But don’t forget that she was one of the only PL MPs to speak against divorce if I’m not mistaken so I’m thinking that she is also against gay marriage and adoption.

Ma nahsibx ta. Minn pecluqa ma nistenniex affarijiet ta’ barra minn hawn.

Ma tarax kemm tahraqha qalbha ghall-fqir tant li ghandha stonku li tonfoq minn jaf kemm elufi minn fuq dar il-fqir biex tirranga residenza presidenzjali go Ghawdex. Tghid mhux ha tmur ghall-irhas tender. Direct order ghal xi hadd tal-qalba. Issa naraw kemm bravuri ha jkun hemm f’din il-presidenza.

Well, so what about homosexual couples who take the decision to form a family and have children

And if the President happens to hold an idea countering Muscat’s stance, which incidentally preempts dialogue on a pragmatic raison d’etre, the prime minister doesn’t really have to keep eveything under wraps.

He stated a number of times the legitimacy of his argument rests on dogged blind determination in the name of equality.

But maybe yes, same sex marriage isn’t as popular as divorce. Well, that does contradict Muscat’s premise that he’ll carry it through notwithstanding orthodox resistance to defend and uphold minorities does it?

He put his name to it. Repeatedly and solemnly. Scout’s honour.

How disappointing this man is, bravado followed by calculated moves to conserve his following. Becoming consistently predictable in all his moves.

At this rate, even mundane Marsaxlokk may be on hold.

Above all, the divorce referendum was hamstrung by the unusual high number of abstentions that rendered the result not truly representative of the will of the majority. The “yes” vote was an unnatural admixture of those who were keen on divorce with those who were too bewildered, too confused to vote and those who did not care one way or the other.

Two hunters who bribed a police officer for information were subject to a judicial process.

The people who bribed Enemalta officials will not be investigated or charged because of a political decision, taken not in accordance to law.

I went to the public talk by Lord Igor Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice of England. He emphasised that equality before the law is a human right.

On this basis, can one argue that the rights of these two men have been infringed because they were not treated in the same way as others who committed a similar crime?

I am genuinely confused. Maybe a lawyer can enlighten me.

Sorry to butt in here, but in Schalk and Kopf the ECtHR held that same-sex marriage is not YET a fundamental right; the suggestion in that judgment is that recognition of the right to marry for same-sex couples would represent a higher stage of development of the law. The Court says that the law is developing in that direction and that it will revisit its decisions following further developments in the Contracting States.

Also, the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights removes the reference to men and women in the context of the right to marry. This suggests that the right to marry in the Charter should be extended to same-sex couples:

“The Court would also note that Article 9 of the recently adopted Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union departs, no doubt deliberately, from the wording of Article 12 of the Convention in removing the reference to men and women.” (ECtHR judgment in Goodwin)

It is not that long of a wait, unless Jo is using this to make the current president look bad and archaic just in the nick of time.

Jo and George do not like each other and this is a roundabout way for Jo to abuse him a little before he steps down, as pricks do like to prick.