The birth certificates of children adopted by two men or two women – what are they going to be like?
Some time in the 1990s, the law was amended in a quite outrageous manner (I had written about it at the time) to have the birth certificates of adopted children changed to show the names of the adoptive parents as the birth parents. The only facts which cannot be changed on the birth certificates of adopted children are the place and date of birth.
I had object at the time – and I still think this is very wrong – because birth certificates are matters of factual record. They must not be falsified or intentionally give false information.
Before that change to the law, the birth certificates of adopted children indicated that they were adopted. The pressure for change came from adoptive parents who didn’t like this because they wanted to pass off their adopted children as their biological children, and the government of the day obliged.
The prevailing mentality has changed since then, even though it has been a relatively short time. With so many African, Chinese and south-east Asian children being adopted by Maltese people, there isn’t even any attempt at passing them off as their own biological offspring. They are proudly declared as adopted even if it were not immediately obvious. The days when we would, as children, discover quite late that another child we knew had been adopted, because it was some big secret that we were not meant to mention, are long gone.
Adoption is no longer a big secret or some source of shame for the adopters and the adopted.
And yet the birth certificates of adopted children remain the same: a work of fiction.
Example:
Father’s name: John Borg
Mother’s name: Rita Borg nee Camilleri
Child’s Name: Jonathan Borg
Date of birth: 12 April 1990
Place of birth: Bucharest, Romania
You can deduce that Jonathan is adopted from the fact that John and Rita Borg were unlikely to be passing through Bucharest when she gave birth. So what is the point of this fiction, exactly?
It doesn’t help the child, either.
But anyway, that’s old news and an old issue which now has very current repercussions.
The civil unions law says that same-sex civil-union couples must have exactly the same marriage and adoption rights as heterosexual married couples. So what are they going to do about those birth certificates? I have asked around and nobody, but nobody, seems to know how it will be tackled.
Most people I asked didn’t even know there is now this problem, because they had no idea that the birth certificates of adopted children are changed to give the adoptive parents as the birth parents.
I have read nothing about it in the press. But it is definitely going to be a big issue, because now we face a situation in which birth certificates are going to have to be even further fictionalised to portray a situation that does not exist in nature. A document which is supposed to be an official record of reality is now going to be an even greater piece of fantasy.
Birth certificates the world over, by force of law and nature (because it is a record of birth and actual parentage) require the mother’s name and the father’s name. Where they are not available, the empty space is filled in as ‘unknown’.
There are no options for not having a father, not having a mother, having two fathers or having two mothers, because not one of those four scenarios is biologically possible.
I would appreciate some information on what is going to be done about the birth certificates of children adopted by two men or two women in Malta, because I can’t get that information anywhere. It is a crucial issue because if birth certificates are now going to be changed to accommodate same-sex adoption, those birth certificates will be the same for everyone else, same-sex or not.
What are the options?
Parent 1:
Parent 2:
At this rate, we might as well scrap birth certificates all together and have something called a ‘child/parent certificate’. With the state legalising the falsification of birth certificates, which has been going on for years already, and now this, things are getting to be a bit of a joke.
This is what we can expect a Maltese birth certificate to look like under the new regime:
Father’s name: Mark Zammit
Father’s name: James Caruana
Child’s name: Simone Zammit Caruana
Gender: Female
Date of birth: 25 July 2015
Place of birth: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
60 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
All this started when gays were given rights like normal persons.
Now we have to lump it and it is only the beginning..
It is useless running away from facts.
Gays are not normal people and they should be treated as such, even if this sounds cruel.
And by the way do you think it was right , from the sanitary point of view to have all those gay people on St George s Square, yesterday?
We all know they are a source of spreading disease.
[Daphne – Mr Loporto, you’re the one who voted Labour, so your views are doubly surprising, though they are the views of a typical Labour voter.]
Silvio, I find your post distastefully amusing.
There’s no worse disease than a pestilential mind that believes it is clean and rational.
