Friday, 25th July 2008
THE HAUNTING SPECTRE
For whatever reason, the unspeakable has finally been uttered. It that must not be named, with apologies to Ms Rowling’s fictional hero, has been dragged out from under the stone where it has resided for so long. Whether the Establishment likes it or not, we the people are going to discuss the question and we, the people, are going to tell the Establishment what to do.
And they’re going to have to do it.
It is to divorce, that means of regulating the civil contract of marriage, to which I refer. The reasons why we as a nation are going to have to discuss this, much to the consternation of the Church Organised and its attendant God-botherers, are manifold.
One of these reasons is that Joseph Muscat has said that he will, if elected to real power (as opposed to what he’s been elected to now) see about introducing it. This was said perhaps because he is blessed with the impetuosity of youth, perhaps because he saw it coming and like any good politician decided that now is the time to hop on the bandwagon, or perhaps because he – like so many of us in the real world – doesn’t feel constrained by the imposed moral (so-called) strictures that beset us. Whatever the reason, it’s going to be an issue.
And if it’s going to be an issue, any smooth political operator will immediately seek to control the rhythm of the debate. Muscat may or may not be a smooth political operator, only time will tell (he is beginning to look like he might be – whether he’s helped or hindered by the various bits of baggage with which he’s been lumbered is another matter) but Gonzi certainly is, so it’s thanks to this that we can say that it’s thanks to Muscat that, finally, Malta is going to have to discuss divorce.
There are those who say that there are other reasons why the Scandalous Subject has to be discussed.
The isolationists, who see the source of all our ills as lying to the North, centred in Brussels, will say that this is yet another instance of the EU forcing its policies down the throat of every member state, regardless of that state’s cultural and sociological ideals. Never mind that – at least in the matter of divorce – we’re the only member state that refuses, officially at least, to recognise that a) it’s fervently desired by the vast majority of its citizens (and before I’m asked, no, I haven’t conducted a scientific survey, it’s just what I think most people would say they wanted if asked the right question) b) it’s time the restrictive influences of a single religion were removed from state governance and c) it’s available to those who can buy it anyway.
The latter point alone makes it imperative for divorce to become available in Malta to remove the discrimination between those who can afford to buy a foreign divorce and those who can’t.
Oh well, I suppose blaming the EU is marginally less ludicrous than blaming the immigrants, which I am sure some moronic racist would try to do if given half a chance.
Another reason why, some people are saying, the debate is being proposed is that some of those who are pushing it have a personal interest in seeing divorce brought in to Malta.
Let me put paid to this one and point out that at the moment, I have no wish to get divorced (whether this applies to my spouse, currently dragging herself out of the pit of nod while I slave away over a hot keyboard, is another matter) but I am – and have been for many, many years – publicly and unequivocally in favour of divorce being available to anyone who wants it, subject of course to appropriate protective mechanisms for all concerned.
Moreover, I have no financial interest in the matter of obtaining divorces for people. In my real life, I earn a living from an area of activity that traditionally sees members of the profession that practise it earning a decent crust from family court proceedings. This area of practise is, however, a closed book to me, one that I have absolutely no intention of opening.
So I, along with many of the people who want the debate to start, have no personal interest in starting it: not everyone acts out of exclusively personal interest all the time.
A spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice was (hopefully mis-)quoted as saying that “Malta would make sure that divorce would not form part of the Maltese legal system”. While I am sure this is not what he or she meant to say, because otherwise this would have been a statement of Mintoffian levels of arrogance, implying that the Government knows best and there’s an end to it, it is precisely this sort of mind-set that I would dearly love to see vanquished once and for all. Just because a group of men in frocks (to put it uncharitably, inaccurately but nonetheless not that far wrongly) have decided that marriage, like a puppy, is for life and not just for Xmas, doesn’t mean that it is or that we have to accept that it is.
I really hope no-one will trot out the argument that Catholic Malta depends for its moral strength on the integrity of the family unit or some such twaddle. I see where the people who put this forward are coming from, but come on, people, step back and smell the coffee, why don’t you? Malta has remained about as Catholic – in the true rather than the ceremonial sense – as it has remained a rural colony under Her Majesty Queen Victoria, High Panjandrum of Great Britain and Imperatrix of the Empire (fellow Anglophiles will forgive me for not getting the title perfectly right) and as for our moral strength, yes, right, pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Maltese society, whatever that amorphous blob-word means, is as venal, self-interested, licentious, bigoted, materialistic, amoral and uncaring as any other. Many component members of the clump of souls that inhabits this rock are not venal, etc, etc – I’d go as far as to say that perhaps there are more who aren’t than who are but this is not because we don’t have divorce.
