Government insists same-sex marriages will be disallowed

Labour MP Jose Herrera said in parliament yesterday that an amendment to the Civil Code making it easier for actions to be filed in court for changes to acts of birth after sex-change operations was welcome. He warned, however, that although the law on marriages disallowed same-sex marriages, unless this amendment was clarified, it would not be possible for the registrar to stop people from marrying after sex-change operations.

The Labour MP said he was not taking a position on what should, or should not be allowed, but the government needed to clarify the law .

Intervening, Justice Minister Tonio Borg said the amendment being made to the Civil Code was meant only to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned to avoid situations such as when a passport showed the holder to be a man, when he would have become a woman.

Dr Herrera said that despite what the government intended, there was clearly the need for the bill to be clarified so as to avoid court cases on the lines he had described.

Parliamentary Secretary Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici said the amendment was meant to avoid embarrassing situations for persons who had sex change operations. But it was well known that despite advances in medical science, sex change operations did not change everything. A man who became a woman could not have children. One could not, therefore, go from one extreme to another.

Dr Borg said this amendment applied only to changes to official documents. The government remained against same-sex marriages and further clarification would be made to the bill if required.

The main purpose of the bill is to eliminate certain discriminatory provisions in respect of children conceived and born out of wedlock, particularly the law of succession. The bill also improves the position of the spouse in relation to children both in intestate succession and in the reserved portion.

Dr Herrera said the opposition would vote in favour of the bill and viewed many of the amendments as long overdue.

He welcomed the fact that the bill would remove the term "illegitimate children" from the law.

He observed that to date, when a child was born out of wedlock and the father wanted to acknowledge that child, he could do so easily before a notary, without the mother having any say even when the identity of the father was not certain. Now the bill rightly laid down that registration would be made by agreement, but if the mother disagreed, the man claiming to be the father could institute court action to prove his paternity.

Provisions on the parents' responsibility for the maintenance of their children were also welcome. However, he felt that when children of a certain age, such as those 16 and over, showed disrespect to their parents and refused to live with them, the parents should not be obliged to continue to be responsible for their maintenance.

Indeed, this section needed to be amended because parents could, anyway, surrender their parental authority before the court of voluntary jurisdiction.

Dr Herrera also welcomed the provisions of the bill on succession saying they sought to strike a balance between the surviving spouses and their children.

In cases where a spouse died when the couple did not have children and a portion of the inheritance went to brothers and sisters of the deceased, Dr Herrera said he felt progress had been made, but he still felt the surviving spouse should have the right for half of the value of the estate in full ownership, rather than one third as the bill provided.

Other speakers will be reported in another issue. The bill was later given a second reading.