Mr Loporto, you are either joking, or you are truly a homophobic un-normal thing. You are the one who spreads diseases when you think and speak. You are not only a disgrace to the human race but to all living things.
It seems ignorance is somewhat contagious too…..
He’s kidding, right?
Shut up, Loporto.
Normal distribution isn’t a rectangular graph.
First of all, who cares for how the child is going to be surnamed? In reality you are all homophobes. You are all homophobes people who can’t accept that gay people are normal as all of us and I am a proud gay and transsexual as that and yet am well open minded. Joseph Muscat is giving us the great opportunity to be the same level as you in civil rights. Wether this is adoption or the mother got herself pregnant thanks to insemination from a friend donor or an unknown or 2 men adopt a child the two can arrange to make one surname and raise the child under the same surname. I am sure the child won’t give an importance about the surname or who is the.mummy or the daddy role. The child will adapt itself. And as for someone like a hypocrite of Simon busuttil comes to say cause they will be bullied. OK they will, but even if their parents are woman and a man they will be a target of some bully to be used as a stress and frustration relief punching bag.
Children will come.to terms in that with adoption surname and stupid birth certificate problem. Cause when they will be treated with love and respect from the parents, the gender and sexual orientation it’s not important neither where they really belong too.
Daphne you are a woman full of hate towards the other people who are trying to have and you are trying to bring any kind of excuse to ruin them and bring to shame in public whether on Internet or somewhere else. You hit a point specially on this cause you know how ignorant like Silvio loporto and his mental diseased hated homophobes attitude towards us and others who are against gays and the marriages and adoption to support you. Really??? We are in the 2014 so wake up call is what you need. And get a life.
[Daphne – ‘Joseph Muscat is giving us the great opportunity to be the same level as you in civil rights’. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it – not the desire to marry but the desire to have what somebody else has, as always. I hate to break this to you, but if Joseph Muscat really meant that, he wouldn’t have created a separate law for civil unions for homosexuals. He would have simply amended the existing Marriage Act with one simple line: marriage can take place between two people of whichever gender. You’re still not equal, because you have your own law: yet another ghetto for gays, and you’re out celebrating your new ghetto. Lovely.]
excuse me ? ..gays are not normal people ? ..this is a joke! I hope you do not call yourself a Christian ..
Mamma mia. Not sure if Silvio Loporto is an Internet troll, or whether he is an Internet-enabled troglodyte.
May I add another point which everyone is missing including the Opposition.
COLA and the energy and water bills: in the calculation of a workers yearly wage rise there is the energy expenses factor, with the 25% and 35% reduction in the energy prices, next year we would probably end up with a €1.12 weekly wage rise.
Some cases have examined birth certificate controversies and reached differing opinions.
In January 2012, an Iowa District Court ordered the Iowa Department of Public Health to include [PDF] both names of legally married same-sex parents on birth certificates.
Cases involving gay adoption also include Adar v. Smith, a case involving a same-sex couple that wanted both their names on the birth certificate of an adopted child.
Though adopted in New York, the child was born in Louisiana, where the couple was refused their request.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit originally ordered both names to be added to the birth certificate, but upon en banc review, the Fifth Circuit struck the order.
Following that decision, gay rights group Lambda Legal filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court to review the case, which was denied.
http://jurist.org/feature/2013/07/adoption-and-parental-rights.php
What concerns Joseph Muscat are votes. Children do not have votes but gay adults do.
• California law permits same-sex parents who are legally married or registered domestic partners to both be recognized on their child’s birth certificate.
• In May, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that state officials must allow both women in same-sex marriages to be listed on the birth certificate.
• In March 2011, Massachusetts officials began allowing the practice for both lesbians and gay men without legal wrangling.
• Maryland, New York and Oregon officials also permit the practice, but only between two women; men have additional procedures to tackle.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/10/ohio-gay-marriage-law-suit/5372863/
What you say is extremely correct but because the law was nothing more than a populist exercise, there are glaring lacunae which have created more questions than answers.
