Helena Dalli

Last year, during a seminar marking International Women’s Day, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat was asked by one of the seminar’s participants – who had registered a civil union with her partner – to consider opening up marriage to same-sex partners. She argued that while civil unions provided for equal treatment and that she was appreciative of such development, the introduction of marriage equality would provide for equal social recognition. She concluded that it was greatly needed to remove the remaining stigma against same-sex relationships.

As is his style, the Prime Minister was frank and direct and told the couple that he was in favour of marriage equality, but that he would need to discuss the matter within the party as the measure was not at the time part of government’s programme. His response that day was to a question out of several others, ranging from issues of intersectional discrimination, life-long learning opportunities, equal pay for work of equal value, access to special leave and so on.

Some reports in the media, however, were cynical and gave the impression that the Prime Minister was using this as a diversionary tactic. The exact same thing happened to me in February of this year. Following a speech that I delivered at the launch of the European Network of Parents of LGBTI+ Persons, I was asked a direct question about the introduction of marriage equality legislation by a Turkish participant. I too was direct and frank and announced that the drafting of the Bill had started, and my goal was that of having the law approved by Parliament as soon as possible.

Once again, my response was subjected to cynicism. Then, Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil came out in favour of marriage equality himself, and even asked Government to put the Bill on Parliament’s agenda without further delay. Of course it was not as simple, as various discussions were still underway within the LGBTIQ Consultative Council, with the Public Registry and other relevant institutions.

Fast forward to the electoral campaign and both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party included marriage equality into their electoral manifestos. However, while the Labour Party clearly proposed this as yet another measure in the nation’s quest towards equality for all, the Nationalist Party saw marriage equality as their way of hastily rounding this topic up and dropping it from the public debate. How about that for cynical electioneering?

The two parties’ divergent views on the way forward, and their track record on LGBTIQ equality could not be any starker. The Prime Minister clearly promised equality for all as one of the main missions of a new Labour government, and that should Labour win, marriage equality would be law before the summer recess. On the other hand, the Opposition abstained on the introduction of civil unions, and as the ongoing discussion in the second reading is showing, the Nationalist Party is clearly not united behind the marriage equality banner.

To try and distract from the fact that they promised marriage equality, but in fact could not deliver it, they are trying hard to portray the proposed law as extreme and as one that is robbing heterosexual couples and their respective families from existing rights and titles. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Maltese law is already littered with references to ‘spouse’ and ‘parent’. This is even the case in possibly one of the most conservative laws that are part of the laws of Malta, namely the Embryo Protection Act, that refers to ‘prospective parents’ not ‘prospective mother and father’.

So what does this tell us? Until same-sex couples were legally denied the ability to marry and raise children, the Nationalist Party had no difficulty proposing legislation referring to ‘spouse’ and ‘parent’. The problem only arose the moment that a proposal came along to extend such terms to same-sex couples and their families as well. This smacks of heterosexism.

Further to the above, as a sociologist I know very well how much discourse and language matter. It can include or exclude. In all Bills that I advanced through Parliament, I ensured that the language used was inclusive. In the Civil Unions Bill we referred to ‘partner’ as a person of either sex who is bound by a civil union; in the Cohabitation Bill we referred to ‘cohabitant’ as a person who is continually and habitually living with another person in an ordinary, primary, [and] common home.

Under the Labour Government’s watch, equality laws relevant to LGBTIQ persons have catapulted Malta to the top spot in international rankings. Yet, not a single reference to gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, intersex or any other term was included in any of these laws. This was done consciously, and for a simple reason. We looked at the law from the perspective of equality and introduced the measures that were needed for all without partitioning between groups or individuals. The Marriage Equality Bill is equally universal in scope, and be sure that it will not rob any father or mother of the right to be lovingly called as such by their children.  

Helena Dalli is Minister for European Affairs and Equality