I intend voting in favour of divorce being introduced into the civil law of the Republic of Malta. I believe I’ve made this clear from day one and before the debate, if a series of bellowed positions can be called a debate, even started.

No amount of huffing and puffing on the part of certain elements of the clergy is going to make me change my mind because my conscience, such as it is, is clear. Let me explain why.

To start with, the only difference, in fact and in law, between divorce and separation is that the parties in the former are allowed to remarry while the parties in the latter are not.

In both cases, the party unwilling to be put asunder from the departing spouse has no say in the matter.

In both cases, the children of the marriage are supposed to be taken care of and provided for and, in the event that there is a need for this, so is the needy spouse.

Ironically, the children of a divorced couple, if we were to take Labour’s referendum question at face value, always a dangerous idea where Labour is concerned, are going to be a sight better off than the children of a separating couple because the former are going to have their welfare guaranteed (though how this is going to happen is conveniently left vague and undefined) while the latter are left to suffer as they do now when unscrupulous spouses use them as ammunition in the war of the no-longer rosy relationship.

Even more ironically, while the erring spouse in a separating couple blithely plays fast and loose with his or her affections and sows wild oats with gay abandon, in a divorce scenario, the philanderer has no real excuse to avoid the ties of marriage, such as they are, which might lead to less messing about and more stability.

What is certain, though, is that the availability of divorce or otherwise is going to lead to absolutely no change in the number of spouses playing away. The ties of fidelity the anti-divorce lobby is so breathtakingly eager to keep strong are betrayed not by the availability of divorce, especially if you’re going to be asked to wait four years before you get it, but by the morality or otherwise of the spouses concerned.

In other words, a wife or husband with an eye to have some fun outside marriage is not going to worry about whether the consequence will be divorce or separation: his or her needs are more immediate than that.

Another reason why I intend – at this point – to vote for the introduction of divorce is that we have it already but only if it’s marked “Not made in Malta”. Why should those who can get accommodated abroad have a playing field that, compared to those who can’t, is sloping?

At the end of the day, we’re not supposed to be voting on whether divorce is a good or a bad thing – or even whether it should be mandatory after, say, 10 years (my wife might say so, for instance) – but simply whether citizens whose personal belief system allows this should be allowed to have their wishes accommodated by the civil law as it is the world over except here and within that bastion of democracy, the Phillippines.

Even the argument that the non-consenting spouse is being chivvied, willy-nilly, into divorce is just so much claptrap, I’m afraid, because if said non-consenting spouse doesn’t want to be divorced, s/he can conduct her or himself as if s/he wasn’t, precisely as happens today when separation takes place.

For these and quite a few other reasons, at this time I intend to vote yes to Joseph Muscat’s question, ludicrous as it is.

My will is being very sorely tested, however, because of the way the pro-divorce lobby, or parts thereof, is handling itself.

The sight and sound of Marlene Mizzi invoking the revolting concept of Nazism, for instance, to brow-beat the antis into agreeing with her, grates so strongly on the sentiments of anyone with even a modicum of decency that I resent having to vote the same way she said she’s going to, for that very reason.

The bluster and posturing of people like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, the twisting and turning of his new best, best friends, the outright politicisation of the issue and the general bad taste in the mouth this whole debate (debate, I ask you!) is generating are also contributing to my feeling cheated: I thought I was going to vote on an issue of national importance and I find that in doing so I’m having to agree with these people.

Moving outside for a breath of fresh air, might I recommend for your consideration, if you want a nice meal, a place in Qala called Two Twenty Four or something like that. Looking with your back to the church it’s on the square towards the left – sorry about the confusion on the name, but you’ll recognise it when you see it. Very good in all respects.

imbocca@gmail.com

www.timesofmalta.com/blogs