Last Monday, the public consultation period for the Bill ‘to regularise declared and registered cohabitations’ closed. The Bill was published on March 2 and it will be interesting to see what feedback has been sent in regarding the legislative proposal that is attempting to provide a legal framework in an area where one needs to tread very careful because one assumes that with the introduction of divorce and civil unions, persons who choose to cohabit do so precisely because they do not want to be bound by the legal obligations pertaining to married couples or couples in a civil union.

I recall that when during the previous legislature a Bill on cohabitation was being drafted, it was also attempting to try to assuage the demands of those who had already started lobbying for legal recognition of same-sex couples. That all changed drastically when the Civil Unions Act was enacted two years ago and the right for same-sex couples to register a civil union that would ‘have the corresponding effects and consequences in law of civil marriage’ was recognised by our Parliament.

Both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition have publicly stated that once civil unions are on a par with civil marriages, then it makes sense to call a spade a spade and we can, therefore, expect that the relevant laws will soon be amended to widen the definition of civil marriage to include same-sex partners.

This notwithstanding, it is also necessary to revisit many other laws, regulations and administrative practices that will ensure that same sex-couples are truly on a par with heterosexual couples. I recently personally experienced three instances where the situation is not so clear cut.

One concerns the choice of surnames when registering a civil union, another relates to obtaining a certificate and the third concerns inheritance rights.

The Civil Code provides that upon marriage, the spouses adopt the surname of the husband. The wife may add her maiden surname or, in case she is a widow, that of her predeceased spouse. The wife also has the option of retaining her maiden surname or the surname of her predeceased spouse after which she may add her husband’s surname.

Hence, Mary Fenech who marries John Borg can become Mary Borg, Mary Borg Fenech or Mary Fenech Borg or choose to remain Mary Fenech. John Borg has no option to change his surname which one may also consider as being discriminatory.

In the case of a civil union between persons of the same sex, the individuals may both adopt the surname of either of the partners, keep their own surname or add the partner’s surname to his or her own. In the latter case, both individuals must do so. Therefore, when Joe Fenech and John Borg register a civil union they could either remain as they are, or become Joe Fenech and John Fenech or Joe Borg and John Borg. They could also opt for Joe Fenech Borg and John Fenech Borg or Joe Borg Fenech and John Borg Fenech.

However, whereas John Borg and Mary Fenech could become, for example, John Borg and Mary Fenech Borg (or Mary Borg Fenech), with the two not having an identical surname, Joe Borg and John Fenech must adopt an identical surname and there is no possibility say for Joe Borg to retain his surname and John Fenech becoming John Borg Fenech or John Fenech Borg (and the same would apply to the situation in reverse).

Certain public officers still think in terms of the traditional stereotypes and find it difficult to conceive of Maltese society in any other way

Another strange situation arises when one needs to obtain a ‘civil union’ certificate. To date, if one attempts to apply on line on certifikati.gov.mt as I needed to do some time ago, it is not clear whether it is possible to submit a request for certificate on line since under ‘order online’, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates and free status certificates are listed. Eventually I decided to try applying for a marriage certificate. The final result was that I was successful, however, the fields to apply for a marriage certificate refer to husband and wife and, hence, I had to insert my male partner’s details as ‘wife’s details’.

The third situation I refer to deals with the inheritance rights of married couples and partners in a same sex union. The Civil Code allows a husband and wife to draw up a will ‘in one and the same instrument, or, as is commonly known, unica charta’. Since the law refers to husband and wife, there is legal ambiguity as to whether partners in a same-sex civil union could also draw up a unica charta will.

When I recently spoke to a notary about this, she advised that given that this is uncharted territory, once the provisions of the law specifically refer to husband and wife, it would be risky for a same-sexcouple in civil union to draw up a unica charta will since one could not anticipate what the courts would determine in the eventuality that such a will were to be contested in the future.

These are just three instances I know of where the noble intentions of the legislator and the clear political will of the government in this area need to be translated into practice.

I recall that the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality had once commissioned a study on updating all laws, regulations and administrative practices that still hinder, in practical terms, the fundamental and constitutionally entrenched right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex.

A similar study extending to other grounds for non-discrimination may well be a task for the new Human Rights and Equality Commission that will hopefully be in place soon, once Parliament discusses and approves the Equality Bill.

Moreover, it may be that more than the need to change laws and regulations, it may well be that here too it is mentalities that need to be changed.

Certain public officers, for example, may not yet be fully aware of the implications of the new laws promulgated over the past years. They still think in terms of the traditional stereotypes and find it difficult to conceive of Maltese society in any other way.

The Cohabitation Bill is another positive measure in strengthening the framework of civil liberties in this country. It aims at affording some level of protection to individuals who cohabit, both during the period of their relationship as well as after its end.

So far, we have not seen much of a public debate on what is being proposed. I hope that the feedbackprovided during the public consultation period and the parliamentary debate will result in a law that has the widest consensus possible.

However, it is also crucial that even in this case, no efforts are spared to ensure that the implementation of the new law will not be hampered by bureaucracy. I can understand the need for an adjustment period because we have come such a long way in such a short time. Yet, as the American journalist and author Don Marquis once said, procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.