The sanitised debate on civil unions

While the introduction of civil unions is a welcome step towards greater social inclusion, it has exposed the lack of a real organic debate within political parties.

Malta has truly made performed an incredible summersault: from being one of the last countries in the world to introduce divorce to one which grants a civil status equivalent to marriage (with adoption rights included) to same sex couples.

We did so without first introducing a cohabitation regime for people who want some basic guarantees without assuming the full obligations of marriage. The government has in fact hinted that it will be introducing a cohabitation bill at a later stage.

All the more striking is the lack of debate, which suggests that the conservative camp is still licking its wounds from the 2011 divorce referendum.

It is true that the government has a mandate to introduce civil unions, and that before the election the PL suggested that these unions will carry most of the rights and obligations of a marriage, while leaving space for some ambiguity on adoption rights. In fact, the only party to propose gay marriage in the last general election was Alternattiva Demokratika.

Faced with a situation where it risked alienating liberal voters, the PN has taken the bold step of supporting civil unions while appeasing conservatives by announcing its intention to introduce an amendment to keep a distinction between marriage and civil unions.

But deputy leader Mario de Marco has made it clear that the PN will not seek to take away any of the rights acquired by same-sex couples through the new bill.

On its part the Labour government while proposing a bill transposing the marriage law in the new civil union regime, also keeps insisting on keeping a linguistic distinction by introducing a parallel institution to marriage for both same sex and different sex couples even if there is practically no legal distinction between the two statuses.

In this way both major parties seem intent on denying same sex people the symbolism of marriage while agreeing to grant same sex couples the full rights enjoyed by married couples. The only difference is semiotic, with the PN keener on the distinction between marriage and civil unions.

To arrive here both parties had to accept granting gay couples adoption rights.  For otherwise they would be discriminating against same sex couples.

In so doing both parties could be running against public opinion, even if I doubt whether there is the intensity of feeling against adoption rights for gays as there was against divorce.  The two major parties could also be wary of shifting demographics, with younger people increasingly adopting a more liberal outlook.

Unfortunately one consequence of an otherwise welcome political consensus on granting basic civil rights to a discriminated category was the absence of a real debate, which was replaced by a sanitised debate.

On its part the gay rights movement has become less vocal on demanding the inclusion of same-sex couples in the institution of marriage while conservatives have largely abstained from the debate. 

The PN itself had most to lose from a replica of the divorce saga, which alienated the liberal segment of its electorate from the PN. In fact Busuttil's decision to support the new law was both bold and pragmatic. For in the absence of a conservative party on its right wing, social conservatives have nowhere else to go while liberals can either vote AD or PL.

But there is a sense of surrealism in seeing known vocal social conservatives in the party silent on this issue, supporting the party line.

In some ways it may have been a more honest albeit more risky course had the party discussed this issue in the open, allowing its more conservative elements to voice their concerns along with more liberal elements in the same party who favour full marriage rights.

Ultimately political parties are expected to take a stance on such issues, but I would not have been scandalised if known social conservatives in the PN had voiced their opinions.

In some ways this state of fact exposes the poverty of Maltese democracy.

By reducing elections to presidential campaigns centred around charismatic leaders surrounded by star candidates, Gonzi and to an even larger extent Muscat have killed internal debate in political parties.

For if social conservatives are absent from the debate on civil unions, the left wing in the Labour Party has evaporated completely, judging by the lack of any public internal debate on the privatisation of energy, the selling of Maltese citizenship and Muscat's hawkish immigration policy.

Moreover in Labour, the rise of star candidates with little ideological formation, results in serious embarrassments like Rachel Tua's outburst against immigrants.

Diversity does not mean getting people from the opposite side of the spectrum and herding them around a charismatic leader. It means accepting an open debate between different strands of opinion.

In view of the increased sterility of Maltese politics the creation of organised ideological currents within all political parties would do Maltese democracy a great deal of good. For how can so many different opinions be condensed in two political parties?

While I stick to the opinion that the best antidote to this paralysis is a reform of the electoral system to give third parties a fair chance of representation, it would also be healthy to accept a degree of pluralism within parties. 

