I recently wrote an article in another newspaper quoting the words of three well-known Presidents (President de Marco, President J.F. Kennedy and President Emeritus Fenech Adami). The clear object of the article was to highlight, with regret, the hypocrisy of President Emeritus Fenech Adami in supporting the introduction of cohabitation laws in Malta, which in the eyes of the Church amounts to adultery, while rejecting remarriage after legal separation because “Jesus Christ… said divorce was bad for society” (sic). I said I was baffled by how he could contort his Christian beliefs to support cohabitation over remarriage, as this defied all logic.

This led John Micallef, who hides behind the nom de plume ‘Roamer’ in The Sunday Times, to devote a few hundred words of his column, not only deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote but, worse, attacking the good name of the late and sorely missed President de Marco.

As Dr Austin Bencini, a director of Allied Newspapers, and himself a columnist on The Sunday Times put it, “Roamer even went so far as to belittle the achievements of the late Guido de Marco as foreign minister because the staunch pro-divorce Scicluna belittled Eddie Fenech Adami and had referred favourably to de Marco’s comment that “we must do something about this problem. We cannot go on as we are”. [For the record, I did not ‘belittle’ President Fenech Adami, but merely posed a question about the Christian contradiction of his apparent stand].

The fact of the matter is that Micallef (aka Roamer) is so bigoted in his views on divorce, and much else in domestic and international politics, that he is unable to avoid, in Austin Bencini’s words, “superficial and partisan polemic”. The thickets of religious dogma that surround him prevent him from seeing the wood for the trees. One would have thought the editor of The Sunday Times would have long ago rumbled that Micallef is a fully qualified graduate of the Sarah Palin school of politics, and reined him in accordingly.

But bigotry and hypocrisy abound in the current debate on the urgent need to introduce legislation for remarriage after legal separation. In keeping with the strong sentiments of those in favour of the introduction of such legislation – Iva ghad Divorzju, Iva ghaz Zwieg − my report “For worse, for better: Remarriage after legal separation,” almost two years ago highlighted that the starting point for any discussion on divorce was the need to strengthen the institution of marriage, albeit conscious always that when marriages break down the legal processes for dealing with the fall-out should be as humane as possible and allow for the possibility of re-building families through remarriage after legal separation.

To this end, I made a number of recommendations for strengthening marriages in Malta that bear repeating, if only to examine whether any of them have been implemented by the government that claims to be for the family.

First, I recommended the establishment of a full-time Commissioner for the Family underpinned by the necessary human resources and financial support to make his or her organisation work effectively. Although the Opposition has recently suggested there should be a Parliamentary Committee on the Family, the much more ‘hands-on’ proposal for a Commissioner (and staff) for the Family has not been pursued by the government.

Secondly, I proposed that the government should ensure, through the fiscal means at its disposal, that the tax benefit and social security systems provide positive incentives for couples to get married, and to stay married. Welfare dependency as a result of so-called ‘father unknown,’ and other dysfunctional families, should be discouraged by fiscal means.

The Minister for Finance, Tonio Fenech, has made not one single proposal that would lead (‘incentivise’) couples in this direction. The government’s reduction of income tax for 7,500 mothers returning to the work force after five years does not fall within this scope and, the Maltese Church would probably argue, does quite the opposite.

Thirdly, preparations for marriage and the responsibilities of family life should be inculcated from an early stage. It should begin as part of ‘Personal Social Development’ in the national curriculum. Moreover, those who marry in Church already attend an eight-week course of instruction by the Cana Movement. Although the courses are, I understand, of variable standard and could be greatly improved, the government should, through additional funding of the relevant organisations, extend these courses not only to those entering into civil marriages, but also on a continuing basis to young married couples after they have married to buttress the institute of marriage and to help them weather the inevitable storms when they arise. There is no evidence that either of these suggestions has been taken up by the government.

Fourth, the provision of government mediation, counselling and reconciliation services should be greatly expanded to nip in the bud marriages that are getting into difficulties. Couples with marital problems should be encouraged to seek help as early as possible. There is no evidence that government has made any effort to expand this vital service, although the Bishop of Gozo took a small step broadly in this direction last year.

Fifth, the government should ensure that current efforts for more family-friendly work practices are further developed and extended to ease the burden on working mothers and to strengthen their ability to devote time to children and family. While there has been a slight increase in childcare centres, there is little evidence of much else improving in this field.

The hypocrisy of the government, which purports to support the family and to be against the introduction of divorce legislation (but, perversely, in favour of encouraging cohabitation), takes one’s breath away. The Minister of Finance, who appears to sit on the ‘Religious Right’ of the party and has had it in his means to will the economic resources to help strengthen marriages in Malta (he has certainly found the money for a Parliament building) instead seems content simply to mouth platitudes about it, while criticising remarriage after legal separation, which would do so much more to re-build families that are currently broken.

The government, the Maltese Church and Zwieg bla Divorzju would be more credible in their campaign about reversing, or at least stemming, the current shocking increase in marriage breakdowns if they were prepared to take the simple steps necessary to salvage those marriages which are capable of being saved. But, as we have seen, they have not done so.

The bottom line is that the State also has to face the reality of modern Maltese life that – despite best efforts – marriages will continue to break down. When marriages fail – as they are doing, and will surely continue to do – the government must give legal recognition to this fact in such a way as to acknowledge the need to encourage the institution of marriage by allowing those who have been legally separated to remarry after the civil dissolution of their marriage. Instead of insisting on leaving marriages broken, remarriage after legal separation would re-build families.

Mr Scicluna is a member of the

IVA Campaign and the lead author of

the report “For worse, for better: Remarriage after legal separation”