Another reader sent me something to use if I liked, though for cogent reasons, this one has to remain anonymous. No matter, it's not the writer but the writing that matters. He called it "My right to marry". Perhaps all the pontificators could take note.

He writes:

"The so-called divorce debate is plagued by much talk on ‘the good of society’ and ‘the strength of the family’ but divorce is a matter of interest to an altogether different level of our community. The importance of the family unit, when successful, and functional, is beyond doubt or debate.

But the debate is about the individual, and the fundamental inalienable rights vested in every individual for being just that: a person. In a western liberal democracy the rights of the individual generally supersede any other consideration.

We recognise, for example, the right to life, an inalienable and fundamental right granted to every individual. When we argue that the right to life is extended to unborn children, essentially what we are saying is that once a child is conceived its life cannot be terminated for any reason.

Consider this: a woman commits adultery and finds she is pregnant by the wrong man. She regrets her action and wants to save her marriage by stopping her affair and keeping it secret and an abortion would save her marriage and her family. But we hold that the rights of the unborn child supersede the social desirability of the survival of her family.

We recognise the right to education. A family in desperate need of money, that risks hunger and breakup without some new income, may be tempted to stop the education of their children and send them to work aged ten. It may be in the (short-term) interests of this family-unit to deny its children the right to education, but we consider their right as inalienable and supreme over the interests of the family.

We recognise the right of adult men and women to marry each other. There may be individual cases when we think a couple is unfit for each other. We may know the groom is an inveterate philanderer or we think the age gap between the couple is unbridgeable or we might think a groom’s only interest is to marry into money. However the right of adults to marry supersedes any opinions we may have on the fitness or otherwise of a couple to take that step.

In our society individual rights supersede social considerations.

The Church will give you good advice on preparing yourself for marriage, but if you choose to ignore that advice the State cannot deny you your right to marry, right or wrong.

I claim my right to marry. I was married once: but it did not work out. The State has recognised the fact that irreconcilable differences between my former wife and I are sufficient grounds for us to separate, to dissolve our household and to distribute in a fair manner our previously shared duties and responsibilities as parents of a child from that marriage.

That marriage is now over.

I am now in another relationship. I am in love with the woman I live with and we have a child. I accept that some do not approve of what I did and am doing and consider me a failure for not having managed to see my first marriage through to the end of my life.

They might be right.

Having said all this I do not believe that the reality of my life today is in and of itself a danger to society. My children are happy, they love their parents and at home they live in a serene and loving environment. They would not have had this had I not decided to change my life the way I did.

I do not think it makes an iota of difference to society whether I am married to the woman I live with or not. Sure, some will gossip or disapprove but that is not real social harm as such.

Whether I am married or not does make a difference to my partner and I, however.. I believe I have a right to marry and for the State to formally recognise the simple reality that a man and a woman have come together in a loving and economic relationship to form a family and bring up children as upright citizens.

I am not so arrogant as to believe that allowing me to remarry would be of benefit to society. I am arguing it makes no difference either way.

That is all I claim: a right I believe I have, and for the State to recognise it.

I consider Maltese separation laws and processes as being entirely adequate and fair. The literal distinction between ‘divorce’ and ‘separation’ is purely semantic. In both cases a marriage that was, is no longer.

But in legal terms a divorce would allow me to go to the Registry one more time and undertake, in genuine and heartfelt certainty, to cherish and support the woman I love and who I wish to call, for all the world to know, as ‘my wife’.

That is all I ask for."

The piece doesn't end here: there's more, with a pretty scathing examination of the pros and cons of the actual proposals being made, but this is a natural break in proceedings and I'll be putting the rest in later.