Legislating divorce

Marisa Micallef (June 29) correctly observes that the social and economic difficulties experienced by adults whose marriage has failed are due to separation (marital disruption), not divorce (the dissolution of the marriage with the subsequent right to remarry). But why does she claim my column of June 25 denied or ignored this fact?

I pointed it out twice - explicitly when discussing Spain; implicitly when stating that if divorce laws simply responded to pre-existing demand, then pointing out the social risks of divorce would be irrelevant (for the reason I thought so obvious that I let it go without saying: it is marital disruption, not the right to remarry per se, which is correlated to the social risks).

Although Ms Micallef says my column was against divorce, it actually was against superficiality and cant, whether it comes from the pro- or anti-divorce camps. I have expressed my own position several times over several years: I find no compelling reason for the State not to permit remarriage in the case of separated adults without (dependent) children; while, in the case of separated adults with dependent children, there are several scenarios where legalising divorce would be the State's most prudent option.