Malta may be at the tipping point on the subject of divorce when the level at which the momentum for change becomes unstoppable. This underlines the view, which goes back to St Augustine, that we can go on denying the truth of something for only so long before it becomes pointless to continue doing so.

When the public policy think-tank, The Today Public Policy Institute, published the report, of which I was the lead author, entitled For Worse, For Better: Re-Marriage After Legal Separation, it re-ignited a debate based on a clear enunciation of the arguments in favour of change. Every possible objection to the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta was addressed head-on and found wanting.

In a commendable initiative, Proġett Impenn recently held a conference entitled Towards Strong Marriage, to which they invited the country's leaders. This was a subject, like being in praise of motherhood, on which everybody could agree. Indeed, the TPPI report (which can be downloaded from www.tppi.org.mt) starts from the basis of proposals for strengthening marriage in Malta.

But the report goes on to highlight that any discussion on the subject of marriage cannot stop there. It also has to cater for the reality of modern Maltese life that, despite all best efforts, many marriages will continue to break down. While, in an ideal world, marriage would be for life, we live in an imperfect world and the ideal is not always possible. When marriages fail - as they do with sickening regularity - the government must give legal recognition to this fact in such a way as to acknowledge the need to encourage the institution of marriage by allowing those who have been legally separated, and whose marriages have irretrievably broken down, to re-marry after the civil dissolution of their marriage.

Three Maltese leaders were at the Proġett Impenn conference.

One leader showed the moral courage to recognise this reality publicly. He said that, although he was happily married, this did not mean others in a different situation had to accept their predicament. Everybody should have a second chance. He promised he would move legislation in Parliament to introduce divorce.

Whether or not one agrees with this leader's politics, it must be acknowledged that he showed moral courage and leadership to make this hard choice between two alternatives - the status quo and the recognised need for change - and to follow the moral logic of that choice to its conclusion.

Another leader present at the conference ducked the question. "We can discuss divorce," he said, "but if our point of departure is that marriage has failed, then we might as well put down our weapons and go home."

In a sop to potential voters whose marriages have already broken down, however, he went on to say that Malta had to understand the reality of those who choose to cohabit and to accept that, if left unregulated, vulnerable people would be placed "in dangerous situations", implying, presumably, that legislating for cohabitation was preferable to legislating for re-marriage after legal separation.

A third leader took up a doctrinal position, as was to be expected of him. Predictably, he expressed disappointment at what both the other leaders had said. It appears that he could not appreciate the moral position of the leader who was prepared to face up to the cruel reality of irretrievably broken marriages in Malta. Nor the other leader's recognition of the need to deal with cohabitation, which amounted, in his eyes, to condoning a sinful state.

For an objective and impartial approach to dealing with the adverse social consequences of broken marriages in Malta we should, with great respect, merely take note of this leader's views.

Malta is a liberal, pluralistic and secular democracy, not a theocracy. On this issue, the clear separation of Church and state should be paramount.

The possibility of re-marriage after legal separation would provide greater stability in our society by minimising the damage from earlier failure.

This would benefit the common good as the preferred framework for a stable relationship and a family to an extent that today's dislocation caused by cohabitation never could. On the contrary, to make a necessity of cohabitation would be incompatible with encouraging the stability that comes from marriage.

It is a work of justice, charity and fairness to seek to rectify the prevailing inequity in our treatment of those whose marriages have failed. To give legal recognition to second relationships by permitting re-marriage can only advance the cause of marriage, not weaken it.