The consequences of a NO victory

A no victory could be more damaging to the church than a yes victory as it would create resentment and bitterness against an act of imposition.

James Debono 12 May 2011, 12:00am

3 min read

Anybody imagining that it will be business as usual if the no camp wins the day on May 28 is living under an illusion. For this is not a case of accepting a democratic decision like that expressed in any general election. A no victory will an act of imposition of the moral values of the majority on minorities. Impositions usually leave scars which are not easily healed.

That is why in a normal country divorce would have been approved by parliament as a civil right and not submitted to a referendum. But since that is no longer an option the only way to avoid an imposition of values is through a yes vote.

For a no victory will sacrifice the happiness of the few in the name of ideology; an abstract 'common good' defined according to the religious prejudice of a coterie of priests and conservative businessmen and politicians. This will generate a sense of resentment and polarisation in what could presage a cultural divide between a resurgent fundamentalism and angry secularists.

We may even see the emergence of an aggressive anti clericalism, which has been remarkably absent in the present campaign where extreme opinions were more a prerogative of the lunatic fringe of no camp symbolized by the Kristu bla Divorzju bill boards, Angelique's prophecies and Tonio Fenech's invocation of the Virgin Mary. Galvanised by victory, this loony fringe will remain a thorn on the church’s side for decades to come.

On the other hand the church will find it easier to dispose of these elements by blaming the yes victory on their extremism.

As a secularist I have always been wary of rabid anti-clericalism, which in its irrationality could erode those positive humanistic values of universal brotherhood and sisterhood upheld by Christianity.

On the other hand the approval of the conservative and mild form of divorce envisioned in the referendum question will have a tonic effect on Maltese society. It will signal a slow peaceful and gradual evolution towards Europeanization where Christians can live their values without feeling any need to impose them on others.

Ultimately a yes victory will give people who are presently suffering a second chance to happiness, thus making them less bitter in their feelings towards the establishment. In the short term the passing of the divorce law may well result in the celebration of a record number of marriages as the forced cohabitants of today are recognised by the state as legitimate spouses-something which is bound to increase the feel good factor in the country.

A yes victory will leave the church in a better position to become more relevant in society by turning its focus away from people’s bedrooms towards more serious concerns like poverty, human rights and immigration. For it is on issues like immigration that humanistic values are being seriously eroded. Freed from the burden of power and imposition, the church can reconnect with the poor and the disenfranchised.

Ultimately the major issue facing us on May 28 is whether we should continue denying people a second chance to happiness. Reinforcing that ban is an act of cruelty which is bound to have consequences. Conservatives who believe in social stability should think twice before casting a no vote which could be far more divisive than a yes vote.

James Debono is MaltaToday's chief reporter on environment, planning and land use issues, ...

More from James Debono

Luke Camilleri •

Nothing will be the same after the referndum result is out! New scars will appear near other 50 year old scars imposed by the Catholic church and certainly the number of YES votes will certainly have to be addressed ! It is not a matter of who wins but a question of tolerance and respect for minoprity rightsand rights on the same level as other citizens oef EUM member States!!

•

@Maltese Let us be practical. An annulment means that a state of fact that de facto existed is said to have never existed. Whilst divorce acknowledges that the marriage really did take place but is dissolved. Don't lecture me about law as I never (until now) told you what is my background dear sir..... I have sufficient experience to state that it is better for children to have their parents divorce than annul their marriage. The worst impact is always the church annulment as young children, being drawn to the faith, always remain scarred the explanations that are really nonsensical. If, instead of claiming that you are in favour of better streamlined procedures, you joined me in stating that it's either divorce and annulments or nothing at all you would be consistent. Remember that grounds for annulments are very restricted as opposed to divorce. However I favor a 4 year separation since this is the main guarantee for responsible divorce. Finally please remember we are debating divorce not immigration and in this case I can repeat beyond any doubt that the PN is a confessional blighted ultra conservative party more representative of the Opus Dei oath than the former centre right party. Since you mentioned the times remember that for every Lino Spiteri there is an Austin Bencini, Austin Gatt, Austin Sammut, Roamer, occasionally Tonio Fenech, Berta Sullivan, Fr. Joe Borg,- the list is endless. On the divorce debate you only needed to read silly anti divorce articles every two days though out the last 3 weeks or so.You may dub the times 'serious' but I think it's one sided support of the tea party has cost it a bit of credibility irrespective of the political spectrum.