And it is not because the Catholic Church, with its absolutist, but leaky, attitude towards the permanence of marriage, holds some form of sway over us, either. There are as many, proportionately speaking, good chaps in countries that eschew religion as a pillar of state policy making as there are here. Sorry for the use of the word “chaps”, incidentally, I trust I shall not be visited by minions from the NCPE, wielding politically correct truncheons.
I fervently hope that once the debate is over, we will have come to our senses and worked out that a sensible alternative to “living in sin” (like anyone really cares) or the hypocrisy of annulments is unavoidable. This will not mean that anyone whose religious convictions preclude him or her (see, I can obey the diktats of the NCPE when it is appropriate so to do) from accepting to be divorced will have to consider themselves to be divorced and act accordingly – their morality remains their own.
But it will mean that the individual citizens married to them, who want to determine the civil contract of marriage into which they entered, will have their wishes respected.
Respect for the individual, at the end of the day, is what it’s all about. This has always been a concept anathema to the grey eminences who think they know best, which is why it has to be shoved down their throats once and for all.
RSS
Comments
Here's where Alex is completely wrong. Any assistance to children through welfare (if the people concerned qualify) is already being given in the case of separated couples. Divorce will not change anything in this respect. In normal cases, financial child support is provided by the father. In exceptional cases it is given by the state. Of course, the system is sometimes abused, but there would be no difference between separation and divorce where financing the upbringing of children is concerned.
That the state would be expected to support (money-wise) the upbringing all children of failed marriages when divorce is introduced is a myth I have only heard of today.
@ABC - you're the Legal Beagle: isn't Geraldine's comment pretty much what we have at the moment i.e. those not Church married can divorce and it will be recognised? It's only at Footie that I'm an 'intenditore', as you know : )
A civil marriage is purely a contract, an agreement that can (may) be mutually rescinded. This is precisely why we mortals should never interfere with the defaulting couple's life and happiness. We should not play the judge on others, no matter how deep rooted our faith is in God. We should learn to start loving, empathizing and caring for others. The state (the people) has no hold on anyone as long as this anyone does not break the norms of social behavior. What man enacts, man may delegislate, especially where injustices cause so much pain as in the lives of broken civil marriages.
The moralists keep talking of a contract with God.
I am a Christian and am all for the Marriage in God. That is called a covenant and it can never be a contract. How can one sign an agreement with God? God is love, eternal love and as such all couples who marry in the name of God (they say 'by the church'), promise God a pact. That is something else and nothing to do with a civil contract. One can marry another in the jungle, no priest present, and if both marry in the name of God, their marriage is lifelong if not also eternal (in God). If they default, their spiritual belief, hence their faith, would be, to say the least, on their conscience.
The problem is that those who take good care of their car will be taxed by the state so that those whose car breaks down completely without hope of repair, will get state assistance in getting their passengers (children) maintained, fed, clothed and educated, and all other new financing that the state will require to support the owners and passengers of the broken down vehicle. So, all you once-in-a-lifetime-marriage supporters, prepare yourself for more taxes.
I know at least ONE COUPLE who had an ideal marriage. Ideal in the true, deep sense of the word. Then, circumstances made them split up. At this very point, their marriage is over, with or without the State's approval!
And please, can everybody stop quoting the Church or Church sources? This is strictly a lay state and thus, arguments have to go beyond what any doctrine states.
Where's the Sunshine Band? Don't know...but they sure ripped me off. I never recieved any royalties ;)
Dear Ken, you have missed the point completely, which was: if the C. Church shapes up, problem is solved because divorce is recognised in the other forms of marriage - this goes for rich, poor, untouchables, anyone. Nothing to do with money - on the contrary, what I'm suggesting does away with dicrimination on the basis of who's loaded and who has nowt.
Is the principle clear now?
True, but if one neglects one's car (preparation) and it fails to work, one is left with three options:
1. Get the car fixed.
2. If it can't be fixed, buy a new car.
3. Stay without a car.
Of course, I hope nobody thinks I'm saying marriages are cars. All I'm saying is that while good preparation for marriages are of invaluable importance, some marriages will still fail (be it for lack of preparation or otherwise). Some people would want a second chance after a failed marriage (irrespective of the reasons) if the marriage cannot be saved.