The Civil Code speaks of the matrimonial home. This is where the married couple establish their habitual residence.
What about civil unions? Will they also have a “matrimonial home”?
Will the residence of a partner of a civil union have the same protection as that afforded by the Civil Law to a matrimonial home?
What about the partner whose home was bought prior to the registration of the civil union?
Does the Civil Unions Act create the same rights and obligations on inheritance (succession) in favour of “partners” in civil unions?
Does the law operate in the same manner for the reserved portion (formerly the “legittima”)? Presumably, yes. But presumably. We have no certainty on this.
How will joint accounts work in banks, for example? We are assuming that all this will operate in he same manner as married couples.
However, we have yet to see it in action. Fact is, nobody mentioned these things.
We know that marriage is a contract. But what is a civil union? The law does not mention that it is a contract, but says that it requires the same capacity to get married.
Hence, by corollary I would surmise that it is still a contract.
But why do we have to second-guess the legislator? Did no one think of these issues?
Furthermore, if it is really a contract, why not specify it?
Termination of a civil union: Can partners to a civil union divorce?
May they sue for the annulment of their unions? May they separate?
Again, the law is silent.
If a civil union is to produce the same effects of marriage, then it should also create the community of acquests for the parties. But while the law clearly regulates marriage regimeson property acquired during marriage, it is silent on the creation, termination and liquidation of the community of acquests upon the termination of the union (if at all possible) or in accordance with the will of the parties. This needed, and still needs, clarification.
The law on marriage states that creditors of the community of acquests can sue either spouse. What about parties to a civil union?
Can one of the parties be sued for debt contracted by the other party? Again, the law is silent.
There is the blanket provision: whatever is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (whatever applies to marriage applies to civil unions) but it is not that simple.
What about children born to one partner (biologically) in a civil union? Will the other mother be considered as “the mother” too?
The law “assumes” couples will just adopt.
But that is not the only reality. Some women make themselves pregnant on purpose to have a child, irrespective of whether they want to be with the father or otherwise.
Will the same-sex partner (in a civil union) be recognised as the second mother?
Isn’t that unfair to he child?
Some may argue that the “other mother” may adopt the child.
What if the father is not mentioned in any birth certificate and he listed as “unknown”, will the mother be forced to divulge the identity of the real father, before having the “second mother” registered as a second mother?
What will be the relationship of a child, recognised by a father, born to a mother in a same-sex relationship, with the “other mother” if the husband does not “sign for adoption” (to use the colloquial term?).
One thing most people do not know is that even heterosexual partners may enter into civil union.
So, we have two types of partnerships: marriage and civil unions which create exactly the same type of rights and obligations.
So, do we have two types of relationships creating identical rights and obligations?
The answer is a resounding yes. This goes on to show the populist nature of this law.
Yet another abysmal failure is that it does nothing to protect those parties who simply do not want to marry (and hence do not want to register).
Most women who are cohabiting and do not work (and there are quite a few) might find their partners unwilling to tie the knot or register a civil union (given it creates the same rights and obligations).
These women (and partners of whichever sex) are still unprotected. When will we see a real cohabitation bill?
Needless to say, our learned legislators seem not to have thought about any of these.
Saying “whatever goes for marriage applies to civil unions” is rubbish in the legal context.
Why not say that marriage is possible in the same-sex scenarios and stop there?
Can the child ask to have his or her birth certificate changed? And can a child asked to be de-parented? I’m assuming it can’t be done until legal adulthood.
An absolutely brilliant analysis. These are some of the questions that I have been asking for months on end now.
This law brings about more questions than it does answers.
It’s going to be a whole big mess, legally speaking.
Completely in line with the rest of the big messes embarked upon by jo and his henchmen since March 2013 – and not only those under the classification ‘legally speaking’.
Just as a matter of curiosity, how is this currently handled when adoptions are made by single people?