•

@DSCI You are right in stating that marriage has existed since ancient times, but it has existed and continues to exist in several different forms that bear only a partial resemblance to the legal, preferably sanctified, heterosexual, monogamous, patrilineal, romantic, for life, with a breadwinner husband/homemaker wife type of marriage that traditionalists hold in such high esteem. More than twenty different types of marriages have been indentified including monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, same sex, open, common law, levirate, arranged, egalitarian etc. Some form of marriage will probably always be around to function as a means of legitimizing and raising children, to determine inheritance rights, and to function as an economic unit. But we must also understand that marriage itself is an ever-changing context-adjusting institution. Divorce does not challenge much of the traditional marriage model except for the “for life” attribute. However, it is clear to all except those who still dream of bringing back some idyllic non-existent past, that this is an adjustment that needs to take place now.

•

Ma wahda biss naqbel - dik li din qatt ma messa giet ghand in-nies imma kellu jkun il-parliament wara li dawk li jirrapresentawna jinfurmawna bil-quddiem bi kwistjoni bhal din hall jekk joghgobni nivvotalu u jekk le naghzel li jirrapresentani min ghandu l-istess opinjoni thieghi. u ma dik li naqbel nemmen li kulhadd ghandu jivvota le ghax dan ir-referendum ma fih l-ebda sahha legali....dan ir-referendum ma kellux jigi decis minn nies....u ghaliex dan ir-referendum qieghed jintuza biex issir hsara lil knisja. meta nghid il-knisja nifhem dik li tiehu hsieb ix-xjuh, dawk bi bzonnijiet specjali, it-tfal iltiema it-trabi li ma ghandhom lil hadd u mitejn elf dar u haga ohra li jservu lil kommunita kollha bil-gid....ghax it-taghlim tal-knisja ma hux ser jintmess hemm kemm hemm anti klerikali li jiehdu kull okkazjoni biex johorgu l-velenu kontra din l-istituzzjoni li tant taghmel gid. Nispera li James ma kellux velenu kontra dan il-gid kollu li qed isir mill knisja...

•

@John Citizen Well sorry about the mess in posting my article. It was just a technological mistake. I think u didnt understand me because I stated that even Church annulments should be made easier so I am indirectly pushing for annulments to be more humane. As regards the contract of marriaghe you are legally wrong because annulment means that the marriage never really existed whereas with divorce you are just rendering the marriage contract some common contarct with an expiry date. The divorce process is complex not because of what it means but because of what it will entail in court proceedings. You have to have a sound knowledge of the courts to realize how the divorce process will leave many people poorer and morally demoralised. Not to mention the burden of having to sustain two families. As regards politics I was referring about articles of Maltatoday which YES, depict the PN as a left leaning party because it is softer on immigration than the PL. In fact many articles in Maltatoday, if you read carefully, depict Labour as right-wing, including articles by Saviour Balzan and James Debono. With all due respect I read the Times and it is full of articles against the PN: Writers like Lino Spiteri, Desmond Zammit Marmara and Mario Vella all write in the Times because it is a serious newspapaerand accepts the opinions of different intelligent people.

•

il-fatt jibqa...fost dan il-paroli kollu....li n-nies kontra d-divorzju fl-ahhar mill-ahhar iharsu lejn l-unjoni matrimonjali bhala KUNTRATT. Jekk mhix perversadin il-perspettiva allura ma anfx x'inhu pervers. Is-semolici hsieb li zwieg jista jinzamm izjed stabbli permezz tat-tishih ta stigma NAzzjonali hija farsa li qas hi denja ta l-istitut kattoliku. Veru kaz tal-korrott li jhoss il-bzonn li jistqarr quddiem id-dinja kollha kemm hu bniedem ta sinsla soda biex jghatti xturu. Issemmew hafna diskorsi fuq flus....ghaziza Maltese...ara fejn jidhlu Banek il-knisja donnha qatt ma ddejqet tibqa siekta minkejja l-sfruttament sfaccat taghhom (li probabbilemnt affetwa zwigijiet ferm izjed milli d-divorzju qatt jista jaffetwa) Snin ta silenzju min-naha ta l-awtortiajiet ekklezjastici li dejjem donnhom iqumu meta l-okkazjoni tkun barra minn lokha u moralment zbaljata. Jien naborixxi l-knisja, naborixxi l-fanatici religjuzi u kieku mhux gahx joghogbuni immensament estetikament u ikonografikament kieku ma niddejjaq xejn nahraqkom hajjin fl-istess knejjes fejn tmorru titkaghbru gharkubtejkom ja qatta oqbra mbajjda

