It is time for a reality check. The divorce debate was supposed to be about the introduction of a civil right, and not a religious campaign – yet the latter is exactly what it has become.

Sadly, the whole debate has degenerated. It has been met with fervent religious zeal from the No camp (and by that we mean supporters) and equal rebuke by the Yes camp (and again we mean supporters).

This is not at all what the debate should be about. Jesus and religious beliefs have their place in Maltese society. People who are religious have every right to be. They have a right to keep Jesus in their hearts and to live the Christian life – but that is where it ends. This is a debate about divorce as a civil right.

People keep quoting gospel and the bible and all manner of religious texts. But we ask, what has that got to do with the price of eggs?

The debate on the introduction of divorce is one that focuses on civil rights accorded by the State, and not the Church. Granted, the lines have become increasingly blurred as the government and ministers keep defending the sacrament of marriage in terms of religion and the Church and not State.

But a few very important issues need to be addressed and highlighted if we are to shed the aura of hysteria that is gripping Malta in a self-imposed iron vice. Divorce does not challenge the indissolubility of the Catholic marriage rite – it is a civil right, which should be accorded to people whether in minority or majority.

How can people use religious fervour to advocate a No vote when there are so many double standards? We ask: Where does the No camp stand on the issue of separation? Do people honestly believe that the end result of separation and divorce are not one and the same? Where does the No camp stand on the matter of people being able to get a divorce if they can afford foreign domicile? Such divorces are accepted by the State, and those people are free to remarry in a civil context.

We also ask what the No camp makes of the fact that while the governing party has entrenched its position against the introduction of divorce, at the same time it is pushing through a cohabitation law. Surely, the effects on the family are one and the same.

We also ask what Malta makes of the fact that it is the only country in the world where a Church annulment is not preceded by a civil divorce. But perhaps the government set out the roadmap with a referendum, with a purpose. A referendum, in nature, is designed to defeat the minority. This was not a matter of national importance, like when we voted to join the EU. This is a matter of personal choice and civil rights – and freedom.

The studies and figures being bandied about by supposed experts in the field are nothing short of selective, at best. Perhaps it is about time all camps looked to people, especially children, who have experienced divorce and marital break-up. While the self-proclaimed experts tell us that they are susceptible to falling into delinquency, mental illness and inability to build lasting relationships, the truth is far from it.

Any person that has lived through the trauma of a family break-up will tell you that once a marriage is over, it is over – divorce or no divorce. It is not the actual divorce decree that causes the damage – it is living in an environment of strife, troubles and deep sadness that damages children. It is only through divorce that a broken family can begin to heal from the wounds inflicted over years of sadness and despair for all members and move on. The divorce issue has become so much more than a Yes or No; we will look back in history and see it as the biggest threat to personal freedom that this country has ever seen. And we have done it to ourselves.