I have read that this is already possible (adoptions by singles).
Is this only limited to single women (therefore the certificate would say father unknown) or are adoptions by single men also possible (with a mother unknown on the certificate)?
[Daphne – Adoptions by single men are possible under the law but rarely happen. Men don’t have a maternal instinct or a biological clock.]
What does a birth certificate look like when the child has only one adopted parent?
[Daphne – Unknown father (the single adopter is usually a woman), and in most cases, this is not a lie. With children abandoned at birth and adopted from orphanages, the father is generally unknown.]
This is how it will end up :
Parents’ name : M Zammit
J Caruana
Child’s name : Simone Zammit Caruana
Gender : Optional
Date of birth : 25 July 2015
Place of birth : Malta
Or,
“Date of first registration in Malta:”
Thanks for explaining.
I knew a woman who gave birth and the child was whisked away minutes later and handed over to the new parents. I thought it strange. Now I know they could legally enter their names as parents without even bothering with adoption papers, all with the blessing of the state.
[Daphne – You are wrong. The adoption process still has to be gone through, and the adoption papers remain on record. The consent of the birth mother is essential – the adoption can’t take place without that. ]
What Alexander Ball is referring to here is probably a case of illegal adoption, which is another case entirely.
I know of somebody who adopted a child and unashamedly boasted of “gibnieh frisk”, the adopted child having been handed over to the adoptive parents at barely a couple of hours old.
Being a parent myself, I thought that a rather callous and selfish statement, and felt terrible for the birth mother who probably had her child “whisked away” too, although I have no idea who she is or what her situation was.
That does not mean that the adoptive parents’ names were registered as the birth parents.
[Daphne – They always are. There is no opt-out clause. The verb used in the law is ‘shall’ not ‘may’.]
In fact, the child in question is clearly non-Caucasian, and has always – I believe – been brought up knowing that he was adopted, and rightly so.
“The consent of the birth mother is essential” – Yes, of course it is, but surely there are cases where the mother is coerced into signing her child away, being made to believe that she has no other choice, especially if she is a foreigner, possibly here illegally?
[Daphne – I believe there is a period of several months after the birth during which the mother can’t sign her child away. Lawyers who might be reading this would know the details and might perhaps specify them.]
They will probably put ‘parent’ instead of father and mother.
Maybe something like:
Parents’ names: Mark Zammit, James Caruana
Child’s name: Simone Zammit Caruana
Gender: Female
Date of birth: 25 July 2015
Place of birth: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Or maybe they can coin a new word – parentperson.
A further question, which cuts into the heart of the current classic marriage arrangement is which surname comes first?
There is a discrimination that is set to occur against married couples and single parents with the first registration of a child under this new-fangled arrangement:
In a classic marriage, as things legally stand, the child MUST take the father’s surname. Where there are the names of both the mother and the father, the father’s name, again, MUST come first.
When a child is born to a single mother that single mother is forced, if she wishes to have the father’s name on the birth certificate and avoid the father unknown scenario or more ethically still out of respect for that father’s place in the child’s life, to forgo any option of having the child go forth in life with her name, unless this is placed second.
In this arrangement, any same sex couple is given free rein as to the surname that comes first, which would – by the law it is meant to equate to – be that of the father.
The equation, on that simple basis, is already not equal at law. It is a false equation with a bearing on the genetic line held in priority. A further discussion would need to ensue on this basis.
The difference may be minute and insignificant to some and enormous to others.
I think it is enormous.
At law, the married heterosexual couple and single mother (with her own child) are discriminated against.
—————–
I haven’t yet seen the word surrogacy mentioned yet.
If surrogacy is not legal in Malta – I suppose I should say “yet” – how is this going to effect cases where an extraneous child is slipped into the relationship. Does it by-pass adoption?
The law currently turns a blind eye and the child simply assumes the name of the father. This point was neither discussed nor clarified before the bill was passed.
