After several hours of internal debate the Nationalist Party yesterday said it will support the Civil Unions Bill but propose changes to differentiate it from marriage.
However, in a four-sentence statement the PN gave no indication of what changes it will be seeking during the parliamentary debate.
Speaking on NET TV, the PN station, party leader Simon Busuttil said amendments will be based on “good sense” but stopped short of saying what they will be.
“We must not run... today we are speaking of civil unions and we must not load them with other issues,” he said, without identifying these issues.
Dr Busuttil said the PN’s position in favour of legal recognition of homosexual couples was a sign the party had opened its door to the gay community.
The gay community could not be ignored, he added.
“Until now we swept this reality under the carpet and we have to face it with honesty and courage.”
He insisted the PN was ready to discuss the issue and take a position on the “controversial” subject.
The underlying principle of the Civil Unions Bill is that partners will be treated as married, granting them similar tax, pension and inheritance rights, including the right to adopt children as a couple.
But PN executive president Ann Fenech told Times of Malta the Civil Unions Bill could not simply be “a cut and paste” of the Marriage Act.
“The two laws are different and will be examined in due course and the fullness of time but it is premature at this stage to identify the changes the party will propose in Parliament,” she said, adding that the changes will have to be discussed internally.
The PN said it would seek consensus for the changes it will propose.
In its electoral programme the PN had said it would legislate for recognition of same-sex couples, calling them civil partnerships.
In the previous legislature the PN put forward a Bill on civil partnerships that outlined the parameters for a private agreement contracted in front of a notary to be valid.
The proposed law, which never came up for parliamentary debate, had fallen far short of the gay community’s expectations. It did not provide for the partnership to be contracted by a public registry official and made no provisions for tax benefits or child adoption.
Meanwhile, the Church’s Cana Movement yesterday insisted MPs had a duty to regulate the rights and obligations of same-sex partners but different relationships could not be equalised.
Equality should not be used as a pretext to redefine marriage and eliminate diversity
“Equality should not be used as a pretext to redefine marriage and eliminate diversity,” the movement said, noting that Government’s proposed civil unions were equivalent to marriage in all but name.
The movement reiterated its belief that lifelong marriage, between one man and one woman, produced strong families.
Laws to distinguish between different realities are not discriminatory, the movement added.
“In a society which celebrates pluralism, what is needed is fairness, which respects diversity, and not pseudo-equality, which destroys differentiation.”
The movement urged politicians to keep introducing measures to strengthen families and hoped for a constructive debate that would seek consensus on regulating different forms of relationships.
It insisted that legislators should not “exceed their electoral mandate” and seek to enact a just law, which treats all persons with dignity and promotes the good of society.
On the issue of adoption, Cana said the guiding principle should always remain the best interest of the child, insisting no parent, irrespective of sexual orientation, had a fundamental right to have, raise or adopt children.
But children had a right to family life, Cana added.
“The institute of adoption is not intended to address or satisfy the wishes of adoptive parents, be they homosexual or heterosexual, but to safeguard the child’s best interest.”