The divorce issue has been addressed on numerous occasions in our leading article. We have argued against the matter being resolved by way of a referendum, we have criticised the political games played with the sensitive issue, and we have supported the referendum question successfully proposed by the Opposition.

Now is the appropriate time to fully come down from the fence and voice our support for the concept of the introduction of divorce legislation to Malta.

Tomorrow will mark the two-month lead up to the 28 May referendum. Two months that could very well be expected to drive much of the electorate mad as the pro- and anti-divorce factions begin to do battle on what is perhaps the most divisive issue that country has seen since the European Union accession debate.

These coming eight weeks could very easily degenerate into a scaremongering, mudslinging contest pitting the moral against the supposedly amoral and the holy against the heretics. In these coming eight weeks, the last thing the electorate needs is further ambiguity from the media.

With that in mind, and with a view to avoiding being disingenuous to our readers, we are making known this newspaper’s favour of the introduction of responsible divorce – on moral terms and as a fundamental civil right that should have been introduced long ago.

But favouring the introduction of divorce does not necessarily imply favouring the pro-divorce lobby or any lobbies to be. Here there is a very fine yet fundamental distinction that needs to be made. While, in terms of an editorial stance, we will argue for the introduction of a responsible form of divorce as the correct and only way forward from a moral and civil rights perspective, this does not mean we will blinker ourselves.

We are not aligning ourselves with any pro-divorce lobby, nor are we pitting ourselves against the anti-divorce lobby. We will be fair in our reportage of both factions and in our assessments of the campaigns.

We will give ample space to all anti-divorce coverage, letter writers and columnists because although we feel that divorce is the right way forward for the country, we will not play judge and jury. That is not the media’s role, our role, in our reportage, is to inform and to let readers reach their own educated conclusions.

What we will set out to do is to help foster the widest debate possible so that when the people go to the polls on 28 May, they will do so as fully informed individuals with as little baggage in the forms of misinformation and or disinformation - from either side of the polemic - as possible.

We reserve the right to disagree with the proponents of divorce, and we will. We also reserve the right to question the referendum question that is to be which, although lacking a certain something, is the far better avenue than the simplistic, generic question that had been proposed and unsuccessfully championed by the government.

While the Constitution provides for no separation of Church and State, quite the opposite in actual fact, on an issue that is a fundamental civil right such as divorce, the two should not be confused. It is very simple: if the concept of divorce offends one’s religiosity, don’t get a divorce and by all means encourage everyone you know to think likewise.

But it is fundamentally wrong to seek to impose that school of thought on others, and to leave so many suffering in silent misery as a result.

Moreover, the issue of divorce should never have been politicised, and the Nationalist Party has done so at its own risk. Labour has not been, and we suspect that it will never be, as petty as to turn the issue into a no confidence vote against the government. So far, its approach to the issue has been the right one. It leader has long declared himself in favour of divorce legislation, but he has not imposed his will on the party or its followers.

This is not an issue about partisan politics one-upmanship and it should not be turned into one.

Of course, the Prime Minister is perfectly correct to say that what is good for the rest of the world is not necessarily good for Malta, and that Malta will stand firm for what it believes in. But then again there are perfectly good reasons why divorce has been introduced the world over, with the exception of Malta and the Philippines.

And to say that one is against divorce because one is in favour of the family is completely wrong, and misleading. When a marriage breaks down divorce is, in actual fact, in favour of the family – a healthy family, not the dysfunctional kind of family that results in two embittered spouses forced to continue to share their lives on at least some level.

And those concerned about the effect of divorce on the children involved would do well to speak to the children of spouses who have been forced to stay together, and those with divorced parents who have made new families for themselves. From this editorialist’s own life experience, far better for the children to have parents who are divorced, remarried and happy than bound together, antagonistic and bitter. Such matters should be considered very carefully before jumping to unfounded conclusions.

We do not foresee society as we know it crumbling to dust should divorce be introduced and those who argue in such a vein are either intentionally alarmist or downright scaremongers. The same was said of EU membership by some quarters, and the country has come a long way indeed since then.

We already have divorce for the well-heeled in the form of annulments, it is high time the country takes this next bold step and gives what is effectively a minority - the separated, average citizens - the civil right they deserve but have been denied for so long.