Because I will be away next Saturday, the divorce campaign has mercifully come to a premature close for me and I have already cast my vote.

Having pondered the divorce question in considerable depth and from all angles over the past months, I have voted a resounding no, and this for a multitude of reasons, chiefly amongst which are the following.

Firstly, I am a Catholic; and as such I am in duty bound to form my conscience in accordance with the clear teachings of Christ and of his Holy Church on this issue. If I truly want to follow Christ, who is the way, the truth and the light, then I simply have not got the luxury of tweaking my conscience in any other way, and must act morally first and foremost in the interests of the common good of society rather than in the interests of any perceived individual good. That, I think, is paramount.

Secondly, I do not consider divorce in its own right to be a value. Rather it is a negation of all values. There is every value in marriage being indissoluble, in the giving and keeping of one’s word, for the benefit of one’s spouse and one’s children. There is no value at all in dissoluble marriage; and when no reason at all need be given for the plug to be pulled out of marriage, then in my book that reduces itself to sheer selfishness and irresponsibility.

This is further accentuated by the proposed imposition of divorce by one spouse unilaterally against the other, even against whose very religious beliefs it runs counter, or who might be unwilling to suffer the stigma or even to give up on their marriages so soon, both for themselves, but mainly for their children. So much for the hypocrisy of ‘minority rights’ here.

Thirdly, divorce will forever change the very definition of marriage which has been with us for centuries, and which has been proved to be the best possible foundation not only for Maltese families but also for the Maltese state. Once the idea of marriage changes then that change, far from affecting only those whose marriage might unfortunately have broken down, will impact all marriages, both present and perhaps especially future.

Linked to this, because Catholic marriages, under Maltese law, give rise to the same civil effects as do Civil marriages, divorce will also devastate Catholic marriages by devoiding them of such civil effects. Such Catholic marriages, no longer recognised at law, will thus be left suspended in the spiritual, but will have no temporal meaning and existence. At law they will be simply a nothing.

Fourthly, the state failed miserably in making available to the electorate any objectively meaningful statistical and other data on the basis of which any informed decision could be taken; and such a serious matter which none of the major political parties had ever mentioned, much less debated, before was suddenly rushed through and shoved at the people to shoulder responsibility and lighten Parliament’s conscience. I will always refuse to take leaps into the dark unknown, although everyone know very well the effects which divorce have brought about in foreign shores. A lowering of the marriage rate, increased cohabitation, increased births outside marriage, and huge public expenditure to support the new poverty.

Fifthly, divorce will usher in a divorcist mentality, and that will have its effects not only on marriage as a whole, but on everything else which society has every interest in preserving. The divorcist mentality means that anyone can do whatever he likes, whenever he likes, because the matter only concerns him, and nobody has any right to interfere in his own business. It also means that anyone can change his mind whenever he likes, and whatever anyone might have committed himself to yesterday he may very well reconsider today. Wherever divorce was introduced, this was soon followed by gay marriages, abortion, euthanasia and all other social harms which can easily be justified on the very same ‘civil right’ and ‘minority right’ arguments which, no matter how legally false, were nevertheless successfully brought to bear in favour of the divorce campaign and were swallowed hook line and sinker by so many who ought to have known better through a false sense of pity which was sowed deep within.

Finally, but by far not least, I have voted no for all those who will suffer a new poverty, both materially as well as spiritually, which divorce will bring to them; as well as for those children, innocent victims of this entire debate, who will suffer greatly with the onset of the plague of divorce in this country, but who presently have no vote, and hardly anyone at all to speak up for them.

I have no way of predicting what the final outcome of the Divorce Refendum will be come 28 May, but whatever pleasures might yet be to come, conscientiously I know that I stood by my duties to family, neighbour, religion and country.

■ Kevin F. Dingli

Valletta