Parliament’s approval of the Marriage Equality Act, which allows same-sex marriage, was a major step forward for gay rights, coming nearly four years after the introduction of civil unions.
However, as with civil union, the latest piece of legislation was controversial partly because it went further than the electoral promise originally made. The civil unions law of 2013 was basically same-sex marriage in all but name, giving gay couples the right to adopt, and this was not what the Labour Party had pledged in its manifesto. The Opposition Nationalist Party had consequently abstained on the vote.
This time around, it was expected that once gay marriage was already de facto in existence, the new Marriage Equality Act would simply be a matter of changing the name of the law to include the word ‘marriage’ instead of ‘civil union’. However, a number of other laws have also been amended in order to make them gender neutral. So, for example, references to ‘husband and wife’ have changed to ‘spouse’; ‘father and mother’ to ‘parents’; and ‘mother’ to ‘the person who gave birth’.
The PN objected to these changes on the basis that they could have far-reaching consequences for society, and put forward a number of amendments which were however dismissed outright by the government.
A clear pattern has emerged in the way the Labour government introduces legislation on gay rights. First, their proposals have tended to go further than the promises made at election time. Secondly, on both occasions, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat made it deliberately difficult for the Nationalist Party, which has a strong Catholic conservative wing, to accept the new law. This is regrettable. Under the guise of doing what is right for the country, Dr Muscat has lost no opportunity to try and score political points against his adversary.
Nationalist Party leader Simon Busuttil decided to back the Bill this time even though he had serious reservations about the gender neutral wording. But while Maltese society has shown it is ready to embrace diversity, many are those who have genuine and serious ethical and moral misgivings on the subject of gay marriage. On issues such as this, MPs should be allowed to vote according to their conscience.
One Nationalist MP, Edwin Vassallo, did just that by defying the party whip and voting against the Marriage Equality Act, saying he could not reconcile his principles with an “immoral” law and, in the meantime, being openly critical of his party’s stand. Former minister Tonio Fenech was even more scathing in a series of articles.
On matters of conscience, other centre-right parties in Europe have give a free vote to their representatives. They include the Conservative Party in Britain and more recently, the Christian Democratic Union in Germany. Doing the same would also have been in the interest of permitting the Nationalist Party’s conservative and liberal wings to continue to co-exist in relative harmony. Instead, the PN’s decision has alienated many of its core voters. The contention that it was not possible to give a free vote because the PN included gay marriage in its manifesto does not hold up to scrutiny. For one thing, the PN lost the election. Secondly, the decision to make same-sex marriage an electoral promise was done without consulting the PN parliamentary group. And thirdly, the Marriage Equality Act as approved went beyond what the PN was proposing.
Will the PN now impose the party whip to support the Labour government when the latter moves to introduce a law allowing IVF treatment for gay couples? The consequence of this law will raise thorny ethical and psychological questions of its own that some MPs might not be willing to countenance.
The PN will soon choose a new party leader. One of the qualities of Dr Busuttil’s successor will need to be the ability to reconcile the party’s conservative and liberal wings.
On matters of conscience such as these, this means allowing a free vote in Parliament.