Living in a small island dominated by antiquated ideas is no joke. Ask the people who have family problems. Those who are living happily with their husbands and wives do not know what it means to live in hell. Especially women come and ask you: is it true that I will lose my maintenance if I have a relationship with another man? Is it true that my partner has no rights of inheritance over my estate when I die? Those whose marriage has fallen to pieces are entitled to start a new life, if they so wish. Apart from those who establish a solid relationship with just one partner, there are others who want to be a rolling stone. These individuals are not interested in any legal reform because they lead the life of singles and hop from one flower to another. But those who want to establish a steady relationship should not find a legal barrier or vacuum in their lives.
Can you imagine a woman who had lived for 30 years with a man, and had three children from this relationship, and had to leave a rented house on the death of her partner and did not inherit a single euro from his estate? The deceased’s children from the first marriage, who had not seen their father for a good number of years, expected to take the lion’s share from his inheritance. She was also stigmatised as living “in sin” and spent the last years of her life as a kind of social “criminal”.
Even more recently, another woman whose partner had rented a small apartment had to quit the apartment because the landlord did not want to renew the lease.
Although some Church authorities and some politicians seem to overlook the fact that there are thousands of couples who are cohabiting, the daily reality is that children are being born out of these relationships. These children are growing up feeling themselves strangers in a society that does not want to accept them on a legal par with other children. There is also the stigma that they have to carry throughout their lives. Being born in an “illegal” relationship, and having become used to it, they will not bother to get married themselves because they do not know any better.
This is a cycle that has to be broken down some time in the near future. If there is a field where both political parties can work together it is in this area of granting civil rights on an equal footing to everyone. The scope is not cosmetic but utilitarian. Religion does not come into it at all. It was the incumbent Archbishop who declared that there is clear distinction between religious belief and civil rights.
For a very long time the Catholic Church in Malta wanted to assert itself politically and for a reason. Since Malta was colonised by a Protestant country, the Catholic Church felt threatened (though unjustified) and fought for its privileged position as one would have expected. But the Catholic religion has no further political threats; it is enshrined and defended in the Constitution. Catholic religion is taught both in Church and State schools and there is complete freedom of religion and conscience.
In this area of cohabiting partners the Church has to establish a uniform position. I know of a couple who are practising Catholics and cannot accept the fact that in a particular village Church they are denied Holy Communion simply because they cohabit. They go to another village to hear Mass on Sunday and practice fully their religion.
The faster the legal and religious harmonisation takes place, the better. If the whole world has made these courageous steps a good number of years ago we should follow suit and should no longer consider ourselves as some “privileged” country where we know better than the rest of the World.
In Spain, a staunch Catholic country, reforms took place faster than in any other European country, and they are not a worse country than they were before.
We should start by giving rights to cohabiting partners while at the same time encourage a stable married relationship. Reforms in the legal sector should be carried out in a rational manner keeping in mind the end result we want to achieve. The “traditional” family should still be the basis of a sound society but those who have the misfortune of losing it should not be castigated for the rest of their lives.
If the government feels shy to effect reforms, it should work out a legal plan with the Opposition; and if both parties do not want to take the bold step, then private members bills should work out the trick. Both parties should leave their members a free vote in parliament.
There are thousands of children and partners waiting these reforms. They are an integral part of our society. We cannot continue to ignore them. Religion has nothing to do with it and no party would lose votes in spearheading the long-awaited legal reforms.
It is much easier to accommodate the status quo, but history condemns the coward and the opportunist.