Completely unaware of what was debated in Parliament on the Civil Union Bill and with no pretension whatsoever of being versed in legal or moral matters, but heartened by the fact that the Citizenship Bill went through three amendments before it found its final form, I hope this letter is not a cry over spilt milk.

A gay union Bill is deceptive, to say the least. It is therefore logical to distance it from marriage, first by giving it another name: civil partnerships. The way of life such two persons want to live is registered and witnessed in front of a notary, after declaring that they will abide by the rules and regulations of said Bill.

The marriage registrar is purposely left out to dispel any illusions that a marriage has taken place. The couple will then automatically benefit from the legitimate social and economic improvements incorporated in the Bill. Civil partnerships would thus be a milestone in the quest for the acquisition of their rights.

As a gay friend said to me the other day: “Why should any civil partner not get the same pension benefits when his partner dies as he would if s/he were his wife/husband? This matters far more than whether they can be legally married.

Gay marriage is non-existent and does not advance the cause of gay equality one jot.

In all the increasingly multi-faith countries, gay Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus have no chance celebrating same-sex unions in their places of worship.

Why should predominantly Catholic Malta give way to such an awkward legislation?

Such arrogant redefining of the relationship that should exist between a man and a woman, which has been the bedrock of society for thousands of years, will offend people of goodwill.

Would it not be far better for the government to concentrate on just improving the situation for gay couples in civil partnerships and leave it at that? That would be the lull after the storm.