—————–
I think the NP was absolutely correct in stating what it agreed with and what it didn’t.
It didn’t wait until the eleventh hour. The position was stated beforehand and clear.
There are so many points that need to be discussed.
The LGBT movement by virtue of its association with the Labour Party that passed this bill through unilaterally and the Labour Party needing those votes of its own accord, is responsible for the confusion and the rape of reason that has just occurred.
—————–
Genetic lineage is not something that can be hidden. DNA testing and the rights involved in affirming fact should not be neglected or hidden either.
Why does this Government only act on the convenience of the moment?
Why is all trace removed?
Why should a child’s right to know his own genetic lineage be denied him or her?
Why should genetic parentage not be listed on the birth certificate?
Aren’t history and the future so much more important than the wishes of two people who, by choice, place themselves in a relationship where reproduction with each other is an impossibility?
Surely the rest of the community deserves a whole lot more respect and legal support than what it has been given?
—————–
Does eternal love mean an act resulting in more than the sum of its parts that leaves a trace from the beginning of time to its genetic end?
Or one that lasts one life-time, if that?
Can the two ever summarily be judged as being on equal lines?
—————–
Same-sex civil union is one thing and perfectly acceptable if the law supporting it is well defined and the detail gone through with a fine tooth-comb.
What we have been given is not at all well-defined.
Gay adoption has been set for launch within the same context of murky definition that characterises Labour’s loop-hole ridden policies.
“The law currently turns a blind eye and the child simply assumes the name of the father*. This point was neither discussed nor clarified before the bill was passed.”
*Father* should read “husband”.
This is the similar to when transgender people’s ‘sex’ on an ID card shows ‘female’ when the person is physiologically a man: puffed up breasts, hormonal injections, and removal of the penis does not make one – in any way, shape or form – a woman.
I think the world has gone from being tragically prejudiced and repressive to utterly ridiculous.
I agree. Then again, that is the identity card, which shows the person as he/she is. What I disagree with is the birth certificate being amended when a person CHANGES their gender. Here again, the birth certificate should show the “facts” as at birth, in this case, showing the child’s sex AT BIRTH.
The points raised are very valid, but they have been of no concern at all to those who campaigned for and introduced marriage between persons of the same sex anywhere in the world.
They were just interested in getting what they claimed to be their right irrespective of consequences.
From now on just plough head, be inventive, falsify facts, create absurdities, eliminate references to father or mother, husband or wife, and quote equality as your justification.
I am quite sure that Joseph Muscat has the answer in his road map and that Varist Bartolo will get all the information as soon as the child gets his ID number.
This is what happens when a human rights lawyer pruzuntuz is engaged by an incompetent government to draft a family law act.
The law addresses the human rights issues in broad brush strokes and misses the finer detail of family law entirely.
The ridiculous law makes impotence a ground for nullity of a lesbian partnership.
I don’t recall any mention of this, probably because the incompetent prime movers did not notice.
The legislator’s anti-clerical bent results in a law that does not address the fundamental rights of Catholics.
Must a Catholic institution facilitate adoption by same-sex couples?
Can the church (and other religious institutions) discriminate against same-sex couples in the use of its properties?
Incompetents one and all.
For the record, I agree with the spirit of the legislation entirely.
I’m just mildly surprised by how poorly this was done.
It was a terrible, rushed and lazy job.
I cannot agree more. The point of impotence and lesbian relationships had escaped me entirely.
This law does indeed ignore all the finer points of Civil and Marriage Law.
On the contrary, I’m not at all surprised that this was done poorly, terribly and lazily, however. When populism blinds legislators and lawyers who should know otherwise, this is the consequent result.
The PN screwed up on this like they did with the Divorce Bill, it will make Labour stronger and Malta will be stuck with this government for a long time.
PN is living in a remote world of morals and ideology.
The PN did the right thing. If they voted against, they would have voted against civil unions, something with which they agree. The only viable option, notwithstanding what Times of Malta’s editor thinks, is the courageous one taken up by Simon Busuttil.
