My understanding is that if a married couple separates, the law or the court will provide for separation maintenance, which will cover the children. So marriage is a tool to protect the children.

[Daphne – No, that has nothing to do with marriage. Men are obliged to pay maintenance to their children, and can be sued for that maintenance, whether or not they are married to the child’s mother. Parenthood is considered to be distinct from marriage, as in fact it is.]

I disagree that cohabitation law can be compared to Alfred Sant’s CET and hence the reinvention of the wheel. This is because there are several other countries with cohabitation law (also called common-law marriage, de-facto marriage), recognizing that the form of the family is changing. They include Australia and Canada.

[Daphne – Don’t make rash assumptions based on rumour. You have to consider the actual law, and consider it in the context of other laws governing marriage and rights, including divorce.]

However, I agree that divorce is a requirement, especially if cohabitation laws are introduced. Otherwise, we will end up with a situation where, either the cohabitation law will create polygamy, or a lot of cohabiting couples would still not be in a position to benefit from the cohabitation law.

In fact, I think the government must also tell us at this point what law will provide for the dissolution of cohabitation relationships once they start to be formally recognised under law! So the state must provide not only for the legal creation and recognition, but also the dissolution and derecognition of those relationships!

Although I understand that cohabitations result where the couple chooses not to marry, I understand that the purpose of cohabitation law is to provide for, maybe resolve, a number of disadvantages which such couples experience in comparison with married couples. In terms of resolving those advantages, any cohabitation law is in the interest of cohabiting couples. And I believe cohabitation laws must provide for the protection of the children from the relationship.

[Daphne – At the risk of repeating myself for the zillionth time, the rights of children over their parents, and the rights of parents over their children are COMPLETELY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM THEIR MARITAL STATUS. Cohabitation laws can never protect the status of children because the status of children in respect of their parents is inviolate under a separate legal regime.]

What are you on about Melita? This is 2010 you know, and not the middle ages. Science progresses and thank goodness for that.

Oh Romeo (Godfrey, Jeffrey) Romeo (Godfrey etc) wherefore art thou Romeo (G….etc)?

With some luck they’ll be able to claim tax breaks like a married couple.

If one had to look a the list of experts that had been consulted, there were very few “real experts” and the one that were present, most had a vested interest.

Also one of the two reasons for freezing i.e. the high number of multiple pregnancies, is flawed. No scientific studies have been performed in Malta to analyse this.

The only statistic that exist is an unofficial collection of data of mothers with multiple pregnancies where is was noted that 50% of these had undergone fertility treatment ‘including IVF”. This is quoted directly from the report and are supposed to have been said by Dr Paul Soler. In my opinion most of these are due to fertility treatment by hormones.

The second reason – the health of the mother, though the risk of morbidity during hyper fertility treatment is real, the ethical problems caused by frozen embryos are real.

Where freezing is permitted, one embryos is usually implanted. Thus a choice is made of the best embryo to implant while the rest are frozen. Implicitly, the frozen embryos are thus “second class”. And the question would be, if these are offered for adoption, who shall adopt an embryo of “inferior” quality?

This is just one of the ethical problems.

Daphne, am I to take it that your statement “For all others, marriage was just the name used for setting up home together, what we would call cohabitation today” means that the existing form of marriage may after all not necessarily be the right one? If yes, I can agree with that.

In fact, I think you are suggesting that marriage is, after all, only important to regulate property and inheritance. But isn’t it also a legal commitment towards the spouse and the children?

[Daphne – No, not really, because there is nothing to stop you leaving, as we can see.]

In terms of patrimony with reference to working women, what I had in mind was the concept of the wealth accumulated within the marriage. In other words, I was referring to the community of acquests, which if I am not wrong, is, together with the children, the bone of contention of most separations. I do believe that if the wife does not hold an employment, she would find herself dependant on the patrimony.

[Daphne – And spend the rest of her life chasing a man who despises her, and who lives with somebody else, for a cheque every month? I don’t think so, honey.]

As for the liberal comment, I am not sure you were referring to me specifically, but I would not declare myself to be totally liberal. I might go as far as calling myself a liberal conservative, whatever that may mean (we can ask David Cameron!) Therefore, let me clarify that being pro-divorce is not a declaration of being liberal, even though I believe liberals are mostly pro-divorce (we argued this point before).

To some extent, I can understand that since you have positioned yourself as liberal before, you may be against the state regulating relationships out of marriage, but, on that basis, why should the state regulate any relationship at all?

[Daphne – This is the liberal stance: the state may regulate the relatonships of those who willingly and voluntarily seek to have their relationships regulated (in marriage, where the key question is ‘Do you willingly consent….’). It may not regulate relationships between people by default and without their consent. As a liberal you have to respect a person’s desire to live in a relationship without commitment that is regulated by law. If this person wished for a legally regulated commitment, then he or she would make arrangements through notarial deed, companies, wills or, if possible, marriage – voluntarily. The person who does not make such arrangements doesn’t want to, and that wish has to be respected. As for why should the state regulate any relatioship: because not to do so would be illiberal.]

I think that the statement “You can’t claim to be liberal and favour cohabitation laws” can breach some important liberal principles. The first one being that it seems to suggest that the only relationship that can exist, and be RECOGNISED at law, is a marriage. So it gives no choice to people to seek alternative relationships.

[Daphne – No, you are confusing things. There is already a form of relationship regulation, which has been tried and tested by time: marriage. Any attempt at reinventing this will be the equivalent of Sant’s CET. If a couple who live together wish to have property rights over each other, all they need is a contract. They do not need ‘cohabitation rights’. Cohabiting couples are in fact at an advantage over married couples in this respect. The law does not permit the transfer of property from husband to wife or wife to husband, but it does not prevent the transfer of property between unmarried couples.]

I think that argument could also be extended to mean that a FAMILY can exist only through marriage. The truth is that there are other (new) forms of family in society outside marriages.

[Daphne – Again, you are confusing issues. Marriage laws do not enter into the merits of what constitutes a family and what does not. The marriage contract is concerned with the relationship between two people.]

The existence of cohabitation laws should result in (some) benefits, besides obligations, to the cohabiting parties. They should also provide more clarity and social equity in the distribution of state resources. In particular, cohabitation laws would address taxation, social security, pension and social benefits entitlements.

The only flat mates in Malta you would find are the Gozitans who live in Malta for studies or working purposes.

It’s not very likely that the Maltese youths move and share a place. You find those who would like to live their parents’ house but cannot afford it and the ones who are so spoilt and comfortable at their parents’ that they don’t even dream of leaving their mummy’s skirt. Not to mention the fact that when they get married they become even more dependent on their parents. (financial support, babysitting etc etc.).

Han-Tibetan, you are right but there is more to it.

If I remember correctly, when Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando tabled the private member’s bill, she said that she was not in favour of divorce legislation. Later she changed her tune on the basis, she said, of discussions she had with friends and a priest.

If she was against divorce legislation, how could she have offered to co-sponsor Jeffrey’s bill? Dan x’ tahwid hu?

She may have separated from her husband but it seems that they still have much in common. Am I right in thinking that they both have a tendency to twist the truth when they’re caught out?