The Maltese are opposed to legalisation of the union between two gay people, known colloquially as “gay marriage”. In the latest Eurobarometer survey – which is carried out right across the European Union – 73 per cent of Maltese respondents said they would oppose any attempt at creating a civil partnership between two gay people.

Of course, “legalising the union” is a huge misnomer. Homosexual sex was decriminalised years ago, and so there is nothing remotely illegal about a relationship between two gay people. Maltese society doesn’t even disapprove anymore. Gay couples are part of the social fixture, sometimes even more sought-after than heterosexual couples. They tend to be more interesting and entertaining in conversation, and the men at least are usually far more polite, charming and civilised than their heterosexual counterparts, who are often boorish.

Years ago, I used to be against gay marriage, too. This was not because of homophobia or prejudice – far from it. It was because I had approached the subject purely from the “origin of and reason for marriage” perspective, which sent me down a blind alley.

I reasoned that because the sole purpose of marriage was for the procreation of children – or at least, in patrilinear societies like our own, for the “legalisation” of a man’s heirs – a marriage between two people who couldn’t have children together didn’t make sense. It undermined the entire concept of marriage. Of course, that argument was open to the immediate accusation that this also rules out post-menopausal women from getting married, as they couldn’t become pregnant.

There are other huge holes in the argument, but a debate about them would go on forever. Because I favour ration-al thought, I wanted to come up with a proper reason why I didn’t like the idea of gay marriage. The more I thought about it, the less rational my views came to seem to me. Then I faced the obvious: the real reason that I didn’t like the idea was because it made me uneasy, and what was making me uneasy was prejudice.

I changed my view. Let’s face it: why shouldn’t gay people get married, if they want to? It doesn’t affect anybody else or trample on the rights of heterosexual people. It’s doesn’t even affect society, if that is what some people are afraid of, because gay people are already living together in their hundreds. If two people want to go down to the registry office and sign a document which unites them in the eyes of the law, for the purposes with which the law is concerned (inheritance, property, tax, pensions, and so on), then it is entirely their business and no one else’s.

If two people have already been living together for years, sometimes even for decades, then how does the recognition of this relationship by the state affect Mr and Mrs Heterosexual Borg down the road? It doesn’t. Therefore, it is none of Mr and Mrs Borg’s business.

The only effect it has is to improve the legal situation of those two people themselves, making their situation more secure. Right now, gay couples are in precisely the same legal position as what, in vernacular Maltese, used to be called pogguti. We don’t use that disparaging word anymore because there are many, many thousands of pogguti, and the situation has become normalised. Curiously, it is our zealous morality that has normalised a situation in which thousands of people live together without being married, and have children without tying the knot. The state doesn’t allow them to marry because it hasn’t allowed them to divorce their spouse, even if that spouse has a brace of children with somebody else.

I love news of marriage between two grown-up people. It’s such a shame that news like this is so rare and unusual. It puts me in a good mood for days, a relief from the weekly bulletins of who has just split up with whom after years of ghastliness, and who has now been diagnosed with cancer.

By contrast, the weddings of young people make me nervous, laden as they are with premonitions of disaster masquerading as hope and joy. Between grown-ups, especially those who have been together for years, it’s a different matter. The situation with gay people is just the same. If I were to hear of two gay friends getting married, I would break open the champagne. We should seize any opportunity to celebrate, any good news to cheer us up.

Dogmatic morality has done far more harm than good, and has created untold misery for millions.

If you are one of those 73 per cent who oppose gay marriage, then you will have to admit it, even if through gritted teeth: the reason you hate the idea is not rational, but emotional. Instead of clinging to your prejudice, try to work out why you feel that way, and do something about it.

* * *

The fact that increasing numbers of European Union states are recognising the partnership between two gay people poses an interesting question. So far, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Sweden and Britain have enacted laws for this purpose. What happens when a married gay couple from Britain, say, comes to live in Malta? I imagine the government thinks it has other priorities to work on, but it had better have a plan ahead of the day when the first such couple arrives to settle here. If they are married in the eyes of British law, then common sense tells us that the Maltese government will have to recognise the marriage if it does not wish to open up a complicated can of worms and create a legal tangle.

We have a similar situation with divorce already. I am surprised at the number of Maltese people who don’t know that if they get divorced abroad – a proper divorce, that is, and not a quickie from Las Vegas or some funny little island (no, not Malta) – it is recognised here. Plenty of Maltese people are divorced; they got divorced elsewhere, like Australia, Canada, the USA, or Britain. This is going to happen more often now, given the exodus of Maltese people who are working in other member states of the European Union. If they are domiciled there for the basic minimum required by the law, they can file for divorce. Then the Maltese government has no choice but to recognise it.

Getting your divorce elsewhere in Europe is for the privileged Maltese – for those who are able to be domiciled elsewhere for some time. That is why the absence of divorce legislation in Malta has now reached the stage where it is so ridiculous and hypocritical that it is untenable. Malta and The Philippines are the only two countries in the world left holding out stubbornly against divorce, while their citizens endure the consequences. Wealthy Maltese, and those who live and work overseas, can get a divorce if they want to. The poor, or those tied to a job and children in Malta, cannot.

If the Maltese government decides to recognise contractual partnerships between two gay people, carried out in other member states of the European Union, then we are going to have the same situation as we do with divorce. Just as there is a divorce

policy that discriminates between those Maltese who can divorce overseas and those who can’t, so we will have a gay marriage policy that discriminates between Maltese homosexuals who can marry in Britain, Spain, Sweden, Belgium or Holland, and those who can’t.

Actually, I can’t think of any reason why Maltese homosexuals won’t be going en masse to these countries to get married, so posing a problem for the Maltese government on their return. I haven’t examined the ins and outs of the civil partnership laws in those countries, but I imagine that marriage for homosexuals is no more complicated than it is for heterosexuals. With divorce, there is the prerequisite of domicile. With marriage, there isn’t. You go there, and you get married, full stop.