Correction: Non-catholic divorce is already recognised, ergo: problem solved for the rich who can afford to get divorced outside of Malta.
Two separate issues:
State: Divorce is necessary to maximise quality-of-life potential and social order.
The Church: I would try to find options on the Orthodox or Church of England model. The Church allowed divorce when Constantine kicked the bucket and so on. I am keen to have a strong church both for cultural and social reasons. I mush prefer the protestant communion model where I would be a comfortable methodist. As things stand within our church, you have a supposedly single path yet all beat their own DIY path.
Regards
Regards
@ Christopher Ripard . Yeah that’s the government,100% spot on you are, Labour ,the party of the revolution. I think you are talking about what happened between 1971 and 1987. Why be so selective, how about going back a few more years say 1958-1971 when bread ,oil,pasta,sugar,soap etc. were rationed. We also saw the attempted assassination of Mintoff twice and another attempt on Calcidon Agius and the Socialist delegation and more. And what about the Catholic Religion, the Holy inquisition, Popes fornications, the unofficial support to Mussolini by the Vatican,the official support by the PN and the church to Franco and on and on and on.And we had corporal punishment at school and home condoned by the church and the state. Do you remember the saying ‘Save the rod and spoil the child? But what has all this got to do with todays issues? What is past is prologue: the future is now.
If the Catholic Church were to get real and grant annullments neither easily nor making it "mission impossible", that is all we need. The Church is quite ready to release nuns and priests from their vows, so why not married couples? Non-catholic divorce is already recognised, ergo: problem solved. Unortunately, the Church is behind the times but - trust me - (tho CJB won't), one day, the Church will accept married priests and women priests too. Then she'll have to move on annullments.
My suggestion is that a separate matrimonial court be set up, independent of the Church, with power to endorse marriage contracts and dissolve them if necessary-with due regard to children and so on.
The Nationalists will never do this because the Maltese version of the Catholic Church is essentially PN at prayer. MLP would be frightened to do it for fear of losing Catholic votes-same as it stays quiet on the hunters.
The chattering classes would like to continue arguing on the difference between divorce and annulment whist raking over the embers of the sins of past administrations.
I was married 52 years back as a then Protestant in a Yorkshire Catholic church with an employee of the Leeds Registrar present whose papers I was obliged to sign. Whilst I would never contemplate divorce I would allow it for all and as a reader, counter and collector of our local Catholic church I am aware of several divorcees present of whom some take communion and no-one worries.
You Maltese like to make life difficult.
If the horrible Government you mention left us without pasta and choclate, we certainly did not need neither toothpaste nor hospitals (given the low carb/fat diet that we must have enjoyed). With all the toothpaste around you may perhaps want to be less grumpy and more smiley.
Now back to the divorce issue, should we consider a ban on pasta and chocolate seeing that in them days seperations were much smaller in number than is the case today? :)
Cheers and Regards
I suppose you're talking about the "progressive" element that closed our hospital and exiled our doctors, smashed party clubs, smashed the Times, rigged elections, smashed the Curia, took over all broadcasting, failed to provide water, left us without pasta, toothpaste, chocolate, wrecked university, controlled all banking . . . sure we'll trust you!
Also, if one of the couple wants a church annulment and the other only a civil one, the one wanting just the civil annulment has no say in the matter. Therefore, if the church does not give the annulment, the one who would have wanted the civil annulment loses
See 30. (1), (2), (3).
& Kennith Cassar. According to Kenneth Cassar “The people getting Married today in Church cannot get a civil annulment unless they also get a Church one.” This cannot be true! Or is it? God give me strength because if this really applies I might as well migrate to Iran.
All countries worldwide including Italy which has the Pope as one of its bishops, provide the legal framework for divorce. Can the world be wrong and the Republic of Malta right? We joined the EU not to be isolated from the European continent and we are still debating the divorce issue. What a controversial country we are! Pajjiz tall Mickey Mouse governed by a party which motto is still Religio et Patria. Perhaps conveniently.
The PN will never bring in divorce, the progressive element of our country has no choice other than to wait for Labour to be elected in Government. Trust me.
These things are so unique and personal, no legislation will ever be totally perfect or fair. But that said, we must try.
I don't believe we have a right to happiness. I do believe that those that don't believe should have a right to divorce. Jeez, it really is a complicated subject.
@ ABC - you could not have put it better.
