The Constitution of Malta, in chapter.1, section 2, subsection (1) and (2) states: (1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.

(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.

So, Malta, unlike Italy and other European nations, does not profess complete “separation of Church and state” and the Church has a right to teach and guide its members in matters of religion.

In Malta, both the state and the Church believe the unit of the community is the family and the integral structure of the society depends on the strength of the family. The introduction of divorce laws will weaken the ties of marriage by taking away the permanence quality of the nuptial vows.

In the ceremony of a Christian marriage, the nuptial vows, state something like this: “I (bride/groom), take you (groom/bride) to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish until death do us part”.

Phrases such as until we both shall live or what God joined together let no man put asunder, appear in the marriage vows.

In making such vows, the responsible adult couples are renouncing the right to remarry as long as the partner is alive. In the presence of divorce, there will be an anomaly in our marriage and divorce laws where one is granting permanent union and the other is allowing a dissolution of a life-binding tie. We may as well then repeal all religious weddings and change the nuptial vows to “...until we meet with irreconcilable differences” (instead of “...until death do us part”).

The marriage is binding till one of the partners dies but the real seal of the union happens with the birth of the first child. The couple now are not alone fending for each other but have introduced another creature to whom they are legally responsible till the child reaches the age of maturity. The solidarity in marriage is the presence of both parents. It is well known that a year after a divorce the child will lose contact with one of the parents. Children after a divorce will become waifs of the state. A judge will have the ultimate say on the destiny of the children. Children of a young age and even older will be put in a state of confusion about loyalties and relationships and alienation will set in between them, their grandparents and relatives.

Some people say when love ceases between couples, the union should be dissolved but the responsibilities remain, especially in the presence of children.

Divorce rates in other countries is reaching the alarming figure of 50 per cent of married couples. Once divorce is introduced, the rates will keep on increasing as the divorce rates for second marriage is higher than for first marriage and for third marriage higher than for second. (In the US, 41 per cent for first marriage, 60 per cent for second marriage and 73 per cent for third marriage.)

Facilitating separations and remarriages by introducing divorce in Malta will encourage couples to opt for the easy solution instead of struggling to find an accommodation. Rather than legitimising separations and breakup of marriages, our legislators should spend their time and efforts in enforcing marriage guidance and counselling through arbitration courts. The education system should be geared on educating all youngsters on relationships, couples behaviour and rearing of children.

With the easy availability of divorce, the strength of the family, which is the unit of a society, will weaken with the consequence of losing the identity of our community as we know it.

The Church has been established for centuries and has accumulated the wisdom and maturity of the ages. Its teaching and attitude towards marriage are based on principles developed over the years. The Church grants annulment to couples when, according to a judgment of an ecclesiastical tribunal, one of the partners on entering the marriage did not have valid qualifications for the union. An annulment does not dissolve a marriage (like divorce) but acknowledges that a valid marriage did not take place. According to some Church authorities, 60 per cent of couples getting married are null, that is, they would not be married by a tribunal that would examine them rigorously before the wedding. That is one of the reasons we are seeing more annulments than in the past.

Within the limits of the law, sexual habits and practices are not controllable and are private. Nowadays separations are numerous and co-habitation is not illegal.

The movement for divorce is mostly driven by the demand of couples for the civil benefits that married couples enjoy, such as tax, pensions, inheritance and legitimacy. As a solution to these problems we need laws enacting civil unions (as in France with PACS – pacte civil de solidarietè).

This legal contract between two parties stops short of marriage and gives the rights married couples enjoy. It could also serve as an intermediate step to marriage for heterosexuals who will choose later a life-binding union. If this option were available, divorce will become a non-issue and homosexual couples can legitimise their union without asking for marriage, which is traditionally reserved for male and female couples.

The government should consult all sectors of society on this issue and have a non-political debate – a non-partisan debate – and decide by a majority vote in the House of Parliament. A referendum should be avoided as it will mean relinquishing of responsibilities to the crowd as Pontius Pilate did when he washed his hands.

To the argument of how can we be right when we and the Philippines, among all countries, do not have divorce laws, we should answer we are not like sheep, wanting to join the flock not to be alone but are proud to put a stop to the deterioration and breakdown of civil standards in our societies. Besides, we know our traditions and community needs that make us unique.