The government says civil unions are not the same as marriage. Photo: Shutterstock

The decision to have a separate Bill for civil unions, rather than for it to form part of the Marriage Act, was taken because the government wanted to affirm the distinction between marriages and civil unions, Parliamentary Secretary José Herrera said.

Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday during the debate on the Civil Unions Bill, he said in substance it was the same, as in terms of benefits there were no differences. But it was not a marriage. The government was committed to some rather radical reforms but civil rights were not up for discussion.

Turning to the issue of adoption by same-sex couples, he said it was a misconception that this was only now being introduced. Present legislation did not prohibit it. The current situation was that the final decision lay with the judge, and there were recent cases where gay people had been allowed to adopt.

This was more of a practical change; until now gays could only apply for adoption individually. This didn’t mean that all homosexual couples would automatically adopt, just as it was not automatic for heterosexual couples. The truth was that the government had only ratified what was already happening.

Dr Herrera questioned whether someone in a civil union, who clandestinely entered another union, would be found guilty of bigamy. In his opinion, this was not the case. Therefore it was time to amend the Criminal Code.

He said it was also important to clarify whether separations in such cases required enforced mediation.

Parliamentary Secretary Michael Farrugia said a heterosexual couple did not have an automatic right to adopt but needed to apply. Some couples were not ideal. The interest of the child was always first and foremost, but one should not decide if someone could be a parent based on sexual orientation. No part of the Bill granted an automatic right, as it was up to the board to decide. Labour was not sorry to be putting forward this Bill.

Labour MP Luciano Busuttil said even though it had only been in power for nine months, the government had set about ensuring that homosexual couples were finally recognised. Labour had also been in favour of the introduction of divorce.

Dr Busuttil emphasised that “love is not straight; love is human”. The love between homosexual persons and that between a heterosexual couple was no different.

It was a pity one had to wait until 2013 for their recognition, and it was also a positive thing that all marriage duties and rights were being made applicable to civil unions.

Clarification was needed with respect to the choice of surnames, Dr Busuttil said.

Love is not straight; love is human

The Bill proposed that a couple in a civil union could choose which surname to adopt.

Etienne Grech said he was sure that the Bill would entitle homosexual couples in a civil union to gain the right over their dead partner’s body, and would also acquire the right to visit their loved ones in hospital, just as other heterosexual couples do.

He had at first had qualms over adoption by homosexual couples but after researching the subject he changed his views.

Quoting the American Psychological Association and the Child Welfare League, he said studies proved that it was healthier for children to be raised in same-sex relationship than by single individuals.

As a result, in accordance with these studies, it seemed that it was better not to restrain gay rights in this respect.