•

Look who's blessing these pages with his comments! Paul Vincenti - probably the most double faced person on earth! Did you go to wave the white and yellow flag in front of Herr Ratzinger last year? Of course you did! But it seems that you forgot that your pope is GUILTY of murder. He demonised condoms in Africa where 1 CHILD EVERY 3 SECONDS DIES OF AIDS. Gift of life my foot! You hypocrite! You just want to ride your moral high horse and command women what they can do with their own body, but you never uttered a word to Herr Ratzinger's murderous comments!

•

Yes James, you made a good picture out of this divorce issue. I believe the church would have dome better, to just say it's teachings in a better way, But the christ yes and divorce No. and the comunion etc.. not given to who will vote yes, that will bring hate upon the church by many. will be better to preach Love and compassion and tolerance, with Love you can attract more, with Deny wil be turned agaisnt you. I think in the bible there is a saying about this, "give to Ceaser what is to Ceaser's give to God what is to God"

duncan abela •

Whatever the outcome of this referendum the very fact that this referendum was called will eventually be seen as a watershed in dismantling the cosy relationship which has existed between the PN and the church and hopefully will lead to a more liberal and secular political scene. The truth is that for fear of losing crucial votes both major parties had been reluctant for a long time to tackle the divorce issue head on It has taken a JPO and his antipathy towards the current leadership to force the issue and in so doing probably giving an assured victory to the PL in the next general election. Joe Muscat has played the political game much more shrewdly than Lawrence Gonzi on this divoce issue . Joe Muscat has given a lesson to those who depicted him as politically inexperienced by demonstrating shrewd political nous on this issue. On the other hand by nailing the PN inner cabinet so overtly to the anti-divorce camp LG has not only annoyed some of his secular supporters but put himself in a lose-lose situation where he might win a Pyrhhic victory in the upcoming vote but lose the ultimate prize of another general election victory. The church by directly meddling and adopting a trenchant attitude in the divorce issue has also lost an opportunity to carve for itself modern spiritual leadership and a benevolent unifying role in a changing Maltese society and has no doubt alienated a substantial segment of the maltese liberal society.

Abdullah alhrbi •

The consequence of a 'No' vote will also shine the spotlight on annulment as a potential theological sleight of hand. The coexistence of annulments (more so that of multiple annulments granted to the same individuals) with the prohibition of divorce will put into question how the case for annulment is applied. How is the Church tribunal really deciding that when the bride and groom exchanged their vows before God they really didn't know what they were getting themselves into? Is there consistency in the application or is some formula more readily available in the case of some but not for others? What the sorry business of this divorce referendum also brings to light is the fact that division is the bread and butter which maintains the status quo. It is seemingly entrenched within the Maltese narrative. Education has certainly not overhauled the system. This will be the third time within a hundred years that the Maltese engage in such a destructive dialectic. Why is it so difficult for old habits to change? A 'No' victory might just turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for those seeking to rechristianise the Maltese Islands.

•

"We may even see the emergence of an aggressive anti clericalism, which has been remarkably absent in the present campaign where extreme opinions were more a prerogative of the lunatic fringe of no camp ...." hahahahaha! Mr James Debono! But who are you trying to kid? Emergence of an aggressive anti-clericalism? Who said it has been absent? It has been at it most rabid, pernicious, vicious, slanderous and .....pathetic! One quick glance at the various threads of this highly toxic swamp, constantly "fed and nourished" by the despicable contributions of particular "key journos" (your kind self, a radical leftist, being the mildest of the Saver stables), should suffice as proof positive of the "hdura" which regularly oozes from this rag. Andy Farrugia alias