Caesar legislates and therefore may de-legislate. We never ask for any permission from the state to marry, do we? We just file our intention to live together, hence, putting it simply, we - the couple - ''announce'' our commitment. Just like any other commitment, we have the right to terminate it, mutually. Who is Caesar to impose on us, or to suppress our freedom?
It should be very easy for the state to acknowledge this especially when there would be no children in that marriage. Agreed?
Let us tackle this point first. And here I am inviting the moralists to comment too. I tried to put it in layman's words for ease of discussion.
A divorce must be certified by a Court of law.
Divorce settlements such as Mediation and Collaborative Divorce, which negotiate mutually acceptable resolution to conflicts, should be encouraged. Approval of such divorce arrangements should be almost guaranteed.
Joint Custody to be the norm as this seems to keep number of Divorces low.
Maltese divorce should be no-fault based i.e. the dissolution of a marriage does not require an allegation or proof of fault of either party to be shown. Applicant/s need to show separation for 30 months. Divorce application can be made by either party or by both parties jointly.
Common reasons for no-fault divorce to include incompatibility, irreconcilable differences, and irremediable breakdown of the marriage.
A simple divorce should be available for short marriages (under 3 years) having no children, and minimal or no real property.
I wonder why Jesus did not make a fuss when he was a guest in a non-Christian marriage, then. Far from making a fuss, he even provided them with extra (and better) wine.
Marriage predates Christianity, so no, a Christian marriage cannot hold "the patent" on the definition of marriage.
I think you might have misunderstood me. The state can and has annulled marriages made in a church...provided they were before a certain date of the Church-State agreement, which was during the Eddie Fenech Adami era, and not the Mintoff one. The people getting Married today in Church cannot get a civil annulment unless they also get a Church one.
Of course, this is unique to Malta. Apparently Malta is holier than the Vatican.
Andrew, though you eschew messing about in the legalities of divorce, could you venture an opinion on the hypothetical situation whereby an apostate or two apostates, forming one half or one whole married couple apply to the appropriate court claiming that, as non-Catholics, they are entitled to obtain a divorce and that Maltese legislators must enact legislation that enables them to obtain such divorce. On what grounds can such a right be denied? Moreover, should one or both parties wish to re-marry, should the state not have to enact legislation enabling he/she or them to do so?
Peter's wrong to say that only a Catholic marriage is a real marriage, though.
@ Andrew Borg-Cardona who wrote:
Are there any points to be made that address the main issue?
No, it seems, so please move on to something interesting.
Here's an update to your explanation of annulment:
After that infamous "agreement" between church and state that made Malta more and more look like a theocracy, people getting married in church may not get a civil annulment anymore. They can only get a church annulment. If the church does not give the annulment, they will have to stay married, and the state cannot dissolve the marriage (or declare it never happened). The state, because of our unique church-state agreement, can only dissolve marriages that have not been made in a church.
I agreed with the blogger on his comment that ran like this ''Joe Psaila Savona - do I understand you to say that I am not a Christian? Whether I am or not is hardly anyone's concern but mine, but your characterisation of me hardly characterises you as a true Christian yourself. And where, pray, did I advocate dishonesty or unfaithfullness? Address the argument, sir, and don't introduce red herrings.'' Well said ABC, except for the last sentence, had it not come from Humpty himself.
Address the argument, and don't introduce red herrings? So correct, you would be, Humtpy. But only if you practice what you preach. Got it?
Its funny how our definitions of "marriage" differ based on our bias, current status with the "mrs" (or "mr") and our fear of entrapment within a possibly difficult union. In my humble opinion, a Christian marriage holds the patent on the definition of the word marriage (within our context obviously) so perhaps we need to separate, or better, rename any union that may contemplate a divorce clause....eg a civil partnership, or parentage...call it what you will, but not marriage . A christian marriage cannot be divorced, if you think you can't handle it, then avoid marriage within the church altogether, and worry not you don't even get ostracised nowadays!
To be totally honest, I'm not opposed to introducing divorce....as long as it excludes Christian marriages...you can already (almost) do whatever you please in our society, but we shan't accept the mockery of one to appease the other.
But will society try to help make things work? Or will society point the couple immediately to divorce? And at which point will a marriage "not work" (the moment the couple is magically incompatible, somehow?)?
Marriage annulment is marriage annulment, the church annuls the church’s marriage and the court of laws the state marriage. People who like myself got married in church only may get an annulment by the court and remarry outside the church however if a couple obtains only the church’s annulment they will not be allowed to remarry inside or outside the church.
