In my Sunday Times commentary of October 20, 2013 I wrote:

“With a rapidity close to that of the speed of light, Malta will soon become one of the very few countries in the world to legalise same-sex marriage. There is just one difference between us and the other countries that legalised same-sex marriage before us: ours will temporarily be called a civil union. The law that is being proposed by Government provides for marriage in all but name. If in the near future the Government would feel that, for electoral more than for legally binding or socially valid reasons, the law should be changed, it would only need to change the title.

Since we already have gay marriage it pays no one to create a controversy about the change in the law’s title. The country should focus on what is worth of focus: the fight against the institutionalisation of corruption

The Objects and Reasons of the Bill that the Labour Government is proposing state it all. “The underlying principle of this Act is to equate civil unions with marriages in terms of procedure and substance in a manner that guarantees equal rights to parties in a civil union as are granted to spouses in a marriage.” A more clear declaration that this is a law for same-sex marriage is hard to come by.”

The searing heat in the corruption kitchen made it essential for government to look for a diversionary breath of fresh air. Same sex-marriage was considered to be a convenient move that could divert attention. This was preceded by prime ministerial indignation at the Church’s position paper on conversion therapy.

Up till now I know of no one naive enough to swallow the bait let alone the proverbial line and sinker as well.

The independent media immediately pointed out that the gay marriage proposal was not the result of respect for the gay lobby but an attempt to confuse the discussion about the current Panamagate scandal.

Neither was the Partit Nazzjonalista was fooled by the ploy. Its leader noted that the Prime Minister has just to change the title of the present law and, hey presto, there will be gay marriage in name as well besides substance. So why bother entering into inane controversies.

From what I hear from the grapevine, the Church will follow this same prudential route. There will be no position papers and no pastoral letters.

Since we already have gay marriage it pays no one to create a controversy about the change in the law’s title. The country should focus on what is worth of focus: the fight against the institutionalisation of corruption.