When you disagree with the crucial element of a law, you disagree with the whole law. The NP should have voted against. Then they should have presented their own bill on civil unions.
There. That’s backbone. And that’s the elegant solution to this political mess.
Well said, Baxxter.
I agree with Baxxter. Abstaining wasn’t smart.
Dissident, wait and see. Time will tell us which party would get stronger.
It will tell us as it did when the ‘Mintoffjani Socjalisti’ used to assure everyone that Labour would stay in power ‘seklu shih’.
Time proved them wrong, so wrong that they stood in Opposition for quarter of a century.
Sorry Dissident, I beg to disagree.
The PN only screwed on the Divorce Bill because Dr. Gonzi should not have allowed JPO to go ahead with the Private Members Bill.
He should have called an election there and then.
Now with Dr. Busuttil we know where we stand and when the party line is called, then that is the way forward.
We have had enough of Jeffreys and Francos.
The adoption clause has absolutely nothing to do with the Civil Unions bill.
The PN is always afraid of losing the vote of the Sunday mass merhla “staunch Catholics”, reality is that these people don’t really give a damn about gay civil unions anyway and there is no way they would swing vote because of such an issue.
To top it all, the real progressive and open minded people tend to vote PN so they lost the opportunity of adding their appeal to a vital section of their supporters.
They shouldn’t have swiped this under the carpet while hoping Labour will drag its feet, now that’s what you get.
[Daphne – Well, given that I am typical of the PN voter you describe, I can tell you that you are wrong on this one.
The mindset of most of those liberal people you describe is pretty much like mine: we see civil unions as just another contract between two adults, and so none of our business, but adoption involves children (third party minors) and beyond that, also impacts on how families are perceived generally, so we have some serious misgivings about it.]
No one was stopping PN to take any stance similar to what Portugal did, allowing gay unions without the possibility of adoptions…
I am a PN liberal and even though I disagree with the stand they took on this issue, I will still be voting PN no matter what. Labour will never be the better option. Just look at Mr. Loporto’s views on gays to see what real Laburisti think about this issue. PN will remain the natural home for liberals in Malta.
The birth certificate is the identity of the person registered at the Civil Registry.
Apart from giving the child its identity, it gives the child also a civil status in society.
We hardly ever consider how serious a matter this could be.
The case of the Argentinian desparidos shook the world to come to its senses.
It was one of the strongest put forth to stress the importance of birth certificates and identity cards.
This is also why the state demands that newly born should be registered at birth.
The government has to take stock of its population for many an obvious and valid reason.
Therefore before we start meddling with birth certificates we should study the issue in depth.
As in the case of civil union, divorce and other issues I still have reason to believe that the majority of those advocating the causes would not be neither conversant nor aware of what it is all about.
You said it, Dissident..Stuck indeed, for it’s a perceived minority that understand we are being forced to live in a plastic society, sowing in our children plastic values and feeding our nation telenovela fantasy.
But maybe it’s not a minority after all..
Time will tell who is screwing up this country.
Anyway, there is a clear distinction between same-sex civil unions and adoption rights.
The first is about the rights of two adults, whilst the second is all about the rights of the adopted children.
How many jobs did this law create?
How will the social services be affected with this law?
Will we have marriages of convenience to get a “widow’s pension” ?
Like for example a live-in Filipino butler/driver on a less than a minimum wage marrying his employer and inheriting his pension?
Did it occur to the ”experts” created by the PM that this messing around with birth certificates could easily lead to siblings adopted by different families to end up marrying each other without even knowing , with the inevitable medical complications that are likely?
Malta is a small place.
Did you read only what your wanted to read?
The change in the presentation of certificates happened in the 90s not by the experts created by the PM.
They must have been different ‘experts’ created by a different ‘PM’.
Civil union exists in other EU countries. My children have mother’s name and father’s name.
