One cannot cohabit after marriage and be registered as such without effectively having two officially registered partners and that constitutes bigamy.

Cohabitation laws make the partner responsible for the other partner financially. So the social welfare benefits are reduced. That is all the aim of the bill.

The social security department cannot keep up with all the payments it is forking out to single and separated women, let alone this.

[Daphne – Yawn. And you post this comment beneath a piece in which I blindly disagree with the government on the matter of a cohabitation law. But people who vote Labour tend to be irrational, so I won’t press my point home.]

My humble reasoning tells me that it is woman who do not wish to make commitments while they are pursuing their own projects . How can such woman reconcile this desire in a family setting?

Woman have an increased attachment to their jobs.

Before you may start labeling me , pls note that I agree with woman who have these views.

I’d like to expand on your assertion that a cohabitation register won’t help same-sex couples, as they’re still going to be denied “what they really want: marriage”. What I question is the blanket statement that might give the impression that marriage is what all same-sex couples aspire for.

The gay community is as diverse within itself as the rest of society. There are gays who are enthusiastically pro-marriage, others who vehemently oppose it, while others still simply do not care.

Should Malta follow the example of some other EU member states and open up marriage to all its citizens, there will undoubtedly be gay and lesbian couples who’d rush to make a bee-line at the public registry.

In the absence of the possibility to get married, though, a cohabitation register wouldn’t be the answer for these couples who wish to tie the knot: they would want the “real thing”, not a “cheaper alternative” that would connote that the love on which their relationships are based is somewhat inferior to its heterosexual counterpart.

Many other gay couples, however, would still snub marriage if it was available and continue opting for cohabitation of the no-strings-attached kind, which is the only option available at the moment. I cannot imagine why on earth, in such circumstances, would a couple turn its back on the marriage option, only to formalise its relationship via a “second-class” cohabitation register.

When, as chair of the Malta Gay Rights Movement (a position I held till about five years ago), I advocated the introduction of same-sex marriage, I got the flak from two sides: (1) the conservative traditionalist camp, that opposed a more inclusive definition of marriage, and (2) many within the gay community itself. There are several reasons for this gay opposition to same-sex marriage.

I find particularly interesting the explanations given by Helen Toner in her book ‘Partnership Rights, Free Movement, and EU Law’: “Many feel uneasy about joining an institution that they see as inherently traditional, sexist and oppressive, not necessarily ideally suited to the needs of gay couples.

Some also consider that there are more immediate issues of concern to the gay community. However, the idea of same-sex marriage… is gaining support among the gay community. Particularly in situations where gays are (relatively) free to live their lives free of harassment, prosecution and open discrimination, it is an attractive option”.

Having said that, a right is nonetheless not a question of numbers. Irrespective of how many same-sex couples would actually choose to avail themselves of the opportunity to get legally married, it remains just that: their right. No one should be denied the right to partake in the richness of marriage, or any other right, because of one’s sexual orientation.

I guess being the government’s oracle is a hefty burden more so when the oracle happens to profess loyalty to the Catholic Church…and it’s temporal agendas.