I am compelled to write on the divorce issue as a bioethics subject; tackle for example the issue of whether to offer IVF only to married couples and the fact that in bioethics many of us try to insist that children have a right to be born and grow in a family

It is an unfortunate fact that the reality of the referendum on divorce has exposed that on the issue of broken marriages we have driven ourselves into a cul-de-sac and continued to believe that things will solve themselves on their own. If it is true that around 90% of cases of separation have a case for an annulment, then we have really let these people down. Why is it that State annulments take much less time than Church annulments? Is it because we are indirectly saying that our courts – the highest institutions of the country – are not acting as morally in all cases? I cannot conceive of this being so. Can it be because some lawyers have it in their interest to drag on with cases for monetary reasons? I hope not. Can it be because we have not made a strict policy of cases having to be decided within a stipulated period of time? Here is a strong probability.

There are broadly two reasons why people separate. One is because the marriage should never have occurred – hence annulment. The second is because some marriages fail. God knows how many doctors, psychologists, members of the clergy, listen and see cases of failed marriages and the pain and suffering they witness. Whilst we are ready therefore to invest in divorce – as money will be needed – we have not been ready to invest in preparation and support.

And why should we? Why are our marriages so special, when we have not seen fit to protect them and the fact that we are one of two countries still not allowing divorce is seen to be a negative rather than a positive from which others may take example?

Parliament has dished us an unfair question of allowing divorce in special circumstances. Of course a simple question would have risked that the divorce Bill does not pass, so we had to flavour it with icing. If we are so concerned about these so called special situations and circumstances, is it not because we still believe in something that can be thought of as ‘sanctity’ of marriage – if not for spiritual reasons, then for the sake of the children and social stability?

The true question should be whether it is fair to ask many people who cherish marriage as a sacrament a thwarted question which appeals to their emotions (for not one of us cannot fail to empathise with separated people) which in effect says that that same sacrament cannot hold in all circumstances; that morality changes with circumstances; that, what’s more, we cannot impose our morals on others and that this in itself is immoral and should cause us to feel more guilt.

My friends know how much I pondered knowing that many of them have been through this ordeal and perhaps, yes, I am lucky in my marriage. But many of them also acknowledge how their children suffered and how much they sought help but could not find it coherently and early on.

How can we expect annulment cases to drag on for year after year, and naively believe that people will not react, when what other countries do has always been a powerful weapon in this country, and at the same time watched passively as Cana begged for money.

The pity is that the divorce issue has become an ‘us’ and ‘them’ situation. That one group will ‘win’ the referendum. And if the referendum is ‘lost’ (by those who like myself do not wish to see divorce, if not for anything, for the sake of not having my children grow in a society which looks upon marriage as something disposable ‘under certain circumstances’) we will not realise that what is really lost is not merely a vote, but the opportunity to start working in favour of marriages.

The tragedy which makes it even worse is that if we ‘win’ then there is the risk to continue sailing as if nothing is happening. I augur that either way we realise that we have to invest in marriage – we need to invest in preparation, in education, in marriages that are working and especially in those that are not. Divorce will not show them we care; in fact it says we don’t care. But to say this; to remain that one country without divorce, we must show the world that we do care enough to invest in this institution.

Pierre Mallia is Associate Professor in Family Medicine, Patients’ Rights and Bioethics at the University of Malta; he is also Ethics Advisor to the Medical Council of Malta. He is also former president of the Malta College of Family Doctors