I would imagine there would be two types of birth certificates or more to cater for everyone.
A birth certificate is a certificate of birth. Two men cannot give birth at all, and of two women, only one can be biologically involved in the birth of the child.
You can’t have two types of birth certificates, because a birth certificate should be exactly what it says it is.
And that is why the old system should have been retained: a birth certificate, and a certificate of adoption. Two separate things, because adoptive parents are not birth parents and it is wrong for official records to be falsified to suggest that they are.
That falsification, at least, is about something possible. Now we are going to be falsifying birth certificates for something that can only be pure fantasy: two mothers or two fathers as ‘birth parents’.
Can we at least be honest.
I don’t agree with those who have voiced the opinion that the PN screwed up by abstaining.
Times of Malta’s editorial today is pure rubbish and exposes them further to the perception of being Muscat’s lackeys.
The PN had no option except to abstain once Muscat introduced adoption by same-sex couples into a bill which would have otherwise met total consensus, purposely to put the PN in an uncomfortable situation.
Nobody is pointing out that Muscat had stated before the election that he is against same-sex MARRIAGE and adoption by same-sex couples, and that this was not in the electoral manifesto of either party.
Had the PN voted in favour, they would have betrayed the 80% who are against same-sex couples adoption, besides going against the declared position of the Nationalist Party.
On the other hand, had the PN voted against, the message would have been that they are against the Civil Union bill, which they are not as it was after all in their electoral programme.
So, while I agree that Muscat painted them into a corner, the choice to abstain was right.
Actually I think that the PN has not screwed up at all.
Abstention was the only logical way forward .
From the very start, the PM has insisted on mixing civil unions with gay adoptions (two totally different matters).
Why do you think that he has insisted all along on doing this? Simple.
He calculated that this would be a cunning ploy which could prove to be a potential embarrassment for the Opposition.
If they vote in favour, they would be complicit with the government in sanctioning gay adoption in the same legislation which regulates civil unions.
If they voted against they would immediately have been accused of being against civil unions, which they are not.
The PM evidently wanted to place the PN in a catch 22 situation and by choosing to abstain, the PN avoided falling headfirst into Muscat’s devious trap.
Had I been Simon Busuttil, I would have accepted granting a free vote to the PN MPs AS LONG AS the PM did likewise with the PL MP’s.
Of course, Muscat would not have been prepared to do such a thing as he is fully aware that a substantial number of his MPs have grave misgivings on the subject of gay adoption.
So I would humbly ask all those who are saying that the PN acted incorrectly by abstaining, to please think again.
You have certainly hit the nail on the head.
I think that Nationalist voters would have preferred a downright ”no” to an abstention. Personally , I would have preferred Dr Busuttil to have granted the free vote option to his MPs..
No. A free vote would have been wrong. Here’s why.
The Nationalist Party’s core belief is human rights.
At the heart of this bill, now passed into law, are two rights.
1. The right of homosexual couples to marry. Whether this is actually a right, or a privilege, or even no right at all, is a moot point. That’s the civil union bit.
2. The right of children to have parents. That’s the adoption bit. This is where the “liberal”/Labour/progressives/TaghnaLkoll have it entirely and fundamentally wrong.
This is not and should not be about the right of adults to adopt, for such a right does not exist.
Adoption is the process by which the right of the child is granted to him or her. It is not the process by which the adult couple enjoy their presumed right.
There is a well-known and neat formula which states that your right stops as soon as it infringes on mine.
In this case, the right of homosexual couples to marry (let’s avoid that “civil union” euphemism rubbish, and let us not pretend that more than a handful of heterosexuals will decide to marry someone of the same sex) does not include the whole set of privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples, because the right of a child to have a male and female parent, a father and a mother, is violated by same-sex adoption.
This is the point upon which Labour disagrees with the Nationalist Party. I have boiled down the argument to its essence, and it is this.
Labour says that it does not recognise the right of a child to have a female mother and a male father.
