With the final long procedure of voting by standing up and being counted, our Members of Parliament have now passed the divorce Bill, thus bringing to a happy ending these past months of public, and sometimes incandescent controversy.

All that is required now is the President’s signature on the Bill and the legal procedure bringing the law into effect. Then we will see the first divorce proceedings in the Courts of Justice and eventually re-marriages.

It was around this time last year that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando presented his Private Member’s Bill, and following this surprise move we saw the internal rumblings in the Nationalist Party.

The March vote in Parliament followed and this set a date for the referendum, which was followed by a long acrimonious campaign, which was brought to a close on 28 May with a resounding ‘Yes’. A rather long parliamentary debate followed and was brought to a conclusion on Monday, and we can say that collectively, the people and their representatives in parliament have managed to bring this issue, not mentioned in any party’s electoral manifesto, to a successful conclusion.

It is indicative that the referendum result itself, while clear enough, was rather balanced and in fact some even suggested it was not representative of the entire Maltese population. But by the time the final vote came, no less than 52 MPs voted in favour and five abstained, leaving only 11 voting against. To an impartial observer, that means that what at first might have looked like a really divisive subject, has over time won adherents, even from those who had voted ‘No’.

In fact in the last vote, some MPs who had voted ‘No’ in the referendum and during the second reading, voted ‘Yes’. The country itself, which had passed through some really contentious times in the weeks preceding the referendum, is now showing all the signs of having taken the result in its stride. Nothing surprises us any more in this country: At times the sounds of controversy are so high you would feel we are on the brink of civil war. But then, we somehow come together and together decide what is for the best of the country, and move on. That is clearly what is happening now.

The din of controversy has indeed died down, but there’s no unsaying or undoing of what took place during the campaign. But time heals. People have flocked back to Church, and the Church very wisely does not ask who had voted ‘No’ before giving Communion or admitting to Confession.

Those who voted ‘Yes’ may be still sore at seeing the prime minister, who publicly committed himself to upholding the result of the referendum, voting against the Bill at all its stages including the last one. But many, on the other hand, admit that the man being who he is, would not have been comfortable with himself had he at any stage voted ‘Yes’. The jury is still out on this count, but, again, at last there is closure.

Fortunately for all, there do not seem to have been any people hit by Church canonical reactions, in terms of, for example, burial or marriage. The only exception that we can see is the case of Dr Deborah Schembri, who was denied from practising her profession at the Church’s Tribunal, given her professed pro-divorce belief.

We strongly urge the Church to give a sign of reconciliation by dropping this ban. Otherwise, Dr Schembri should take the issue to any court that is relevant, up to and including the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights. In doing so, she should argue that she is being discriminated against, since no similar examination is being conducted on the pro- or anti-divorce convictions of all lawyers practising at the Tribunal.

While they’re at it, they should also investigate the private lives of these lawyers, and check out whether they dutifully go to Sunday Mass.

Over the past weeks the country saw and admired the way the two political parties pitched in to make the JPO-Bartolo Bill even more acceptable and a better law in all senses. While we normally perceive Parliament to be a place for controversy and conflict, here the two parties were collaborating to polish and improve the Bill. The committee was very open in its procedure and accepted any and everybody who felt they could contribute, non-MPs included. This is as it should be. It met at all hours, even on a Sunday, and successfully came up with the best Bill in the circumstances.

Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Divorce Act will have its baptism of fire when it is the courts’ turn to put it into practice. That is another phase of the implementation of the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. Those who fought to get divorce on the statute books must monitor the way the Bill is implemented by the courts and eventually see whether any changes or improvements are needed.