Consultative or abrogative divorce referendum, the facts are that the two MPs who presented the motion in Parliament were in search of a majority of “yes” votes. In my opinion they did not achieve this. One cannot ignore the abstentions. These were certainly not “yes” votes. But the law is what it is and the result is that a minority managed to change 2,000 years of tradition, religious and otherwise. The same thing has been done with the EU referendum and can be done later on with euthanasia, abortion, adoption by same-sex marriage, etc. It will all be very legal, because the law is the law.

But then, “the law is an ass” (Oliver Twist) and those who enact it are the same by inference. Let me make myself clear, however: I am not totally against divorce. But I believe that divorce should only be allowed in state weddings and apply to contracts entered into from the date of enactment. The Church should be allowed to regulate matrimony and its annulment procedures without any interference by the state direct or indirect. So newly-weds beware.

On a comical note, may I suggest that the ceremonial promise in state weddings should be “for good and for better, for rich and for richer, till debt do us part”.