That the government has at long last taken the plunge and addressed the particularly thorny subjects of IVF and homosexual rights, issues that in themselves hold the potential of splitting the electorate down the middle, is to be commended. But what would have been even more commendable would have been if the government had taken bolder, more progressive stances in both respects.

In a story on our front page, a government MP questions the timing of such sensitive bills at a time when the country is on the eve of an election, which, if not held in the near future must be held by spring, and when an enormous question mark is hanging over the government’s feeble parliamentary majority.

But perhaps that is exactly what the government wants.

Perhaps, seeing the prospects of an election on the near horizon, the government would rather lose parliamentary votes on such divisive, emotive and theological issues rather than lose on confidence votes or money bills, losses that would propel the country straight into an election campaign.

That is because it would be one thing to lose a vote on the IVF or Cohabitation Bills, where it could argue it had attempted to do the right thing, although what it really did was straddle the fence, dividing the party’s conservative and liberal bases. It would be quite another thing were the government to lose another minister or adviser to no confidence votes.

At the time of its launching, we had observed that the government had obviously gone to great lengths to make the proposed IVF Bill, or rather the Embryo Protection Bill, as appeasing as possible to the country’s steadfast religious right as well as to those advocating the use of IVF, but it must have known it would face at least some opposition.

In trying to strike an impossible balance, the Bill stands at risk, at the end of the day, of falling short of the expectations of experts in the field of IVF, the expectations of infertile couples who long for children, as well as falling short of the expectations of the religious lobbies.

The government has now has taken a similar approach when it comes to cohabitation and homosexual rights.

Several months ago, the Nationalist Party announced it was seeking to legislate in favour of homosexual rights through a cohabitation act. But those who had held high hopes that the government would at long last seize the bull by the horns and come out with a truly progressive piece of legislation were sorely disappointed when it was unveiled this week.

Of course, any expectation of a proposal for same-sex marriage would have been an absurd notion from this government in this day and age, and perhaps it was too much to have hoped that the government would seek to legislate homosexual rights through the advent of civil unions; but what the government has proposed, so-called civil cohabitation partnerships, falls well short of the expectations of the gay community.

In producing the proposed legislation that it has, the government has perhaps tested the waters for fear of upsetting conservatives in its ranks while at the same time attempting to appease its liberal voters. But in so doing, it has once again failed to satisfy anyone.

But despite the fact that it has disappointed, it must still be acknowledged that the proposed legislation is a first step, a first step that has been waiting to be taken for far too long now. It proposes making cohabitants each other’s next of kin for all intents and purposes, as well as sorting out economic dependence and other related issues that those cohabitating commonly face. It also seeks to provide for cohabitant rights and obligations in cases in which a contract as contemplated by the proposed law has been entered into, and also when it has not.

These all constitute a good first step in beginning to draft such legislation, but that is unfortunately where this Bill stopped, a huge disappointment not only to the country’s homosexual community but to most of the more liberal-minded population.

Without same-sex marriage, some European countries have introduced the civil union concept as a way of giving homosexual couples the same rights and status accorded to married couples, and Malta appears to be foregoing its chance to do so.

Just as divorce was a civil right that has now rightly been accorded to a minority of the population, it is high time that the civil rights accorded to homosexual couples are now properly addressed.

At this half-baked juncture, it is important that we get things right the first time around and if the government does not get it right, it will be left to the Opposition, the government backbench and the government’s coalition partner to iron out what has been proposed into legislation that better reflects the new social realities of the 21st century.