•

Sur Maltese, ha nkellmek bil-Malti halli jifhmuni tajjeb kullhadd. dan min bellahhilek li jekk jidhol id-divorzju se nhallsu aktar taxxi ?? Mela min japlika ghad-divorzju l-ispejjez mhux ihu jrid ihallashom ? Jekk qed tghid ghas-servizzi socjali, illum nhux aghar, ghax min IPOGGI jista jitlaq lis-siehba tieghu u m'ghandu ebda obbligu li jmantniha jekk ma tkunx tahdem. U ghalhekk ikollu jmantniha li Stat u mhux hu. Bid-divorzju hafna pogguti jkunu jistghu jizzewgu u b'hekk jiehdu r-responsabbilta f'kas li dak iz-zwieg ifalli. U b'hekk il-manteniment ikollu jhallsu hu u mhux li Stat. Qed tara kemm bellghulek hmerijiet hu ? Bid-divorzju ikun hemm hafna pogguti li jkunu jistghu jizzewgu u b'hekk ikunu responsabbli huma jekk dak izzwieg ifalli u mhux id-dipartiment tas-servizzi socjali ! Qed tara kemm bellghullek hmerijiet dwar id-divorzju. U ghaliex tahseb li d-divorzju dahal fil-pajjizi kollha ? Temmen li l-gvernijiet kollha tad-dinja mgienen u ahna biss il-bravi ? Eddy Privitera

•

Sur James Debono - Dan min meta l'hawn, meta l-Knisja tghid - kif ghandha d-dritt taghmel - lis-segwaci taghha x'ghandhom jaghmlu tkun qed timponi fuq kulhadd. Jaqaw ahna l-Kattolici m'ghandniex id-dritt nuru l-opinjoni taghna.

•

tal-iva mhux ser jirbhu b'tkaxkira skond MT jaqaw ser nghamlu bhal Sant li kien qal li le kien rebah meta kien bil-maqlub. Mullah Debono x'qed jigri ghax inti t-tieni wiehed li hriegt b'din il-bicca gherf.

Abdullah alhrbi •

@ P Cilia Vincenti How does one go through a mild separation? How does one go through a 'mild' annulment? How does one go through a 'mild' annulment once and even twice? Are children spared the suffering in annulments? It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church can actually dispense a second annulment to the same person. Who would have thought the Catholic church and the Maltese Curia in particular to be even more liberal than the Greek Orthodox Church! What the NO vote would definitely produce is the Church of the few at the expense of the Church of Sinners.

•

The truth is that this is just a game that Gonzi is playing with the lives of many people. Do you really think the PN is against divorce?? Of course not. But the party advisers see a window of opportunity if the referendum fails and the divorce issue will be taken to the general elections. There they would have the church campaign against AD and the PL scaring people not to vote for these two parties because if they do divorce will be introduced. That is the real issue apart from a few loonies who might be afraid of eternal damnation that is.

•

@ Mullah Paul Vincenti .... you seem to be confused... the most liberal form after las vegas. Give me a break!!!!!!!

•

Conservative and mild form of divorce? This is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing. How does one only mildly affect children through divorce? How does one go through a mild divorce? What is a conservative divorce??? The proposed form of divorce, proposed by JPO is the most liberal form of divorce after Las Vegas. Yet the anti-family units have attempted to portray this as mild, progressive even, European. I have heard these terms being used in a Planned Parenthood conference two years ago in London. The difference is that they were referring to abortion.

•

Prosit James, good blog but the Church is in a straight-jacket. It's conservative teachings are not allowing it room to manoever and so it has to back the "No" block. There's also the fact that a "No" will weaken Gonzi's government which is a no-no for the traditionally conservative church. For more articles on secularity and pro-divorce log on: mazzun.wordpress.com

Joseph Galea •

When the dust has settled and the votes have been counted, it will be time to assess the results. Though I wish to see a “Yes” majority, I know that, with the PN and the church opposing, this is unlikely. In this case, it will be a victory for the extremists on both sides. The anti-clerical fringe will see the result as evidence that the church wants to dominate society and that the only way to have a secular state is by gagging the Church. The fundamentalist Catholics will see it as an assurance that God has blessed their crusade and will press for overt and covert opposition to other issues opposed by Catholic morality. The losers will be the separated Catholics who will feel further alienated from a church that has not only denied them the sacrament but also the ‘respectability’ of a civil marriage. Other losers will be moderate Catholics, priests and laymen, who have continued to believe that the Church can reform itself to become an institution to serve, and not to dominate. They will be sadly disillusioned. The Church will probably win the divorce battle but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

•

Dear Maltese, first of all please look at your last post because it looks like a mess of hullabaloo. Secondly you tried to side step the point. If two wrongs do not make a right stop the financial moan and start fighting to remove the recognition of church annulments as well. They cost money, are pricy and lawyers make large profits out of them. It also annuls a contract of marriage as well. As for divorce, have you even read the proposed legislation with your own eyes or just relied on MAD press releases? There is nothing essentially complex about it and it will simply result in a divorce decree and therefore the right to remarry. Finally I reiterate that the PN is a tea party. If it moved to the left of labour we would have had parliament approving the law almost unanimously. I suggest you browse through some Malta today articles or blogs. References to the PN as a confessional party, losing it's centre ground, it's Christian Democrat identity, not to mention Mullahs hardly qualifies the party as left of Labour. Is is possible you are mistaking MaltaToday for another English daily newspaper that leans wherever the PN leans?

