Why don’t you ask our ‘representatives’ how many porn sites pass through Malta on the internet and how many gambling sites are registered in Malta by an act of parliament.

And while at it ask how many of them have bought shares in these gambling sites. When asking exclude no one especially these chest beaters.

Easy, easy, Guzeppi. Put yourself in their position. It must be really hard for them to wake up one fine day, and discover that it is no longer acceptable to impose religious belief on others.

Think of the poor souls who honestly believed that it is in black people’s own best interest to be slaves (because the bible says so).

The civil-liberties-deniers of today face similar dilemmas.

What next, a referendum to ban child abuse? Oh, I forgot, it’s already illegal.

So it could be an abrogative referendum…. Hey that’s an idea, how about if they passed the divorce law first and had an abrogative referendum aftrerwards?

Then anybody whose concience gave him trouble could have campaigned to his heart’s content, and more importantly voted against, but using his ONE vote, not the thousands of votes some politicians seem to think they have.

If our politicians didn’t think they had a mandate to introduce divorce, then they didn’t have a mandate to prevent it either.

Since I mentioned child abuse, or as it should properly be known in this context, child rape, the US conference of Catholic bishops has commissioned a study on the subject, and of course this self-commissioned, self-funded and self-vetted study came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has no responsibility in this matter, and that it has been a simply a result of the ‘libertinagg’ of the Sixties.

I’m not aware of a hippie culture of child rape, but evidently the Catholic Church is.

The report has redefined paedophilia as having sex with children 10 years or younger (the official definition is 13 or younger) so presumably we will be changing our laws to come in line with the church’s teachings?

Oh, by the way it mentioned divorce as a cause too. Apparently divorce leads to more Catholic priests raping our children.

JV didn’t you mention annulment on purpose? Or in your opinion children whose parents get an annulment and contract another marriage go through the whole process unscathed? Ideally there would be no need for annulment/separation /divorce but is that possible?

Haven’t we been through all this rigmarole already prior to the referendum?

The Yes has won. Get over it.

Moreover, stop trying to thwart the will of the people through further fear-mongering and justifying the fundamentalist aspirations of those self righteous prudes masquerading as “representatives of the people”.

You’re pathetic

Screw you and those of your ilk.

Your argument against divorce is equally an argument against separation. Would you say that married people who, for whatever reason, want to separate, should be legally prevented from doing so?

[Joseph Vassallo – Try to understand what children of separated couples go through. Imagine what children of divorced couples will go through].

Please explain the difference.

Would you have spoken the same had the ‘No’ won? Unfortunately (for you that is) you are clutching at straws. Let us not play with words.

The majority voted for divorce, and consultative or not, it is going to go through – no matter how much you stamp your feet.

Mr Vassallo,

Whether or not the parents should care has no bearing on whether or not there should be divorce legislation, and vice versa. They are two entirely separate issues.

Divorce may happen as a consequence of parents not caring. Not enacting divorce legislation is not going to make them care any more, and neither is enacting it going to make them care any less.

Without divorce legislation there are still all the consequences that are (wrongly) attributed to divorce plus a few more.

Joseph Vassallo, it is game over for fundamentalist principles that dictate how one should live according to a specific religion. Now have some joy in determining your own life and fate .