I do not think that divorce is accepted by any Christian Religions but there had been cases where churches, including the catholic church found justifications to bless a divorce followed by civil marriage.
MY point is that when one speaks of annulment generally speaking is making reference to the church dissloving a marriage entered into under Canon law; whereas, when one speaks of divorce one refers to civil marrage.
So I think for clarity one should not interchange the two words.
Annulment is, cancel, abolish.
So I will ask again, what`s the difference?
To my way of thinking as a layman it means exactly the same. Different wording.
Your statement that "the State doesn't deal with annulment the church does" is incorrent: the Civil Court can, and frequently does, adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the civil union.
Annulment and divorced are to seperate issues. The State doesn't deal with annulment the church does.
Even if divorced is introduced in Malta, the couples are still deemed to be married in the eye of the church.
The two words, annulment and divorce, should not be interchanged as they mean and refer to two different things.
Divorce is not a vehicle to destroy matrimonial unity, it is a law to safeguard the interests of all concerned after the bond of marriage becomes untenable.
The church is still against civil marriage today, against the use of contraceptives, against sex out of marriage, against sodomy,against adultery, against cohabitation, against homosexuality, against bikinis, against French kissing out of marriage even.
As a Christian I embrace some of these values but who in his\her right frame of mind today expects the state to entrench them by law. I certainly do not, but there again I believe in Social Democracy not Christian Democracy and vote Labour.
In addition to my other posting. In hard terms the state is dictating to us the following: When there is sufficient ground for annulment marriage may be dissolved; when legally married couples decide between themselves to separate the law will respect that decision and provide an adequate framework to protect the children. The couple will be free to go their separate ways including cohabitate with different partners but they cannot remarry for the simple undeclared reason that the church does not allow it. Hello....Who is in charge here?
The irony of ironies is the fact that if a couple decides on a civil marriage in Malta and eventually acquire a divorce in another country, our religion will find no moral impediment to marry them with different partners in church.
The couple make a vow to love each other. What happens if one of them breaks that vow and acts violently against his spouse? Is the victim supposed to live a life of misery?
A person can go to court and obtain an annulment and get married at the Registry, as easy as that. If this is not a divorce then I`m a Dutchman.
Another goes to the Curia and get an unnulment, the difference is, this person can re-marry in in church with the all the church blessings.
How a person that has been married close to six years can obtain an annulment from the Curia is rather odd, but it has happened many times.
I. Scicluna asks, “Wouldn’t it be better for a Referendum to decide IF the debate should start or not”. What can one say? Shall we have a referendum on a person’s right to work? Shall we have a referendum to see whether our children should continue to have access to free education? Shall we have a referendum to see whether the State should continue to provide adequate health services? Shall we have a referendum to see whether people should be entitled to a decent pension?
I think that if the PN decide to make a political issue of this in the same way that the MLP did with EU membership, they will likewise end up getting thrashed. The PM probably has enough political sense to play things down and just get the job done with the minimum of fuss.
Divorce is a civil right and therefore the state is in duty bound to provide the necessary legal framework and easy access for its attainment. The will of the majority has no right to deprive the choice of the minority in this regard and therefore a debate on the issue is uncalled for. No more no less.
Moreover It is a scandal in modern Malta that existing law does almost nothing to prevent people from losing their home or sliding into poverty if their relationship breaks down or their partner dies. Sensibly drafted legislation is urgently needed to tackle the vulnerability not only of unmarried cohabiting couples and their children but also same sex couples, co- dependent carers and siblings who live together.
The church has a divine right to promote conventional marriages and to condemn gay marriages however it has no legal mandate to force its principles down the citizens’ throat.
Does all this sound too dogmatic? I meant it to be as it is high time that the church in Malta restricts itself to Religious teachings and allow our legislators to get on with their civil obligations .
Red herrings and discussion - I do not think one should enter into such a discussion before fully appreciating and exploiting the immense benefits of marriage. However if I had to go along with the contributions, the crux of the issue is where ABC sets the imp condition
' subject of course to appropriate protective mechanisms for all concerned ' Providing these to children of a still dependable age when the couple's main objective is their own well-being, I'm afraid still beats me.
This just for information.
And with regard to those who expect some sort of referendum on the subject, I think that that would be another major fallacy and injustice: I believe that divorce is a right for those who seek and need it; and for the State to deny this right, even if this right had to be requested by just one person, would be wrong.