•

@ John Citizen Dear John Citizen my legal background certainly does do justice because things will change with divorce. Divorce has nothing to do with stopping people getting together. It is a negative solution that will render marriage a contract just like a promise of sale contract or one of lease. Yes lawyers will get richer by the introduction of divorce because the procedures related with divorce are such that they will render everything more pricey and a burden. As reagrds Church Annulments, I did not enter into the merit of the argument. Well yes Church annullments should be made easier and less costly (and in fact they are taking less than time than it was till a few years before) but this doesn't prove a point in favour of divorce. Two wrongs dont make a right. As regards politics the Tea Party is a populist political movement more than a party. As regards the PN your statement is a bit strange because many columnists including those of Maltatoday state that the Pn is more left-wing than Labour... As the proposed law stands a divorce decree will be concluded in one or two sessions maximum and if anything Lawyers will get poorer not richer. As for my political views, you are right about the tea party being a conservative ultra right party. However so is the current PN. It has left the centre ground some time ago with it's leaders now claiming ' regio et patria' and being advised by our lady of sorrows. If that is a centre right party than I am Napoleon Bonaparte reincarnated!

•

@Dominic Chircop Well what can I say, I reciprocate: 'medico, cura te stesso'

•

Dear Maltese, you so called legal background certainly does you no justice if you believe that anything will change with divorce. Divorce or no divorce if two people do not want to stay together nothing can stop the for now (maybe we will one day introduce religious police like Iran). I fail to see lawyers getting richer by the introduction of divorce. The current rate for a lawyer registering a foreign divorce in Malta (the last one I know of was 2006) was circa Lm 30. This is in stark comparison to the charges - varying from 50 to 110 euros per session for a church annulment. A church annulment with legal representation easily costs Eur 2700 and can spiral up to Eur 5000. If you are so concerned about people getting impoverished start a campaign to ban Church Annulments. As the proposed law stands a divorce decree will be concluded in one or two sessions maximum and if anything Lawyers will get poorer not richer. As for my political views, you are right about the tea party being a conservative ultra right party. However so is the current PN. It has left the centre ground some time ago with it's leaders now claiming ' regio et patria' and being advised by our lady of sorrows. If that is a centre right party than I am Napoleon Bonaparte reincarnated!

•

Good article! But... It is marriage we are speaking of here. It's the oldest institution ever in the history of humankind. It's not the Church that invented marriage, but humankind. And as an institution it does not involve only the husband and the wife, as our western individualism makes us think, but it involves all of society. For me voting yes is falling in the trap of either "It doesn't concern me what others do with their marriage", or else "Marriage is a contract which can be terminated". It concerns me yes, what others do with their marriage, we live in one society, common good is a reality not something abstract. Marriage is not a contract, not because the church says so, but because it's the basis of society.

•

Dear Maltese, Medice, cure te ipsum !

•

@Dominic Chircop I mentioned Jesus because as a 'progressive' (a true progessive who believed in progress) he was against divorce. As I told you it is not the religious argument which counts, because that is something personal. And please I have a right to use a pseudonym for personal reasons. A pseudonym does not change my conviction. What do you mean?

•

@John Citizen There is no need to illuminate me. I know what is happening in Malta and I have a legal background so I know what I am saying. Legally things will change with divorce because obviously the contract of marriage itself will be reduced to a mere normal contract apart from the fact that maintenace costs will be pushed even higher...more people relying on social services and so on...Obviously certain lawyers are happy about the possibility of divorce because they will earn more money. I will not comment about your poltical argument because it doesnt interest me but I will only tell you that the Tea Party is an ultra-conservative fringe of the Republican Party. So do not mix it with a mainstream centre-right party in malta. I conclude by saying that I do not want to vote for divorce just to make certain lawyers richer and to pay taxes to fund divorcees.

