­­Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando yesterday backed repeated opposition calls made during the debate in second reading of the Divorce Bill for a revision of the 1995 Church-State agreement involving the supremacy of the ecclesiastical tribunal in matters of marriage annulments. He also insisted that the state needed to proceed on issues such as the sexual health policy without concerns that such issues could dent relations with the Curia.

Winding up the debate, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando thanked the Prime Minister for having kept his promise not to procrastinate on the Bill. At no time had he felt threatened or pressured not to go ahead with it. There had been many theories about his motives, ranging from the usual personal insinuations to a particular theory, making the rounds a year ago, that he had presented the Bill after some sort of Macchiavellian arrangement with Dr Gonzi.

What he had felt was a small wave of liberalism had been swollen by others with harsh arguments against divorce. They had shown an element of fundamentalism that many had not thought possible.

Many legislators had been seen to be out of synch with the people’s sentiments. People who kept to their principles should not be condemned for it, but letting their beliefs deter the common good placed them in a very ambiguous situation as legislators. Whoever linked gay rights and divorce with abortion was insulting the majority of the people who had voted for divorce.

Had it not been for the effective campaign of the No camp, the result of the referendum would have been much clearer. Various opinion polls had shown a possibility of 56 to 58 per cent in favour.

Those who had voted in favour had shown generous and mature hearts that knew how to commiserate. The Yes camp certainly had enjoyed no advantages over the No camp, especially in funds and the unjust leaning of PBS news bulletins in favour of the No camp, the misleading messages by the Children’s Commissioner and members of the clergy who had persistently been allowed to break the Corrupt Practices Act.

Many of the faithful had felt constrained to abstain. It was up to the people and the Church to decide whether this had harmed the Church despite all the good that it had done to Maltese society.

The 1995 Concordat between Malta and the Vatican, giving the Ecclesiastical Tribunal supremacy over the civil courts of justice in marriage annulments, had placed Malta in a most ambiguous situation.

It was still to be seen whether the very arbitrary suspension of Yes camp chairperson Deborah Schembri from practising at the tribunal constituted a breach of her clients’ right to their choice of representative.

It was time to review the Concordat in order to do away with such embarrassing situations.

The government and the Church had allied themselves against a unique political movement with no resources except reason and the genuine interest of people from very varied backgrounds.

Dr Pullicino Orlando echoed the words of Nationalist MP Franco Debono about whether it was time to no longer consider the people as two separate tribes working for the common good.

He recalled that the debate on the opposition’s motion for a referendum had ended with all 66 MPs present rising in favour and nobody standing against. Some of those MPs were now quoting conscience to justify their negative attitude to the Bill, thereby rendering themselves insensitive and anti-democratic.

He had initially been against the referendum, but had relented after a meeting with the Prime Minister who had called for it because the decision was too important to be taken in the House.

Could anybody explain why some MPs had declared they would be voting against the Bill in the face of the people’s will? Had they forgotten that vox populi was vox dei? Their various excuses for voting against were sounding very strange.

Was it only divorce that activated MPs’ conscience? Many past atrocities had been committed with the excuse of conscience. But nobody had mentioned conscience during the debate on the Lotteries and Gaming Bill, even though the Church spoke clearly about the dangers of gambling. It could lead to the ruin of families much more than responsible divorce.

Dr Pullicino Orlando again outlined the concepts included in the Divorce Bill, which he had already done in launching the second reading.

He called for a review for more adequate levels of alimony. Feedback he had received said both parties had already approved such a proposal. Such changes would not make sense if they were not included in separation proceedings.

He called on dissenting MPs from both sides of the House not to place themselves in the ambiguous situation of having first voted for the referendum but then voting against the expressed will of the majority in that referendum.

Abstaining would still be going against the people’s will, even if that decision was taken for personal gain or damage limitation.

On the other hand, voting for the Bill would be a clear expression of solidarity with people in crisis and greater sensitivity for those whose marriage had failed irretrievably.

The second reading was approved by 44 votes for, 13 against and 12 abstentions. It was referred to the Committee for Consideration of Bills, which held its first session yesterday. It is chaired by Deputy Speaker Ċensu Galea.