I am looking at divorce from a neutral perspective. I am neither married nor separated, and I’m not religious either. I sympathise with all those who have had a troubled marriage. I understand it is not an easy situation and that it is normal to want to try again and seek to redeem mistakes.

However, I believe that it would be better, rather than introduce divorce, to make the annulment system more flexible, efficient and quicker. Thus, if couples have valid reasons to have their marriage annulled, they would be allowed to try again.

Nevertheless, before getting married, all couples should know what they are going in for. At the altar, couples vow that they will stay with each other for better and for worse, for life – and there is always an element of risk involved in marriage, as with everything else in life. Once people go before an altar to swear their love for their partner, it means they are ready and willing to take that risk.

When I was at school, I recall being taught that democracy is defined as a free and equal representation of people, whereby every person has a free and equal right to participate in a system of government which works in favour of the majority.

So in reply to Steve Brockwell (The Sunday Times, October 3), if divorce is to be introduced in Malta, it would not be available only for those who want to divorce, or for the separated or those whose marriage has broken down, but it would be a national issue and would be available for everyone else in the country.

If divorce becomes available, in future couples would almost certainly look at it as the normal solution for problems they encounter, rather than try and solve them together.

Divorce would turn marriage into a business contract that determines beforehand what assets both parties would get in case of a divorce. Marriage would lose its significance, and so would the meaning of love, security and sacrifice, leading to a entire breakdown of society and morals.

In my opinion, it is very selfish for anyone to say the nation should not have a say about divorce except for those affected by it – and calling this “true democracy and freedom”. How paradoxical a comment is that?

The introduction of divorce is a national issue and it would affect the whole nation both now and in the future, which is why I believe everyone has the right to vote and have a say in the matter.

That is what I call democracy and freedom.