•

Dear Maltese, Thanks for eluciating us on what your Jesus said. We would really believe in your convictions if you put a name to them, and not a pseudonym.

•

How to write a Biased artice: . put a rubbish title, attack anybody who is against you, . I think the real mullahs who are trying to control our lives are the ones who say they are independent journalists without any agendas and then write a biased article.

•

Oh apologies, I got disturbed whilst posting. I forgot AD as well. They have been the most consistent defenders of the right to divorce.

•

@Maltese The financial issue is a myth being brought forward by people with little understanding of what goes on in Malta. Let me try and illuminate you. Right now financial implications are incurred/addressed with legal separation. If someone chooses a new family via cohabitation there are financial issues there as well. A divorce decree will change nothing to what already exists except instead of a pogguti family it will be a proper legal family. As for the social aspect, personally I would rather have people remarry than spend their entire life cohabiting. It's better for society as a whole. You are correct in stating that being progressive does not mean being in favour of divorce. I am a Nationalist voter who used to form part of the now defunct Partit Nazzionalista. It was a party who fought for work, liberty and justice. Now we only have the PL and the tea party.....pity

•

@Dominic Chircop Being progressive does not mean that you have to be in favour of divorce. Divorce is both a social and a moral issue. But this is not a question of religion because it is obvious that for a Catholic divorce is wrong as Jesus said so. This is also a social issue, as I have said, and the social implications of divorce may be too devastating for the financial and social fabric of such a small nation which puts the family first.

•

An excellent factual article. I thought I was the only one who reasoned out this way but evidently I am not. Irrespective of the church, a Yes vote may be the biggest political blessing in disguise for the PN - provided they have not given up on winning the next election already. A yes vote would close the divorce issue once and for all and therefore no longer be a vote loser for the PN. A no vote, as you correctly mentioned, will have catastrophic effects at the polls with under two years to run. The is little doubt that the people effected by a no vote will be very resentful and unforgiving. Furthermore with Joseph Muscat claiming that he will respect the referendum result 'for this legislature' (ie this legislature only) they might be tempted to flock to the PL side. I have no doubt in my mind that Joseph Muscat will legislate divorce if he becomes PM. As for the church, I have no doubt it will adapt as the Roman Catholic church has done around the world. Since divorce requires a 4 year separation waiting time but church annulments do not, people will still apply for church annulments first and some of the will get a positive verdict within a 4 year period ( remember the 4 year period is to start divorce proceedings....that could easily take a further year or so). Therefore divorce will probably be an option used only by those who fail to get a church and/or civil annulment (ie when everything else fails). Unfortunately, with the PN currently dominated by Government ministers who would fit better in the role of church ministers, the light at the end of the tunnel is blocked out of their vision. Fanaticism and inability to adapt to change normally results in a popular change, thankfully by democratic means in our country. So in conclusion, I agree. A No victory will have far reaching consequences for at least one or two generations whilst in that time divorce would have been legislated nonetheless.

•

Maltese, Perhaps the person youmentioned should cease saying she forms part of a progressive party. You said it, not I.

•

Who said that if people vote no, it will be a moral imposition. many people will vote no because they think that divorce will harm society, especially in a financial way. People do not want to pay more taxes to support social services. It is obvious that divorce will result in more people falling in the poverty trap. Why do you put religious people and businessman in one basket? Why do you want to use religion to attack the Church? So according to you Marie Lousie Coleiro Preca is a conservative politician? and Dun Ang Seychell is a conservative priest? And even if it was so, what is wrong in them being conservative?

•

Very telling article, Mr Debono. There was never a chance of Parliament deciding on the matter without a referendum. And not because none of the palitical parties had included the topic in their electoral programme. As long as we have a Prime Minister who represents only fervent Catholics, things will never change. Am I, then, a Nationalist supporter but a lapsed Catholic, supposed to refrain from voting any more for my party > Are we to be considered as second class supporters, nay, even sinners,by our Prime Minister. That is why I wonder at how prominent Labourites are for the NO vote, thus aligning themselves with those who ridiculed and vilified their forefathers in the sixties. Same surname, for that matter. I earnestly hope that liberal PN supporters make up for the dastardly Labour NO voters. Have PL supporters forgotten how dear to them were separation of Church and State in the not too distant past ? So, up your courage ! Vote YES !!!!