument in favour of marriage equality – same-sex marriage – is founded on the understanding that the right to marry should be recognised for everyone without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

It is viewed by some, but not all, as a fundamental human right in and of itself.

Same Sex: Same Civil Entitlements sets out the arguments on grounds of social justice comprehensively and objectively. But as lead author I had also to bear in mind the national policy realities. It is a truism, albeit also a cliché, that politics is the art of the possible. I therefore had to weigh this factor in the scales. This turned essentially on how ready Maltese society would be to accept the logic of the argument that marriage, which has hitherto always been staunchly regarded as a relationship between a man and a woman, could in future be between two men or two women.

Despite the changing nature of marriage and the cold logic adduced in favour of marriage equality, the clinching argument was that same-sex marriage per se was one step too far for Malta at this time.

I judged that ending unfair discriminatory treatment of same-sex couples is one thing, which most fair-minded people are prepared to recognise, but given the symbolic meaning of marriage in Maltese society, allowing homosexual couples to marry would be quite another.

I believe this is a fair argument reflecting majority opinion in Malta which should be respected.

My report therefore opted for the introduction of civil unions since, if the law-makers drafted legislation in line with the recommendations in the report, a union scheme would give homosexuals legal recognition for their relationships, as well as protection of the same civil rights in respect of all the key elements underpinning married heterosexual couples.

Equal civil rights could thus be achieved as effectively through a civil union as same-sex marriage.

Although there are strong arguments for introducing the concept of same-sex marriages, I therefore concluded that it would be both premature and impolitic in the Maltese context to seek to introduce them at this time.

I am personally convinced that in due course, once the benefits of civil unions have demonstrably been seen as not threatening to Maltese society, marriage equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals will come about.

This has been the story in the United States and elsewhere in Europe, where in the last few years many states have introduced same-sex marriage laws, mostly following a period when civil partnership was the only option.