It would surely be an antidote to the presidentialist credentials of the leaders. Simon Busuttil, who stands little chance to beat Muscat in a presidential contest, can take the lead.

avatar
I have nothing against gay marriages. I am however worried that such decision will effect drastically heterosexual couples that want to adopt from Russia. Russia is averse to gays. And in fact , as soon that news of legislation of civil unions broke out, Russia suspended its adoption services to Malta.
avatar
What's to debate? Aren't there enough countries which already have gay marriage for Malta to be able to look at them and realize that the sky hasn't fallen, that morals are exactly what they were before, that straight people don't feel that their marriages have somehow lost anything, that society and EVERYTHING has simply continued on with NO fuss whatsoever? As for adoption: I am totally fed up with the “debate” about whether or not gays (and singles) should be allowed to adopt kids. This same debate (as with gay marriage) has been done UMPTEEN times in other countries all around the globe: Canada, USA, England; France, Holland etc) and we now have a good 25 YEARS of studies that PROVE that single or gay parents have NO negative effects on children! In fact, a very recent study has found that adopted kids (including those with gay parents) are generally happier and more well-balanced, because they have truly been wanted instead of being just accidents or whims, and the parents are already financially and psychologically stable enough to give the adopted kid the very best possible. Normal parents, on the other hand, often have more kids than they can handle, do not necessarily have the financial stability that they should, and often end up having kids by accident with often disastrous results for everyone. So… can we put this debate to rest and just vote the law in and make it easier for orphans to have parents of any sex or colour? Or single parents too if there are enough needy children to go around? Anyone who REALLY cares about kids should already be able to judge from the results everywhere else to forego ANOTHER useless debate and get on with it!
avatar
joseph mercieca
I presumed you were going to congratulate the government for passing the civil unions law without any acrimony. I should have known that you anthropologically anti-Labour. You lamented about ideology as far as I can understand European politics are now more based on pragmatism than ideology. I am no expert in politics still I can realise that both right and left parties have very similar policies. With regards to Malta having presidential Elections this has been the trend at least since the fifties. We had Mintoff and Borg Olivier, Mintoff Fenech Adami and so on. The people seem to like this style of election why grumble? About Ms or Mrs. Tua there is nothing apocalyptical about it. She is a very very tiny cog in the machinery of the party. She will rue forever the day she blabbered on the internet. Jurgen Balzan for the last time wake up to the fact the Enemalta has not been privatised but the Chinese bought a share to save it from bankruptcy. Enemalta is still the property of the Maltese people. Not like HSBC, MIA, Malta Post and others which are owned by foreigners. Politically I belong to the extreme left of the Labour Party. In my younger days I objected to privatisation and business oriented policies. But through the years I had to admit that the Party’s policies had up date. Did we have misgivings? Sure we had but that was the only way forward. Thus people like me on the very edge of the left of the Party agree with Joseph Muscat’s policies even the one regarding citizenship. I agree because Joseph kept his word. In that he told us that his aim to get investment and attract money to the island was to ease the fiscal pressure on the people and be in a strong financial position to sustain the welfare state that was being demolished by the previous government. That is why he sold the Chinese a share in Enemalta so that come March the price of water and electricity will be reduced. He is selling citizenship so that he will decrease the indirect taxation. At the same time he has to grapple with the mess he found where every department is inundated accrued debt. Yes Joseph is doing business because from the profits he will sustain the poor, the sick, the indigent, and create jobs. So keep your mind at rest we of the far left of the Party are behind Joseph because the money he is generating are going for the people not to his cronies. PS Enemalta is owned by the Maltese. Repeat it 100 times for a month maybe it will stick.
avatar
You should rejoice that this proposed legislation wasn't marred by acrimonious opposition as previous progressive initiatives have been. Why should there have been any debate? Joseph Muscat had the mandate to implement Gay rights and he is fulfilling his pre-election promise. Implicit in the PL election victory is an acceptance, by the majority of the populace, of Gay rights. Perhaps it's a sign of political maturity and a recognition that we live in the 21st century and not the dark ages. That Busuttil didn't combat this legislation is not boldness but crass opportunism. The PN is already equated with a Neanderthal philosophy by younger voters. Any demurring from the PN on this issue would have resulted in further vote losses. What is disturbing is your attack on the PL regarding migration. You couldn't stay on topic but instead used another issue to slag the PL. Is this part of some hidden agenda to attack the PL regardless of any good it does?