To argue for or against divorce has nothing to do with morality. Divorce must be seen from the perspective of its legislative dynamic. To have a legal provision for divorce is to provide a civil right. Self-proclaimed 'moral majorities' have no right to impose their will on others.

Here I am assuming that civic maturity makes a distinction between the private and public sphere. While private individuals care for their personal circumstances, the law must serve society in its diversity. Legalising divorce forces no one to revoke his or her moral stand on marriage. However, divorce makes a huge difference to those who need to make use of such a legal provision.

To moralise against divorce is to say that those whose marriage breaks down are weak and must suffer the consequences. To say that divorce is a 'quick fix' is to lack care and understanding. Divorce is not a picnic. A friend of mine once likened her divorce to her being skinned alive. The State has no role in judging couples whose relationship has ended. While there is an ethical sphere to the law, the State is not a moral institution. More so the law cannot hold a moral imperative on individuals' marital relationships.

It is ridiculous to argue that a divorce provision in law would open the floodgates for family breakdowns. Free and responsible individuals are not passive beings who require laws to conduct their lives. Ethical responsibility is not dictated by law but by one's freedom and intelligence. However, it is also a fact that when civil society is impaired by inadequate structures where the law does not reflect the separate realities of the private and social spheres, then it is difficult for individuals to act rationally and freely.

The family is an ever-changing plural category. Lifelong marriage is not the only model. Subsequent 'second' or 'third' families are no less real; just as single parent and same-sex families cannot be ignored. All these are real families and the State cannot force anyone to follow one model.

The State must mirror the fact that relationships are plural and that children grow in a variety of contexts. The State must protect its citizens and Parliament must heed and consider everyone's rights. The State must, within the context of legality and common sense, reflect social reality and help the individual and society to cohere. That is as far as the State could go; which is why the law must be there to preserve one's choice and one's right, and at the same time make sure that legality and civility prevails.

Although the scenario of "woman and man, falling in love, getting married and having children" seems like the natural thing to do, marriage has nothing to do with natural law. Unlike love and procreation, marriage is a civil contract. The law does not oblige you to love your partner or have children; otherwise unfaithful and childless partners would becriminals.

Marriages are taken and upheld in free will and with the full awareness of one's civic responsibilities towards one's partner and eventual children, whether they are born from the relationship or adopted into it.

I cannot see any reason why the Maltese State continues to force perpetual marriage on couples who do not want it. Is it to shield the family or children from misfortune? On closer inspection, the status quo is prone to accelerate family breakdowns because there are no legal provisions to support those whose marriage is in difficulty.

In Malta, even healthy relationships are threatened by a lack of proper legal provision that caters for diverse situations. And here one must not forget the palpable reality of gender inequality, which the status quo exacerbates.

The likelihood that the current state of affairs hugely discriminates against women is neither unheard of nor a trivial detail; and though much is being debated over divorce and the family, I hear far less mention of gender discrimination. Surely, no society that calls itself civilised can ignore such realities.

Rather than expect divorce to be a party political issue, the case for divorce must come from a wider exercise of debate and discussion across the political divide, through the power of dialogue and civil debate. Whichever way one looks at it, the legal provision of divorce is a basic civil right. Offering botched arrangements such as 'separations' or back-door 'annulments' simply adds more misery to those whose welfare is being ignored.

Dr Baldacchino is Associate Professor at Columbia University, New York City.