Thursday, January 17, 2013, 17:01 by Alison Bezzina
Whenever a child is adopted from all over the civilised world, the best interest of the child is always given utmost importance.
When potential adoptive parents apply to adopt a child they are put under huge scrutiny. Their personal backgrounds, their relationship, their financial situation is put under the spot light. They also have to get references to support their parenting competence, and they have to attend a six week course to get them prepared. They also pay through their teeth and have to wait and wait until they’re finally matched with a child.
So when political parties, on the eve on an election, come out and say that they are not against gay couples adopting so long as it’s in the best interest of the child I applaud them and then, throw up a little bit in my mouth.
Adoptions are ALWAYS done in the best interest of the child so please stop this verbal vomit.
Thing is this, what’s in the child’s best interest can be very subjective. What if whoever is deciding is of the opinion that having same sex parents is not in the best interest of any child? Who’s to stop him or her from stopping such adoptions on other ‘fake’ premises?
Unlike Lawrence Gonzi whose arm had to be twisted into agreement, Joseph Muscat seemed very determined and convinced when talking about the matter in Gozo. This and this alone makes me trust him a tad more on the matter, but he then told Malta Today that “legislation on gay parents' adoption was not on his legislative agenda."
Unless he’s being misquoted this means that he is not going to do anything in the five years that he will be in government to change the law in a way which would allow gay couples to adopt. If he doesn’t change or try to change the law, then, all this is, is a personal opinion. A bit like saying that he prefers prunes to apples.
Perhaps his intention is to have this matter dealt with in the legislation on Civil Unions by having Civil Unions only different to marriage in name.
This would be different from the Civil Partnership as proposed by the Nationalist Government as part of the Cohabitation Law.
But we don’t know this do we?
Whichever way it goes, Muscat would still have to propose Civil Union legislation in parliament and if he includes gay adoptions within it, it stands a lesser chance of making it through.
It could then go either way, or it could go nowhere. God forbid, it could end up in a referendum which just like other minority issues would be wrong wrong wrong.
So whilst I’m sick to my stomach and bored out of my wits hearing about gas lines, and gas pipes and all the energy hullabaloo that no one can make head or tails of, I would much rather have both parties grilled and drilled about the ins and outs of Civil Unions and adoptions.
I mean let’s face it, did we grill the Nationalist party about their transport reform?
Did we grill them about their plans for the Parliament/theatre building?
Did we grill them about Smart City?
No we didn’t, and though all of these ended pretty badly, financially we’re still afloat.
On the other hand, people suffering social injustices, such as gay couples who find themselves on the streets when their long term partner passes away, are still suffering.
I didn’t think I’d ever say this, but sometimes financial stability does not make everything better.
Sometimes, it makes no difference whatsoever!