I’m sorry – my last post was a bit of a mess. I wanted to write ‘civil court’ instead of ‘church court’, but then again I was still incorrect with respect to my second point. I double-checked and you can actually get the civil court to declare your marriage null on grounds of non-consummation. However, unlike in proceedings before the civil court, where the other party can contest your claim of non-consummation, if you obtain a papal decree, that decree is deemed conclusive by our courts and is registered as if it were a res judicata, i.e. a final sentence of our civil courrts not subject to any further appeals! (vide article 25 of the Marriage Act)

As for people still getting married in church – few people actually are aware of the consequences, so given the societal pressures there are in Malta for young couples to get married in church, I can empathise.

One has to consider the different laws in each country. As a single person with no kids the tax rate here in France is a killer for both me & my partner. A PACS is for us a great way to pay less taxes and also have some legal rights.

Good and clear-cut laws on marriage? You must be joking. Let me give you two examples of how good are marriage laws are:

1. Imagine we get married in Church. Five years down the line I become an atheist/convert to Islam (as is my right). Ten years later we separate. I open annulment proceedings in the Civil court. You, still being the devout Catholic you are, decide to go to the Metropolitan (Ecclesiastical) court a month later and do the same. What will the Civil Court do? “Oh, the ecclesiastical tribunal has been seized with the case, so we’re no longer competent now”. That’s what it will tell me. It will stay procceedings, wait for the decision of the ecclesiaistical tribunal, and then simply register it without questioning it. There goes your fundamental human right to have your rights and onbligations determined by a CIVIL tribunal, as mandated by the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Daphne – I agree with you absolutely on this one. At the time (1993, as I recall), I seemed to be the only person writing about the dangers of allowing this to go through, then trying to raise awareness about what had just happened. But people didn’t twig, and the usual response I got was: u ejja, if you marry in church are you going to marry thinking about what happens when you split up? Eeeerrrrrrr, yes. It was such a stupid argument. However, before that our marriage law was perfect, and it remains perfect for those who don’t get married in a Catholic Church. The changes were fairly recent. Before that, the man was head of the family and could do whatever he pleased with the communal property and even with the children. I grew up with a girl whose father gambled away the entire communal property and even the family home. That wouldn’t be possible now without the wife’s permission. Both spouses are equally protected – but they have to use their brains – and both have equal rights and obligations. The only point at issue is that there is no law to end it all through divorce.]

2. We get married in a Catholic church. 15 days later you bring an action for annulment on the grounds of non-consummation (I’m gay you see). Do you know what you’ll need for the church court to grant you your annulment? A decree from the Pope himself (I’m not joking) called “matrimonio rato et non consummato”. From the Pope himself, for crying out loud.

[Daphne – You’re confusing issues. The state can never interfere in the way a church regulates its marriage laws. What it can and should do is provide an alternative system so that individual rights are not violated. The system we had before 1993 was ideal: you had your religious rite, but you also had to marry civilly. Now, the religious rite is registered automatically by the state. Unfortunately, though – as with ‘duttrina’ – people want to have their cake and eat it. Despite being fully aware of the rod they are making for their own backs by marrying in a Catholic church in Malta, they carry on doing it, and hope to avoid the problems. It’s not as though there aren’t alternatives.]

The Times reported him as referring to a “motion” on the “introduction of divorce”. A kind of a show of hands.

I think he’s trying to attract votes from those who would benefit from divorce and hoping that the matter will split the Natio]nalist Parliamentary Group more evenly than it would split Labour’s. About divorce he does not actually seem to care much.

[Daphne – That’s right. He’s from the new Mittelkless, the one that sees marriage as irrelevant and shacking-up as hip. I don’t know about you, but I can see him straining at that particular leash.]

And for the couple declaring together to pay less taxes.

[Daphne – In Britain, you pay more tax if you are married than if you are two people living together. And in Malta, it makes no real difference whether you declare jointly or singly. So you really have to consider these things within the context of the existing marital regime in any one country.]

Thanks – what I meant is that it is open for homosexuals & heterosexuals.

What PACS does is it gives the couple lots of benefits typically enjoyed by married couples (housing allowance, tax benefits, etc) but makes it easier to dissolve the union, since in this case it wouldn’t be divorce. It also restricts the list of rights enjoyed by the couple (e.g. the right to adopt a child, or to obtain a French passport). Look at it as France’s way of preventing homosexual couples from adopting while giving them most of the rights of married couples. And a way of giving financial aid to cohabiting couples who don’t want to go the whole way and get married. At least the French didn’t obfuscate matters by calling it “marriage”.

It’s not what I would propose, it’s what the law states in foreign jurisdictions where such partnerships are open to opposite-sex couples. Examples are: the right to adopt jointly as a couple, the right to change your surname, etc. etc. In countries where partnerhips rights are at the bare minimum this list is much longer.

Regarding your opposition to Muscat’s opinions, I had understood your point. I happen to agree on most points you make. However despite your differences, I still find your opinion on these matters as being much closer to his than to Gonzi’s or Borg’s. You and Muscat both agree that divorce and registered partnerships for gay couples should be introduced. Gonzi and Borg are bending over backwards to make sure Malta remains a satellite of the Vatican.

[Daphne – Going by what you explain, it seems that the rights granted within civil partnerships depend very much on the specific legal regime of the country in question. For example, in countries where anyone has the right to change their name by deed poll – as in Britain – you don’t need a civil partnership to change your surname to your partner’s. Adoption: this is a non-starter. If you are unwilling to make the commitment of marriage to your partner, you are never going to get permission to adopt in Malta, though you will get permission as a single woman. I find it hard to understand how a couple might be unprepared to commit to marriage but be prepared to commit to adoption together. Any serious adoption agency is going to look on this with suspicion. It is just so flaky, like saying ‘Look, I don’t want to marry this woman because I’d rather keep my options open, but I don’t mind adopting a child with her because I can always bugger off and it won’t matter.’ True, married men can bugger off, too, but still. Malta has very clear-cut – and good – laws on marriage. There really is no need for second-class partnerships that will just complicate the situation and leave the woman just as exposed. What there is need for is divorce, so that people can regularise their position if they want to and men can no longer make excuses about why they can’t commit. Men generally don’t want to marry a second time, and right now, they have it pretty good, even though they complain, while the women they live with are on a knife-edge unless they have assets of their own.]