MARRIAGE LINES

It is an over-riding convention of our constitutional system that the Head of State expresses positions espoused by the Government. The convention was born out of the stressed dynamic between monarchical autocracy and democratic rule, resulting in the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (doubtless some pedant will correct me) being an honoured spokesman for the elected Government, with very clearly prescribed powers, being limited but important ones.

It is not about these powers that a recent speech by our own Head of State prompted me to have a bit of a think - the residual powers of the Presidency are such that by their inherent importance they demand that they are exercised with enormous circumspection, which it goes without saying they will be, if ever they are needed to be exercised.

The speech that I'm on about concerned a completely different kettle of fish.

His Excellency was addressing a national conference on the family, organised by the Social Policy Ministry and he is reported to have made strong plea for the law to be amended - more properly, enhanced, though in this context the effect is the same - to ensure that the concept of family is defined.

The basic tenets that were espoused seem to be that for all intents and purposes at law, the only acceptable definition of "family" is when it involves a man and a woman, to the exclusion of other arrangements.

Given that there has been no real debate on this, and given that it is pretty much guaranteed that the debate would have been lively, the timing of the speech is worrying.

I don't wish to be accused of disrespecting the Presidency, so I will be clear: that Dr George Abela is entitled to his opinion on this - and any other - issue is blindingly obvious, but His Excellency the President, to a degree, is only entitled to an opinion if it is given to him by the Government. Forgive me if that sounded a bit facetious, it wasn't meant to, but sometimes a bit of irreverent expression makes the point a bit more cogently than any amount of scholarly discourse.

To put it less bluntly, the President expresses policy when, and if, it is established by the Government of the day, and therein lies the source of my concern.

By defining the family in a manner that can only be described as rigidly traditional, the President seems to have indicated that the outcome of a debate that is yet to be had is predetermined: other models for interpersonal relationships, aimed at raising children or otherwise, do not appear even to be considered for Malta.

In the light of the strong adherence to what many choose to describe as "traditional values" demonstrated by people of influence in the context of the discussion on the extent to which artistic freedom exists in Malta, I have little doubt that the idea of same-sex marriage is hardly likely to achieve universal approbation.

Equally, the State allowing adoption by same-sex couples would not be something I would be prepared to bet the farm on, though in the case of a lesbian couple, I can't really see what the "traditional moralists" would be able to do if conception were facilitated by non-traditional means.

The debate can be as wide or as narrow as we like, but we need to have it. Somewhat ironically, on the one hand, we're skirting around discussing the remoteness or otherwise of the possibility of considering divorce, while on the other hand, we're even less close to giving thought to enabling couples to unite and raise families in an atmosphere that reflects not battling spouses but loving partners.

I don't pretend to have the answers, but the questions need to be asked within the context of an informed debate and not on Xarabank, either - five minutes last Friday was enough to convince me that it is not a forum that lends itself to informed discussion.

Is the debate possible now, or has the Government taken its position?