Once more it has to be reported that the divorce debate is focusing more on polemic than the real issue the electorate is called to vote on in the May 28 referendum. Two incidents in particular stand out among many.

One of the more condemnable incidents occurred when during a public debate last week, the pro-divorce movement referred to a document stating, we were told, that the common good is to prevail over the individual, only to reveal that the statement had been lifted from a Nazi Party document.

The aim was to associate the anti-divorce arguments based on the common good with the ideology of the Nazis. Apart from the slanderous nature of the equation, what hurt most was the intelligence of all those present at the debate.

It was left to the Marriage Without Divorce movement to protest at such a preposterous statement, pointing out that it was precisely for that reason that the international movement of fundamental human rights gained currency after World War II, so that no political majority could crush the fundamental rights of the individual and of the family.

The break-up of a marriage through divorce is neither a fundamental right nor part of the common good.

The second equally disheartening incident was to see Roamer’s column (April 10) and Martin Scicluna, both normally purporting to represent the rational approach to issues, falling prey to petty squabbling of a personal nature, with the unacceptable use of three former Presidents as their cannon fodder.

This is totally unacceptable. Roamer even went so far as to belittle the achievements of the late Guido de Marco as foreign minister simply because the staunch pro-divorce Scicluna belittled Eddie Fenech Adami and had referred favourably to de Marco’s comment to that “we must do something about this problem. We cannot go on as we are.”

I was privileged to have discussed many times the issue of the family and its multi-faceted problems with the late de Marco, and to reduce his razor-sharp intellect to a mere sentence would indeed be reductive to the extreme. Equally, to belittle the contribution he made to peace and stability, particularly in the Mediterranean, would be plainly wrong, not to say sad.

This is not only my assessment but that of countless contributions of heads of state, leading diplomats and authorities the world over which had poured in their scores as soon as de Marco’s untimely death was announced. They all gave evidence of his foresight and above all his unflinching dedication to make of Malta an EU member without for one moment losing sight of Malta’s mission within the Mediterranean.

Such unreserved praise and recognition must never be seen as belittling the fundamental contribution which presidents Fenech Adami, Ċensu Tabone and Ugo Mifsud Bonnici each offered over decades of intense collaboration with de Marco. Together they made of Malta the respected international player it is today.

De Marco put as his first and foremost priority the family values which distinguish the Maltese family from that of other country.

His acute intelligence, however, did not allow him to be used by anyone or anything, and much less would he have allowed Roamer or Scicluna to do so. He would have analysed the current divorce debate through his widely recognised analytical prowess in an objective way.

Once, in a meeting on the family, the issue of divorce came up when he was Minister of Justice in the first post-1987 Nationalist legislature. I remember distinctly his thought.

He clearly portrayed divorce was not something that in itself Malta needed; however, he did say that unless the issues of the family are dealt with, the pressure to introduce divorce would increase. He even referred to the analogy of a pressure cooker, which if not properly handled might explode.

How can one therefore corrupt the thinking of such a conscientious intellect into a ping-pong match at the service of such a superficial and partisan polemic.

Make no mistake about the fact that de Marco was a true and profound Christian. If proof were ever needed of this then no better one exists than the masterful, heartfelt appreciation written by Fenech Adami when he summed up to perfection his long-time friend, colleague and co-campaigner as having been a true Christian.

Famously, he described their relationship as that of a “parilja”, where sometimes it was one and sometimes the other who helped both to remain on the middle path.

Let no man put asunder the mutual gentlemanly respect that existed between Fenech Adami and de Marco.