The Nationalist Party says is does. I happen to agree with it on this point.
So a free vote is out. This is a matter of principle.
Because one right was violated here (that of the child), the Nationalist Party should have voted against the bill. And presented its own, minus adoption, thus pulling the rug from under that poser Joseph Muscat.
Brilliant, Baxxter. The PN was extremely weak in this exercise, in all fairness. It showed no clout whatsoever. It was neither here or there and by abstaining it took no position whatsoever and it ended looking foolish.
The best strategy would have been to criticise the bill for what it was: a hotchpotch of half-baked ideas which create havoc in our matrimonial law and which do nothing to really protect rights but rather to give rights arbitrarily without any analysis. Instead, the PN just abstained. If it was against the Bill on a matter of principle, it should have had the balls to vote against it. Abstaining is for the pussy-footed and it totally defeats the purpose of being the “Opposition”.
However, this is the thing edge of the wedge, mind you. Fact is, we will have more “value legislation”, euthanasia, abortion and the works. Will the PN just sit on the fence and do nothing? If it really wants to be perceived as the champion of the weaker members of society, it has to adopt a clear, unequivocal policy for its would-be electors to know where it stands.
Gonzi’s stand on the divorce bill has been criticised by many but few have understood that, in spite of everything, he showed he had to balls to stand up and be counted. That man had principles, he had a code of beliefs which he adhered to and when the test came, he stood up to be counted. Yes, he paid a political price but greatness comes at a price. Had he not been the principled man he is, he would have been swayed during the Libyan crisis and we would have made asses of ourselves. I shudder at the thought of what would have happened during the Libyan had there been Muscat at the helm.
There are no seeds of greatness on either side of Parliament today. We have amoebae writing our laws and jellybeans administering them. And this, I fear, will eventually to the moral downfall of our society. But don’t get me wrong: it will not be civil unions which will ruin our society but the pig-headedness with which certain laws are being passed in Parliament without due scrutiny just to appease this government’s electors. This law (because of its gaping lacunae) is one such example, but there will be others.
And when that time comes, will the PN repeat this fiasco?
PN wake up and (allow me) smell the coffee. We are not at school any more.Your predecessors stood their grounds, your parents stood their grounds back in the Dark Days. They risked their lives. Is this the way you want to repay their courage?
I hardly recognise the PN any more. I am deeply and thoroughly disappointed.
Silvio Loporto – You are truly a waste of space.
Daphne, I’m actually very disappointed by your mild reaction to Silvio Loporto’s vile comment. What would you have said if he passed that comment about black people!
Incredibly you censored part of my comment, and uploaded his.
[Daphne – Silvio Loporto does it largely to provoke and to upset people, and beyond that, he is in his mid-70s and belongs to a generation of men who think exactly like that (because that was the predominant way of thinking in their day) and while most know better than to speak as he does, he just lets rip. He has said things that are equally typical of his gender and generation about women, black people, Muslims, and so on. I mostly let it go – in this job you have to pick your battles. Yes, I do tend to moderate (not censor) insults from one reader to another. You have no idea what sort of things of Silvio Loporto’s I have deleted, and I have deleted plenty of his.]
There is a civil rights, or rather human rights issue here, and it is not about gay adoption. No-one has a right to children, adopted or otherwise. But everyone has a right to due process.
From what I understand, most commenters and the PN would deny prospective gay parents the right to appear before the adoption board and make their case.
Not every immigrant we rescue on the high seas has a right to political asylum, but every one of them has a right to apply for it. There is an authority which considers each case on its on merits. When we protested pushback, we were protesting (among other things) the denial of the right to due process.
This is no different. Rationality demands consistency, unless we are simply making strategic political decisions at the expense of moral ones, on the probably correct assumption that more votes can be gained (or not lost) by taking this position.
(Note that I am not ascribing any morality to the Labour Party – there is none, for them, this is the payment on the balance of the vote buying invoice.)