I had promised myself not to write about the subject of gay adoptions again, because I believe that there’s a huge value in knowing when to shut up, especially when you’re winning. But over the last week, following Lawrence Gonzi’s need to voice his contradictory opinion on the matter, I’ve met too many people who still seem confused about what the new law is all about so I decided to go for one last attempt to clarify.

Referring to the Labour Party’s claim that, before the election, the PN gave the impression of being in favour of gay adoption, last week Lawrence Gonzi felt compelled to break the silence. He felt that he was quoted ‘in a manner that is unacceptable to (him) and to the values (he has) championed all (his) life.”

He went on to say that the Labour Party took an already drafted bill – referring to the Cohabitation Bill drafted during Gonzi’s legislature – and included gay adoption in it. This was something to which the PN could never agree, he said. 

But here’s what really happened:

First of all, members of the Consultative Council can vouch that they did not use the PN’s cohabitation draft at all but actually started from scratch.

Secondly, Lawrence Gonzi has developed a selective memory, forgetting not only what he said before the election but also that there’s online evidence to prove it.

Before the last general elections, Lawrence Gonzi, who was then Prime Minister, is on record answering a question by Karl Stagno-Navarra. Below is a transcript of what Stagno-Navarra asked and what Lawrence Gonzi replied.

You can also watch the video and listen to the hypocrisy with your own ears, on www.alisonbezzina.com

TRANSCRIPT:

Question by Karl Stagno Navarra:

“Yesterday the Opposition Leader (referring to Joseph Muscat) said that if elected he would change the law to allow gay couples to adopt children. You on the other hand, legislated for cohabitation. So what is your position on adoptions?”

Answer by Lawrence Gonzi:

“Our position on gay adoptions has always been the same. We (PN) always said that the first interest should be that of the children, so the analysis of the experts should be built on what is in the interest of the children. I know of cases where, after having children, married couples separate and, one of the spouses decides to build a new relationship with someone of the same sex. In some cases the children are brought up by that (gay) family. This is a real fact, on the ground, so I think that we should not get into the question of who has a right or not to adopt because sometimes even a heterosexual married couple are not ideal to bring up children and it’s not the first time that their adoption application is refused. So my answer is that the experts should say what is best for children without any prejudices whatsoever AND WITHOUT ELIMINATING ANY OPTIONS and then a decision is taken in the best interest of the children. From what I understand this is the same position as that of the Opposition – that it’s the interest of the children that should determine what should be done.”

The above logic made sense at the time and makes sense today, but for it to be worth anything, the law had to change. Had the law not changed to allow gay couples to apply for adoption, Gonzi’s words would have remained what they always were: lip service. 

It was only January last year when Lawrence Gonzi said that there should be no prejudice and that no option should be eliminated, but at the time, gay couples could not even apply to adopt and were excluded from consideration before their individual case was looked into, before their backgrounds, family life and values were scrutinised. How anyone can deem this non-prejudicial and non-discriminatory is beyond me.

But Lawrence Gonzi is right about one thing. He’s right to say that no one has or should have the right to adopt, and in fact no one does, because having the right to apply for adoption is totally different from having the right to adopt.

Having the right to apply for adoption means that you have a right to enter the stadium, to join the race, to buy a lottery ticket if you will, but it does not give you a guaranteed win.

The new law simply gives gay couples the right to apply for adoption and then, just like heterosexual couples, their application will be processed and experts are free to decide whether or not that family situation is in the interests of the child. 

Just like Lawrence Gonzi himself said, heterosexual applicants are sometimes rejected because their family or individual situations are not deemed to be in the interests of the child. The same can happen with gay applications and unless the decision is based solely and exclusively on the couple’s sexual orientation, the decision would be entirely justifiable.

Another Gonzi contradiction, reminiscent of the Brazil fiasco, lies in the fact that during his tenure, single gay people could apply to adopt children. This was not through some loophole in the law; this is what the law stated and allowed openly and freely. Some singles did in fact apply, were approved, and are today bringing up their adopted children either alone or in a relationship. Some were gay and some weren’t, but that never mattered, because the law always allowed single gay people to adopt, and adopting never precluded them from being in or from entering into a gay relationship.

So my understanding is that either Lawrence Gonzi did not know what the Adoption Act said while he was Prime Minister, or that he honestly thinks that a single gay person (who could enter a relationship at any point) is always better to bring up a child than a gay couple in a stable relationship.

And finally, for the cherry on the cake, Lawrence Gonzi also tried to associate gay adoption with abortion. I can see his point, of course, because it is a truth universally acknowledged that it is ‘the gays’ who have the most abortions.