Every time the news scene swings into less hectic mode, the vacuum is filled by the divorce debate. Now we're starting to get the "I want my face on telly more" syndrome coming out, with (self-appointed?) spokespersons for every side of the debate squealing that the other lot got more face-time and it's not fair, so there.

It's actually quite amusing how the process of debate had over-taken the issue itself to a degree. We seem to be more concerned with the mechanism that is going to be adopted to decide the question than with the question itself - and frankly, the question is not whether divorce is good or bad but whether the secular state should have available to its citizens and inhabitants a means to dissolve their contract of marriage if they should choose so to do.

The logical conclusion to this is that we shouldn't be debating the morality of divorce and we needn't be getting all hot under the collar about it, simply because the availability of divorce does not make it compulsory and therefore it's irrelevant, to my mind, what I or whoever may think about the morality of the institute.

An equally logical conclusion is that this is not a matter that should be taken to plebiscite because Joe Gatt or Austin Borg or whoever down the road does not have any right whatsoever to impose his personal morality on me, especially if this morality has been shaped by considerations that reflect religious rather than secular parameters.

In other words, I am hereby founding the Anti-Referendum Movement and invite all men and women of good will to contact their MP and ask him or her to take responsibility for his or her actions rather than chucking the ball, rather cravenly, to the Great Unwashed. It's about time they earned their princely salaries, after all.

Membership in the Movement is entirely voluntary and you can send your membership fee to your favourite charity.