I was uncertain whether to write anything at all about the current debate on the amendments to the Marriage Act and to other legislation, aimed at bringing about marriage equality in this country. That a debate is occurring is a good thing in itself. Moreover, the discussion has not been limited to Parliament but has engaged politicians, opinion leaders, Church leaders and citizens who have come out to express their views on the proposed changes.

Most of what has been said has been sensible even if I don’t find myself in agreement with some of the statements that have been made. There have been some utterances that, in my view, reveal an underlying uneasiness with the acceptance of diversity, often based on prejudice or fear.

Parliament has a clear mandate to legislate. Both the Labour Party and the Forza Nazzjonali (Nationalist Party and Democratic Party) explicitly promised to legislate to grant the right to persons of the same sex to marry, thereby ‘upgrading’ the current civil union regime. Therefore, there is an almost unanimous popular mandate. Moreover, I disagree completely with those who hold that the FN is not bound by its electoral programme since it did not obtain the support of the majority of the population.

The 44 per cent who voted for FN did so on the basis of that programme which included the pledge to legislate for marriage equality and all 30 members of Parliament elected on the basis of that programme have an obligation towards those who voted for them, an obligation that they cannot be absolved from just because the coalition did not win the election.

I agree that every effort should be made to secure the widest possible consensus in Parliament on the wording of the law. However, the principle at stake is that of implementing the pledge made by the two main parties – introduce marriage for persons of the same sex. There can be no free vote on this. If any MP has an issue with his or her conscience then he or she should not have accepted to contest the election on the basis of the programme presented by his or her party.

I have followed a lot of what has been said about the introduction of terminology that would make our laws more inclusive in terms of the shift from considering marriage as exclusively for heterosexual couples to one that is more encompassing of the diversity in our society. My partner and I have been in a civil union for a year and a half.

Marriage equality is not just about amending the Marriage Act. It is about bringing all other laws in line with the principle

I, therefore, speak from personal experience when I say how awkward it has been at times because when the Civil Unions Act came into force, despite giving couples the same rights and obligations as married couples, many other laws and administrative practices remain unchanged.

I still recall the humiliation of having to put down my male partner’s details under the section for “wife’s details” to obtain a civil union certificate from the Public Registry and the problem with us attempting to draw up an unica charta will since the Civil Code still refers to husband and wife, hence effectively nullifying the equality at law that couples in a civil union are meant to enjoy with married couples.

Therefore, marriage equality is not just about amending the Marriage Act. It is about bringing all other laws in line with the principle. I appreciate that some may not like the new language being proposed. However, I also refute the assertion that amending laws to introduce terms that may be better applicable to all situations is an ‘attack’ on motherhood or fatherhood.  Since when do we need the law to tell us how to address our parents?

It was also understandable that the Archbishop would, at some stage, express himself against the proposed amendments and defend the Catholic view of marriage as a life-long covenant between one man and one woman. I wrote a commentary a few weeks ago arguing that although for a very long period, the legal definition of marriage reflected the teachings of the Catholic Church, society has evolved and the enactment of the Marriage Act in 1975 introduced a much needed separation of Church and State in this matter.

Moreover, no legal amendments are going to force the Church to alter its teachings on marriage and its right to regulate religious marriages in terms of Canon Law. If anything, the amendments being proposed explicitly recognise the right of ‘conscientious objection’ by introducing a provision in the Marriage Act that states : “Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as obliging an official of a religious body to solemnise a particular form of marriage which is not recognised by the religious body of which that official is a member.”

Speaking from personal experience, I know Archbishop Scicluna as a man who spares no effort to reach out to all categories of society. Yes, he is obliged to restate Church teaching as it stands, yet the way he goes about his mission reflects the actions of a man who, in the spirit of Pope Francis, does not sit in judgement and does seek to reach out to individuals who may have made choices that are not fully in conformity with Church teaching. Moreover, I would seek to place in context his strongest pronouncement so far on the issue – a homily he delivered during the main Mass to celebrate the feast of St Nicholas in Siġġiewi.

Much as I disagree with his references to oranges and carobs and to the use of technology to assist procreation, he was addressing a particular congregation in a church which, from the photos I have seen, was not exactly packed to capacity. Furthermore, even more significant was the fact that although the Prime Minister had already stated that the Marriage Act and other Laws (Amendment) Bill would be the first to be presented to Parliament in the new legislature, when addressing members of Parliament during the Mass of the Holy Spirit at the opening of the 13th Parliament, Mgr Scicluna did not refer directly to the issue, opting to speak in general terms about accountability to one’s conscience, to society and to God.

I am confident that once the law comes into force, there will be no destabilisation of the family in Malta. We have already been through this argument before divorce and civil unions were introduced. On the contrary, it will strengthen the family albeit as a unit no longer defined in a manner that belongs to the past.