When The Today Public Policy Institute published the report ‘For Worse, For Better: Remarriage After Legal Separation’, of which I was the lead author, its objective, as with all its other reports, was to stimulate a wide-ranging public debate and to help in the development and implementation of sound public policies.

I am proud to have ignited the spark that lit the flame on remarriage after legal separation now being carried into parliament by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo who, with considerable courage and in the best traditions of enlightened legislators in all liberal parliamentary democracies, jointly presented a responsible Private Member’s Bill for the long overdue introduction of divorce in Malta.

Unfortunately, because of the moral cowardice of the leaders of both major parties, in the face of what they perceived as an over-mighty Maltese Church, the decision on which course Malta should adopt on such a sensitive social issue has been thrown back at the electorate. The referendum in three days’ time is a pivotal moment which could affect future politics in Malta, as well future power structures in the balance between Church and state. While the outcome is too close to call, one can predict with some certainty that both the political class and, over-ridingly, the Maltese Church will come out of this debate diminished.

Despite protests to the contrary, the Maltese Church has conducted a vocal campaign – a well-directed, fear-mongering crusade amounting to coercion of its flock. This runs counter to the Church’s 1965 Declaration on Human Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), which deals with immunity from coercion. I quote: “Man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activities a man is bound to follow his conscience... It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience.”

This sentiment is entirely at one with what Pope Benedict said only a few months ago addressing the joint Houses of Parliament in Britain, when he denied for the Church the role of supplying “the objective norms governing right actions” let alone proposing “concrete political solutions.” He said that the answer to the question: “Where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found?” was that it was to be supplied by reason, without the privilege of divine revelation.

These statements are a far cry from the intemperate outbursts of the Bishop of Gozo (insulting those in favour of divorce by referring to them as ‘criminals’ and threatening them with withheld sacraments and hell-fire) and the weak attempts by the Archbishop, whose authority he has undermined, to hold the whole shaky edifice together.

The referendum will be a test of how far the Maltese have come in the 50 years since the Maltese Church last threatened interdiction, hell and damnation on its flock. This is Malta’s equivalent of the Arab Spring. If the referendum – which is a test of civil rights – fails, Malta may be thrown back to the Dark Age of the 1960s. It may yet prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the Maltese Church and the ruling Nationalist government.

The issues before us on Saturday concern justice, fairness and compassion in our society, as well as providing the key test of whether we are grown up enough as a society to exercise our civil rights.

Divorce is a basic civil right which should not be denied to anybody in our society. The absence of divorce has not prevented marriage breakdown in Malta. To keep children and adults in wretched, abusive or lonely relationships is not the proper role of a State that takes its moral responsibility seriously.

Those against divorce have identified divorce itself as a social problem while burying their heads in the sand over the real problem – marriage breakdown – to which divorce is often the only humane remedy. The civil dissolution of marriage will give a chance to people in steady and loving second relationships to obtain all the stability that comes from a happy marriage.

Divorce represents no threat to those who are happily married. Do those who use this argument sincerely believe that a marriage ‘threatened’ by the introduction of divorce legislation can be founded on any solid basis? The divorce referendum is essentially about freedom of conscience and freedom of choice.

People suffering from broken marriages are currently denied the right under civil law of a chance of a new life. There are also people in Malta of religions other than the Catholic faith – and those of no religion at all – who are similarly denied this right. To move from a refusal to accept divorce on religious grounds to a permanent ban on the introduction of divorce legislation, is not only absurd, but also utterly unacceptable in a modern, secular parliamentary democracy.

The state is free to legislate for divorce and the Church is absolutely free not to accept divorce. Just as the state has been free to legislate for legal separation, it is free to legislate for divorce. But individuals are free not to avail themselves of the divorce or legal separation option if they feel it is not right for them. Lack of acceptance of divorce on religious grounds is a matter of free will and the exercise of a free conscience, not of secular legislation. Just as the Church does not seek to prevent people from contracting a civil marriage, it should not try to prevent them from obtaining the civil dissolution of that civil marriage.

The determining factor for Catholics has to be about the requirements of justice and not a sanctimonious urge to force the Church’s teaching on those whose conscience, as well as their civil and religious liberties, are threatened by such an imposition. Civil and religious liberties require the development of a democratic, open and pluralist society in Malta – a new, forward-looking society that respects the freedom of conscience of the individual.

The obligations of Parliament are towards the people as a whole, including those who form a minority in society. Legislators should be expected to act as the fair and impartial judges of the case for the minority. The common good is best served when people are left free to live their lives and to determine their good for themselves.

On Saturday, we are not voting on whether the Catholic Church’s doctrinal views about divorce are correct or not. Clearly, the Church’s dogma is what it is. We are not voting about whether or not, in the Church’s eyes, the act of divorce itself is a sin. What we are most emphatically voting about, however, is whether the civil dissolution of marriage, under a law passed by our representatives in Parliament, should be permitted as a civil right by those who wish to avail themselves of it in line with the civil rights enjoyed by every citizen in every other civilised, advanced, liberal parliamentary democracy in the world.

The arguments in favour of the introduction of the civil right of divorce are unanswerable.

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