The most convenient excuse being brought against the introduction of divorce is that neither of the two parties represented in Parliament had included it in their electoral manifesto.

But Parliament passes various laws which are not promised in an electoral campaign. So why tackle divorce so differently?

It would not impose anything on anyone but just give the right to those who truly believe in marriage to remarry, even though past experience should have taught them differently.

I wonder what made our MPs so reluctant to pass a divorce law and feel they should ask the people to decide for them.

How can anyone argue that the Bible or any other Holy Book is relevant to today’s morality?

Why should we base our morality on 5,000-year-old writings just because it is believed they were divinely-inspired?

Everyone has the right to believe whatever they deem beneficial for their physical, emotional and spiritual well-being, but that doesn’t give the right to anyone to impose one’s beliefs on others, let alone if one’s beliefs would be harmful to others. If anyone deems it immoral to withdraw from a contract in which the terms and conditions were not observed, it’s only their choice; they should not impose it on others.

If your opinion is truly based on morality, then ask yourself: is it morally justified to deny someone who has made a misguided choice, the right to happiness enjoyed by others?

Let others take care of the salvation of their own soul, while you focus on yours.