The divorce debate

In a recent interview with The Sunday Times, Social Policy Minister John Dalli said he is getting all the advice he can to provide social support for "the traditional family".

He recognises, however, that a discussion on divorce should start in parallel, while stressing the importance that such a debate should steer away from emotions.

Mr Dalli is right. An objective discussion can only be secured if Maltese society is convinced that free and equal citizenship does not run counter to the Christian valuation of the individual or the Christian ascription of responsibility to the individual.

Before delving further into the debate, one must be convinced that society calls for a constitutional separation that should render easier the promotion of racial and religious equality in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and respect for human rights, in other words, the recognition of a diverse society in which Catholics and those adhering to other faiths (and those who do not practise any religion) are entitled to their own beliefs.

This means that Maltese society has to be willing to secure the equal treatment of different faiths and religions while safeguarding their co-existence in a plural society. Thus, the divorce issue must not be construed as an attack on the Church but, rather, a situation where all people of faith should have an equal right to practise their religion and promote their own set of moral values.

Concurrently, one must question whether, after all, it is in the interest of the Church in Malta and the proper working of democracy that both should be self-governing.

Having said that, I may be completely wrong if tolerance in society and the promotion of free and equal citizenship as the foundation of our democracy run counter to the founding principles of Christian faith in a country where the Church has contributed so much in the making of our history.

It is, however, uncontested that the notion of equal citizenship and the collective understanding of the core civic and political values of a plural society cannot be overlooked in the face of today's realities. Politicians have to decide whether, in the absence of a divorce Bill, we can do without a formal legal mechanism whereby cohabitants (who are not able to remarry) are at a disadvantage because they do not inherit each other automatically and they do not enjoy each other's pension upon the death of either partner or inherit legal titles such as lease of property.

On the other hand, if one had to secure a legal mechanism designed to safeguard non-traditionally married couples on the basis of principles identical to those applicable to legally-separated spouses, would it mean that Malta can do without a divorce Bill?

Mr Dalli did not mince his words. He said that the divorce issue should be propelled forward if it encourages couples to embark on the road to restore other social ties where relationships are irreconcilable, especially where children are concerned.

Yet, before opening the discussion further we must be able to come to terms with the fundamental questions posed above. It is only then that the divorce debate can proceed without emotions.

Mr Musumeci, an architect, is the (Nationalist) mayor of Siġġiewi.

rmperiti@onvol.net