The electoral programmes of both the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party promised a form of legal recognition for gay couples. The PN was in favour of civil partnerships while the PL had pledged civil unions.
Neither party, however, said it was in favour of same-sex marriage, so the proposed Civil Unions Bill was not expected to be controversial.
This has not proved to be the case, as the Labour Government’s proposed Bill equates same-sex unions with marriage. In reality, this is the legalisation of gay marriage in all but name.
The Bill states: “The underlying principle of this Act is to equate civil unions with marriages in terms of procedure and substance in a manner that guarantees equal rights to parties in a civil union as are granted to spouses in a marriage.”
One would be justified in concluding that this Government has no mandate for the introduction of such a Bill because same-sex marriage was not included in the Labour Party’s electoral programme. Indeed, if before the election Labour had promised the gay lobby the introduction of same-sex marriage – under the guise of civil unions – in return for votes, then it was being dishonest with the electorate.
The underlying principle of the Bill is that partners will be treated as married, granting them similar tax, pension and inheritance rights as well as the right to adopt children as a couple.
The Government should be careful about redefining the concept of marriage and the family, especially when it comes to awarding same-sex couples the automatic right to adopt children. The rights of a child should always come before the rights of would-be adoptive parents.
Furthermore, should this Bill be passed, it would be in conflict with the country’s IVF law that is restricted only to heterosexual couples. It is likely that the Government will then amend the IVF law; it is also probable that this law will be challenged in court by couples in civil unions demanding the right to IVF treatment and surrogacy. The consequence of the IVF law applying also to same-sex couples will be the deliberate denial to a child of a mother or father.
Is this ethically and morally correct?
The proposed Bill, which is a step in the right direction, is, however, a step too far. Ann Fenech, president of the Nationalist Party’s executive committee, told Times of Malta last week that the Civil Unions Bill could not simply be a “cut and paste” of the Marriage Act.
There definitely needs to be some careful rethinking of certain aspects of the proposed law in the interest of Maltese society as a whole.
The Nationalist Party, which must tread very carefully following its woeful handling of the divorce issue, has said it intends to support the Bill but will propose changes to it in order to differentiate civil unions from marriage. The sooner it proposes its amendments, the quicker a proper debate can be held.
The Church, on the other hand, has both the duty and the right to make its views known on what the Government is proposing. The initial statement issued by the Maltese bishops on the subject was mild. In contrast, a letter by Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna in last week’s The Sunday Times of Malta stated that equating same-sex unions with marriage was “illogical” and “deceptive”.
It is not clear why the Church, in the name of just one of its bishops, apparently toughened its stand in a matter of days. However, whatever the reason, Mgr Scicluna’s comments do show that more thought is required before a Bill of this nature becomes law.