[Daphne – How would staying out of the EU have improved matters, exactly?]

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/fenech-adami-referendum-consultative-mps-vote-conscience

If I am correct they have a swearing-in ceremony where they take an oath to uphold the constitution. Are they in future going to add that matters of conscience are granted an exemption? They might as well dump the whole ceremony then.

According to the 1995 Amendments to the Marriage Act, yes. When an ecclesiastical marriage tribunal annuls a Roman Catholic Church marriage, then the civil effects of the marriage also are annulled. However, for a RC Church marriage there is no reciprocity for the annullment of the civil effects of marriage by the state.

There seems to be a lot of confusion in people’s minds regarding the civil effects of marriage, which apply for both church marriages and civil marriages. All such legitimate marriages have civil effects.

As for parliamentarians, the provision of divorce allows for the dissolution of the civil effects of any marriage, civil or religious. For those who may have been married in church, if they obtain a divorce, they will still have to battle out the religious status of their marriage, if they care to have the RC Church also recognize a marriage as invalid.

It is not necessary for them to tell us today. But we should be told.

As for the possibility of an imperfect law, politics is an art of compromise. Even if the draft law is imperfect, a compromise should be sought, after which all MPs are duty bound to vote according to the clear mandate of the electorate.

Very good observations. May I also add that given this state of affairs, even political parties’ electoral manifestos are useless. After all, their “consciences” might tell them not to follow them through.

Cheap holidays for the Maltese diaspora.

Mr Pace seems unable to think things through to their proper conclusion, or he’s just a troll.

1. Parliament must reflect the result of the referendum. Any MP voting against is voting against legislation of divorce is in contempt of a democratic instrument (the referendum).

2. Divorce is a matter of conscience for some, but it should apply to their own conscience and only to their own life. Their conscience must not impact on the lives of others.

3. MPs have rights but in this case they passed on their rights to decide to the referendum, thus abrogating their right in this matter.

Not exactly. According to some parliamentarians, what they believe God wants (when it suits them…I assume their God doesn’t want cohabitation) should be law. In other words, a Catholic version of Sharia.

Easy. It was a gamble. Gonzi hoped that the referendum would get a “no” majority. In that case, he would simply say “the people have spoken”.

Little did he know…