All of us who are currently locked into the debate on whether or not to introduce divorce legislation in Malta are firmly in favour of strong marriages and strong families. They are the bedrock of Maltese society

Where the two sides differ is over what should happen when marriages break down – as they are doing with increasing frequency in Malta today; and as they will continue to do in the future.

What does society do in such circumstances? Do you simply say that the way out of Malta’s predicament is to repeat the mantra that we must strengthen marriages – without proposing what to do in those cases where, despite every effort, they still fail? And then go on to argue that, in any case, the existing legal procedures for dealing with those marriages that are increasingly breaking down – annulments, legal separation and, funnily enough, divorce (but only of course for those able to obtain it abroad) – are a sufficient, a civilised, response to Maltese society’s needs?

This is the critical difference between facing reality and deluding ourselves that we are living in Utopia – or the long-gone Malta I grew up in, in the 1950s.

This is the fundamental difference between the two sides in this argument.

My position is absolutely clear. I am in favour of the introduction of remarriage after legal separation. Note, I talk about remarriage after legal separation, for that is what the argument is all about.

Let us be clear. This is not an argument about divorce per se. It is an argument about the civil right of remarriage after legal separation (a legal remedy which Malta has had for over 130 years). The State currently forbids divorce, but allows legal separation – which is, in fact, the most heart-wrenching aspect of broken marriages, coming as it does well before divorce.

My conviction about this issue is informed by two factors. First, I am firmly against hypocrisy, dogma, intolerance and any form of bigotry. But more importantly, secondly, it is based on an utter belief in justice, fairness, civil rights for all, including the minorities in our society, and the overriding common good of society.

These are the values that underpin the urgent need to introduce legislation in Malta to deal with one of the current social ills – perhaps the most insidious – in our society.

Persons who are married but legally separated in Malta are currently denied the right to remarry. Legally, if they form a new relationship, one can not speak of a husband and a wife. Merely a cohabiting couple. It is manifestly in the interest of the common good of society to seek to rectify this inequity.

It would be hypocritical to pretend there is no problem. It would be cynical and irresponsible – as some apologists for the do-nothing approach have already shown – to try to ignore it. It would be uncharitable to suppose that matters can remain the same. Maltese society currently pays a very heavy price for sustaining the concept of the indissolubility of marriage and the hope – mostly not fulfilled – that separated couples may one day be reconciled.

The situation in Malta today is anomalous and discriminatory. Legislation exists which allows people who were married either to get divorced abroad (over 400 in the last 10 years; and increasing annually), or to have their marriage declared null and void through annulment – the Church’s way of dealing with irretrievably broken marriages. And in both these circumstances, whichever way you dress up annulment or divorce, leading to remarriage. The only missing element in the present law on legal separation – in contrast to divorce or annulment – is that separated people are not allowed under any circumstances to remarry.

At the core of my argument is the overriding conviction that remarriage should be sanctioned to prevent greater harm to the common good caused by the dislocation and insecurity in society of cohabitation. And the injustice of preventing those already legally separated from re-marrying if they wish to. It has to be the State’s function not to prevent remarriage but, on the contrary, to provide a legal mechanism that, on behalf of society as a whole, it regards as fair and workable.

To leave matters as they are is no longer tenable. The well-regulated civil dissolution of marriage, as is being proposed in the far-seeing Private Member’s Bill now before Parliament, is a way of minimising the consequences on society of failed marriages. It allows people to rebuild their lives. To give legal recognition to caring second relationships, which are today in fact marriages in everything but name, can only advance the cause of the institution of marriage, not weaken it.

The absence of divorce has plainly spared Malta none of the pain and tensions of marriage breakdown. The individual’s right to choose their own domestic and family relationships and to expect due respect and acknowledgement of these choices from the State, together with the wider benefits to society from the stability provided by remarriage, are fundamental.

Respect for such rights does not run counter to the general interests of society or the State in supporting them. On the contrary, it reinforces them. The State has to find solutions when marriages break down, just as, for example, it provides remedies for broken commercial contracts.

To fail to recognise second relationships through remarriage is actually to undermine the institution of marriage and the family. To support cohabitation, rather than remarriage, is the height of hypocrisy when it is well-established that cohabitation is inherently less stable than marriage. Yet, those who fail to support remarriage after legal separation are condemning those in second relationships to cohabit. And this cannot be supportive of the common good of society.

The introduction of remarriage after legal separation will give a chance to people in stable and loving second relationships to obtain all the benefits and family stability that come from a happy marriage – to the greater good of Maltese society. There are thousands of marriages in Malta which have entirely collapsed, which are marriages in name only. On the other hand, there are many second relationships which are marriages in everything but name.

The freedom to marry again after legal separation is an intrinsic entitlement, enjoyed by every advanced western democracy, of the civil rights and liberties of a well-ordered democratic and pluralistic country. Thousands of Maltese people today, trapped in irrevocably broken marriages, seek justice and fairness through the legal remedy of remarriage after separation.

This is the civilised, and civilising, experience of every other advanced Catholic country and western democracy in Europe and elsewhere. On grounds of justice, fairness, civil rights and the greater common good of Maltese society, the weight of the argument in favour of divorce legislation is overwhelming. The only question now is: When will Malta finally see the light?

Martin Scicluna is a member of the IVA Campaign and the lead author of the Report ‘For Worse, For Better: Remarriage After Legal Separation’