I suppose I'm as guilty as the next man of giving this bloody divorce debate, which has now morphed into a debate about how each single MP is going to vote, too much importance, and we're still at it.

It's obvious, according to every reader of tea leaves and star-gazer, that the law will pass, hopefully without a dog's dinner being made of it in the House. That given, who really should care how each MP will vote, except within the context of most of us feeling miffed that after asking us to make a decision, a few MPs have come over all conscientious and will be ignoring our decision?

In fact, as long as the law passes, how each MP votes is a total irrelevance except within the context referred to in the preceding paragraph. Once a law is passed and assented to by the President, the number of people who voted for it is a fact that is consigned to the dustbin of history, though in this particular instance, it might be the case that memories will carry back and be reflected in the order in which the numbers are written.

The thing is, divorce and its introduction into our civil law are not the be-all and end-all of the country's political process. Divorce is now a closed chapter, all over bar the shouting (and make no mistake, there'll be plenty of that, debate being conducted often by megaphone here) and there are plenty of other things to be worrying us.

Can we move on now, maybe I'll have something else to write about?

Somehow, I doubt it, especially if we keep re-opening the debate whenever some fundamentalist or other mumbles something that is less than music to our liberal ears.

Oh, and I don't count debates about peanuts and monkeys as moving forward.