De Marco: ‘MPs must not impose morality’ over gay unions bill

Additional reporting by Jurgen Balzan

Catholic MPs who vote in favour of the forthcoming civil unions bill  which gives same-sex couples the right to enter into a civilly-recognised union and also adopt, would be committing  "a gravely immoral act", Auxiliary

Bishop Charles Scicluna has told the Italian Catholic newspaper L'Avvenire.

But it seems both parties in parliament do not share Scicluna's views.

"One could indeed argue whether it would be immoral to vote against [the bill]," PN deputy leader for parliamentary affairs Mario de Marco said, when contacted for his reaction to Scicluna's statement.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat yesterday underlined the need for a clear separation between Church and State.

"This is a democratic country and the Church is entitled to voice its views on matters it believes are important to its teachings. Yet, as a modern democracy, State and Church matters are separate," Muscat said.

He reiterated that the Labour government was elected "with a very strong mandate" to implement its electoral manifesto, which includes civil unions.

"That is what we will keep doing for the rest of the legislature. 2014 will be the year of equality in Malta," Muscat said.

In an interview to l'Avvenire, Scicluna said catholic lawmakers had the "moral duty" to vote against the bill.

"Granting the vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good of society is a gravely immoral act," Scicluna said, citing the Vatican's 2003 considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to homosexual unions.

Scicluna has been vociferous in reiterating the catholic church's opposition to same-sex unions, not only to voice the Church's opinion but also to increase pressure on the country's legislators against adoptions by same sex couples.

Scicluna has also accused the three political parties - PN, PL and Green party Alternattiva Demokratika - of pandering to the gay lobby for votes.

"In a frantic rush to grab votes, all political parties have promised to facilitate the claims of the gay lobby and promised legislation in favour of civil unions. After the elections of March 2013, Labour, led by Dr Joseph Muscat, won and the government has moved to honour its commitment to the gay lobby," Scicluna told the foreign paper.

Upping the ante, Scicluna has also claimed that the Pope was "shocked" at discovering that Malta was about to recognise gay couples.

On Friday, he reiterated the Pope had been "saddened" by the development, especially on the issue of adoptions.

Scicluna told the Pope that promoters of the bill would cite his words - "If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and good will, who am I to judge?" - but would not cite what the Pope had also said in 2010 when he was still Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires.

"The Pope repeated a phrase of his letter of 2010: 'It's an anthropological setback," Scicluna said.

Admitting that morality and politics are not easy neighbours, Mario de Marco said the Bishop's comments on whether politicians have a moral duty to vote against the civil unions bill could spark an interesting debate.

However, he also made it clear that "the main function of a legislator was not to impose his personal opinion on others but to recognise the reality situation in the society he forms part of and regulate such a situation for the greater good."

By having a civil unions bill and ultimately a law, de Marco added, one was recognising a state of affairs existing already in society.

"The law regulates such a state of affairs and gives a couple rights and obligations against one another," he said.

"As things stand today, a gay couple living together has no rights or obligations against one another because their current state of affairs is not recognised by the state.

It is as if their relationship does not exist."

"One could indeed argue whether it would be immoral to vote against [the bill]," PN deputy leader for parliamentary affairs Mario de Marco said, when contacted for his reaction to Scicluna's statement.

He argued that the matter was compounded by the fact that often there was no definition of morality or who was the ultimate arbitrar on what was moral and what was not: "Morality can be absolute or relative. Morality is often considered to belong to the individual. Politics as belonging to the public." Conceding that it was important to have "moral politicians", de Marco noted it was not necessarily a contradiction for a politician to be guided by matters that go beyond individual morality when it comes to legislating.

"By way of example, whilst a politician may view gambling as immoral, it does not necessarily mean that such a politician will have a moral duty to vote against legislation that regulates gambling.

"For prohibiting gambling may have worse consequences on society than regulating it, because it would ignore the reality and drive it underground making it harder to control."

He said that the same argument could be applied to a multitude of different situations. "We certainly lived through the anguish of politics and morality a couple of years ago in the divorce debate."

'Not an ecclesiastical matter' - Minister

Civil Liberties Minister Helena Dalli said it was the Church's right to speak according to its teachings but the issue at hand was not an ecclesiastical matter.

"This issue has nothing to do with the Church. This is a civil issue, not an ecclesiastical one. We are MPs elected to represent the people first and foremost," she said.

Paediatrician and backbencher Chris Fearne pointed out that the right of adoption was "a child's right", while parents adopting were giving a service.

He said that as a Catholic MP he listened to what the Church had to say, but this would not be the only consideration he made before taking a decision.

"One has to bear in mind that not every citizen holds the same religious beliefs," he said.

On her part, Labour backbencher Deborah Schembri said she disagreed with the Bishop's comments.

"I believe the rights that will be given to gay couples are merely rights they should have been given long ago as human beings. The nature of their intimate relationship with one another is for them to determine. The role of the MP, Catholic or otherwise is to ensure the promotion of equality before the law and basic human rights to all humans without distinction," she said.

Schembri said that what was considered to be "gravely immoral" was "being able to prevent years of unnecessary hardship to people and not doing so".

The Labour MEP candidate added that gay couples have been able to adopt for years, but not as

a couple.

"What will be given is a right to be considered for assessment as prospective parents to children and the final decision will always be taken in the children's best interest. Therefore, although I respect the opinion of others, including that of the Auxiliary Bishop, I would be acting against my conscience if I voted against the law, not if I voted in favour of it," Schembri said.

Opposition leader Simon Busuttil, currently abroad, directed this newspaper to a spokesperson for the PN, who took a more cautious approach to Scicluna's comments, saying that the PN has already taken

"a common position" on how it will proceed in the coming stages of the civil union bill.

This also includes what amendments it will put forward at committee stage.

The PN has said it backed the civil unions bill but is also calling for a social impact assessment on adoptions by gay couples.

The amendments it put forward in parliament were two-pronged, with some of the amendments aimed at making a clear distinction between marriage and civil unions and the rest of the amendments aimed removing all references to adoption from the bill.

Opposition MPs, including the PN's spokesperson for civil liberties Claudette Buttigieg and MP

Jason Azzopardi, declined to comment referring this newspaper to the party's spokesperson.

On his part, Nationalist MP Claudio Grech said what the Bishop said reflected the doctrine of the Church. "I am sure that any Catholic MP was already familiar with Article IV of the 2003 considerations," he said. "I feel it is premature to comment on the vote on this bill at this delicate stage."

Grech added that the position on the vote in parliament need to be assessed in due course following the consideration of the amendments put forward by the PN.

Article IV of the 2003 consideration states that since Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as have "a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

The same document describes homosexual acts as going against natural law because they "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."