Marriage equality was part of the “ethic revolution” that swept the country in the years following 1999, under the “purple” governments of prime minister Guy Verhofstadt. For the first time in decades, the Christiandemocrats were excluded from the federal government. The governing liberals (“blues”) and socialists (“reds”) took this opportunity to push through a number of laws on ethical issues about which Christian-democrats had always been apprehensive.

One of these was euthanasia, which, under strict conditions, became legal. Two aspects were deliberately left out: euthanasia for minors and for people with dementia. Both were too sensitive even for the coalition of liberals and socialists at the time, especially amongst the French speakers.

Now, a new purple axis has formed, with a joint proposal from (Flemish and French-speaking) liberals and socialists on euthanasia for minors. The proposal does not include an age limit but speaks of minors who are “able to assess” their own situation.

The proposal shocked Christian-democrats, who were not consulted. Coalition partners should not go behind each other’s backs on such delicate issues, they say. The senators behind the proposal retort that it is open for amendment. They hope for “toleration”, if not support, from the Christiandemocrats, who are not needed to get a majority in parliament, as greens and/or the N-VA could also support it.

CD&V has already stated that it will never accept an “ability to assess” clause for minors, as this leaves too much room for interpretation.

To some people in Flanders, who have always looked up to the Dutch when it comes to the handling of such issues, the first ethic revolution in this country was long overdue. Others felt that the enthusiasm and unusual like-mindedness it created amongst the “purple” parties was vindictive, serving only to expose the Christian-democrats as conservatives.

This time the situation is different, with all three traditional political families making up the federal government. That calls for respect for each party’s sensitivities. Still, few people want to go back to the situation before 1999, when all ethical issues seemed locked indeterminately.