The insertion of the adoption clause in the Civil Union Bill shows the government is not after wide consensus but making “a radical state-ment of equality”, according to a leading anthropologist.
If the government’s aim had been to gather “as much backing as possible” for the Bill in Parliament and outside then by including the adoption clause, the process “is being hindered”, Ranier Fsadni told Times of Malta.
“It would seem that the aim is not, primarily, the widest possible consensus but rather a radical statement of equality,” he said.
The adoption clause clearly states that a gay couple would have a right to adopt. To date, gay people can only adopt children as single individuals, after undergoing a rigorous process.
It would seem that the aim is not, primarily, the widest possible consensus
The clause is cause for consternation for the public and the Opposition: a Church survey shows 80 per cent of Maltese are against gay adoption and the Nationalist Party is saying that before adoptions by same-sex couples are sanctioned by legislation, a social impact assessment should be carried out.
Adoption clauses are not normally included in European civil union bills, and this has caused some to question its inclusion. Malta’s Bill was based on the Danish model.
Neil Falzon, director of human rights NGO Aditus, and one of the lawyers involved in writing the Bill, said in other countries the two issues were usually separated because they would be in a context where adoption legislation would “start from scratch”.
Admitting that it usually made sense not to include adoption in the same Bill because it was a legal regime which required its own rules, Dr Falzon said: “In Malta, it’s not a new issue because the adoption legislation already gives individuals the possibility to adopt.”
He said in practice the government, under the previous administration, had already taken the decision that in terms of policy “gay parenting is OK” and “there are no problems for children adopted by gay people as individuals”.
“It’s been a reality for a number of years. What we are saying now is that we will be extending the law to offer more protection for the child, because the child will have two parents who are legally recognised,” Dr Falzon said.
During the election campaign last year, the PN had said it was prepared to change the law to allow gay couples to adopt if this would serve the best interests of children.
Dr Falzon is now baffled by the Opposition’s insistence on a social impact assessment. “They themselves allowed gay adoptions – so why are they backtracking on their own political measure?
“They are using the situation to try to gather political mileage. The people on the ground are suffering,” he said.
However, communications lecturer Fr Joe Borg agrees with the PN’s call for an adoption study and insisted that the clause should not be enclosed in the Civil Union Bill.
“Its natural place is in the adoption legislation,” Fr Borg said.
He said civil union law was there to list the rights and responsibilities of those who were in a civil partnership and adoption did not fall under that umbrella. “Adoption is not even a right for married people,” he said.
Fr Borg believes that before legislation for “a new form of family” a study should be carried out “to see how adoption is working in all situations – and that includes married and single people”.
Dr Fsadni said the proposal for a social impact assessment would be reasonable – if a reliable assessment were possible.
“But it isn’t. The numbers involved are too small, the relevant experience too recent, and the variables too many for any assessment to persuade anyone whose views are challenged by its conclusions,” Mr Fsadni said.
Would society be able to cope with the introduction of gay adoption?
Mr Fsadni believes so. “The proposed change in the law will place no greater strain on State or other social institutions than does the status quo, which permits adoption by gay individuals,” he said.
However, he believes the majority’s scepticism on this matter could lead to further erosion in public trust in politicians’ judgement.