There is entirely nothing wrong with that attitude, as he is perfectly entitled to his own opinion, and he will most probably vociferously campaign against it as it is also his own fundamental right to do so. It is very clear he will be doing so as his theatrics, somersaults and U-turns – within formidably short time frames – about whether a referendum should precede a vote in Parliament amply demonstrate.

My position was made clear way back in 2008 at the height of the PL deputy leadership campaign, when, interviewed by another paper, I said “I consider divorce to be a ‘facultative’ right. This means that once legalised the right will be there and can be applied, but only if it is needed. There seems to be a perception that the introduction of divorce will somehow ‘force’ people to go down that road, even if they don’t want to. But it doesn’t work that way. Even so, however, let us assume for a minute that I myself am against divorce in principle. Well, who am I to deny others that right?”

That is a belief I had fostered when I was still rather young, most probably when I was still at secondary school. At university that belief was further strengthened at the faculty of laws, where I was taught to make a distinction between laws and morals and that what is immoral is not necessarily illegal. That is why it is a sin to swear both in private and in public, but it is not against the law to swear in private. And, lest we forget, it is a sin, according to the Church’s teachings, to indulge in homosexuality, but it is not against the law of the country, at least not in the civilised world.

Moreover, the Maltese courts have been delivering civil marriage annulment judgements since 1974. According to our morals, values and religion, all those married couples who obtained a civil marriage annulment and were subsequently re-married by the State live in mortal sin, because the Church only recognises annulments by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and marriages by the Church.

So today I ask: what is all this fuss about the introduction of divorce, when, according to our morals, values and religion, all those couples who re-married after obtaining a civil annulment are presumably already living in sin? And does not a civil annulment also constitute a threat to the institution of marriage according to our values, morals and religion? Moreover have we all forgotten that hundreds of couples have already wedded before the State and not by the Church? Does not a civil marriage also constitute a threat to the institution of marriage if it is against the Church’s teaching to marry outside the Church?

Minister Austin Gatt, and a fistful of other ministers, have threatened to resign from Parliament rather than vote in favour of divorce if a referendum gives the nod for its introduction. Then what have they been doing in Parliament passing laws that benefit couples who re-married after obtaining a civil annulment? And what is the difference between, on the one hand, passing laws that benefit couples who re-marry after obtaining the civil annulment of their first marriage, and, on the other, passing laws that benefit couples who re-marry after obtaining a divorce decree of their first marriage? Indeed many nationalist ministers have already passed laws throughout the years that benefited couples who obtained a divorce decree abroad and subsequently re-married in Malta!

Who are these ministers trying to impress? The Maltese Curia? The Maltese Curia has not said anything about the State’s right to annul a marriage by the State or by the Church since 1974. As far as I know, the Church still does not, from a moral standpoint, recognise a civil marriage or a civil annulment. Presumably it considers re-marriage in those circumstances as a mortal sin too.

God forbid the day when the Prime Minister will express himself the same way as his ministers-in-moral-distress have already done, preferring to relinquish their seat lest they vote for divorce.

But then on second thoughts – if they all resign sooner rather than later, then we won’t have to wait another two years before this country sighs in relief.

Dr Gavin Gulia is the Opposition’s Main Spokesman on the Economy and the Self-Employed