The debate, if the process of writing “DIVORCE NEVER” in capitals at the end of every comment can be called a debate, continues. And it continues to amuse, though also to vex.

And it’s not only the debate that continues to amuse, too, it’s the little side-shows round the edges.

Do you remember the Hon. (other) Pullicino’s position, not many moons ago, about how she’d never vote for divorce, even though her own personal circumstances would pre-dispose her in the affirmative direction?

Well, if you needed a clear signal that the debate is going to divide itself down party political lines, her little (little!?!) u-turn a few days ago was one. Suddenly, divorce isn’t a complete and utter no-no for our Marthese, she’s beginning to waver, perhaps not only because she’s seeing the way the wind is starting to blow.

Truth be told, for all that a slight whiff of political opportunism pervades the general atmosphere, the position that the dear lady has adopted is not a million miles from mine. Well, it’s not that close, but at least there’s a slight chance that she might not abdicate her responsibility and vote in favour of the logical conclusion (stop me if you’ve heard this one before) that flows from enacting the Marriage Act in, if memory serves, 1975. Or was it 1977?

For those who don’t know the law, marriage in the Republic of Malta is a civil contract regulated by the civil law. It has religious overtones when the parties choose to introduce them, but essentially, it is a legal construct fashioned by man and not evolved in Heaven.

Or anywhere else other than here, on Earth.

The law already recognises divorce, too, a fact that the apologists for the retention of the status quo, along with that other bastion of family values, the Philippines, conveniently forget.

The dearth of logic that the antis demonstrate troubles them not one jot, of course.

For some amongst them, the important thing is to write DIVORCE NEVER at the end of each intervention, but the thought of adding any cogent argument to their sloganising is anathema. These are people, you have to recall, who think that if divorce is made available to those whose consciences allow them to live with it, it will somehow become mandatory for all, leading inexorably to the disintegration of the family, the unavoidable destruction of society and the end of civilisation as we know it.

In fact, it is only the fact that Malta and the Philippines do not allow divorce that is preventing the world from imploding and losing itself up its own fundament.

Do you detect a note of irony there? It’s entirely intentional.

Equally illogical is this clamour for a referendum on whether to leave the Philippines as the only bulwark against the apocalypse. Apparently, the logic here is that divorce affects everyone and his family, which is a great catch-phrase but which does not constitute logic, because divorce only affects the people who choose to resort to it.

This is precisely why there should not be a referendum on whether divorce should be introduced or not: it is not a measure that affects society as a whole, for all the bleating that it does – marriage breakdown, not the means of regulating it, affects society. For that matter, the hypocrisy that surrounds the way we regulate marriage breakdown currently probably affects society as a whole way more than introducing divorce.

There is no reason that I can see why Joe Blogs down the road should vote on whether divorce should be available to me: saying that he should holds as much water as saying that he should vote on whether or not I should take up with Jane Doe up the road.

In other words, it is none of his business and I don’t want him to vote on my life and the way I choose to live it.

And nor do I want any parish priests (or immams or rabbis or whatever, for that matter) sticking their noses into my life: they can give me their take on what they think is the right way for me to live it, but that’s as far as it goes. At the end of the day, it’s my conscience and I’ll live with living with it.

And I’ll thank the people whose CAPSLOCK appears to be stuck to eschew the temptation to judge me, as a couple of exemplars chose to do last week. According to these paragons of Christian Virtue, I am a bad, bad person who will fry in Hell because I dare to be in favour of divorce being introduced into this secular country sooner rather than later.

Hard luck, guys, I’m completely at ease with my conscience. I hope you are.

This week’s column was written before the death of Prof. Guido de Marco. It need hardly be said that I add my own note of respect and condolences.

imbocca@gmail.com
www.timesofmalta.com/blogs