Let us remember that in the eyes of the State, marriage is nothing but a contract (a commitment) - correct me on this one, DR ABC. And the State DOES recognise that there may be reasons for any contract to be deemed broken!
"Finally, I'd like to say that if divorce is allowed in Malta (to which I still neither support nor object), I hope it doesn't become available just for the sake of "being like other countries" but rather for the benefit of the Maltese society."
That is precisely why a national of an "other country" cannot join in the discussion-for Malta is a law unto itself.
If Joe Muscat wanted to make a really fresh start then I suggest that he proposes to introduce a secular arrangement (ignoring the Church) whereby the parties of a
"Marriage" can select the length of time that the contract should run -maybe as short as a few years . I seem to recollect Heinleim writing a book on this theme many years ago.
Similarly we should settle the hunting issue democratically by means of a referendum...
These two issues will keep us quite busy till the next elections, thus avoiding national monotony during the next four years.
@ Joe Psaila Savona - I agree with Andrew. No one should condescend anyone else. If your faith is Christ-like, you would not push it on others. You act it and show it by your deeds.
oh dear.....
The contrasting declarations on the divorce,by two Ministers just a few days ago, as very devious and very decietful.While one Minister says that it is time to discuss the issue of legalising divorce the other Minister says that divorce will not be legally endorced.
The present system caters for the well to do: the chosen few.What a shame we are still living such social discrimination.
Well done to the new MLP Leader, Joseph for putting this issue as one of his priorities.
I am not sure that you understood my argumentation which must have been a trifle nebulous. I will therefore re-try:)
Divorce is necessary because it enables new relationships between seperated couples to enter into new marriage obligations with all the ensuing legal obligations, something that cohabitation does not require.
Cohabitating relationships can indeed be very strong relationships. Cascading such relationships into a new marriage union will benefit society and offspring.
Hence I am for Divorce also because it strengthens the social fabric. Divorce will result in more married couples. Hence, those who are in favour of the institution of marriage should, in my opinion, be in favour of Divorce. That is why all the countries in the world (bar one) and all 300 odd Christian denomination permit some kind of divorce.
May I finally appeal for a climate of discussion based on argumentation and less rhetoric.
Is this the kind of healthy discussion we’re aspiring to on the issue of divorce? But of course, democracy allows all should have their say…..
Joe Psaila Savona - do I understand you to say that I am not a Christian? Whether I am or not is hardly anyone's concern but mine, but your characterisation of me hardly characterises you as a true Christian yourself. And where, pray, did I advocate dishonesty or unfaithfullness? Address the argument, sir, and don't introduce red herrings.
Any marriage will face testing times. 'Society' should promote a climate that enables partners to seek loving solutions to all their problems.
Reality dictates that there will be instances when a relationship breaks down irreconcilably. In such instances, the holistic responsability of children should rest completly with parents.
Ex Partners separate. Some enter into a new relationship.
Without divorce, new relationships will only be of the easy type i.e. cohabitation - we live together no strings attached, here today, gone tomorrow.
Divorce offers the option of 'relative' (sorry J) commitment in marriage.
Based on their religious beliefs, Catholic Christians can not opt for divorce.
All other Christians (including Orthodox Christians) and adherents to major faiths, can remarry.
In any instance, divorce is a traumatic experience.
A divorce culture must seek to protect as much as is possible the vulnerable parties (especially children), must only happen when a relationship has really ended, and should hopefully be a springboard to new committed relationships that benefit from experience gained.
Being the only country in the world (bar one) without domestic divorce, we can not let our social fabric continue to disintegrate.
Dr. ABC, marriage was not instituted by who you describe and since it is evident that your bible is collecting dust somewhere, I will remind you of Christ's own words that 'What God has joined together let no man shall tear asunder". But enough about the moral aspect of the subject you chose to write about, for now.
The word 'divorce' stirs all kinds of emotions in different situations and is apt to raise a lot of discussion in Malta like never before. But then what else is new? We are a nation of arguers, debaters and, sometimes, persuaders, why then should this be any different?
It will be different because there are two sides of this issue, the moral side and the material side.
So, one may argue that divorce which is one step beyond separation is the result and not the cause of marriage failure. Had there been no marriage breakdowns, there would not be the use of the word let alone the practice of divorce.
Because of the lack of State defined 'conditions for divorce', one or both spouses may be burdened with more than the emotional aspect of the separation or divorce.
Up and leaving a relationship especially after several years, injures the aggrieved spouse but even more if there are children involved.
A divorce law will define responsibilities after the dissolution of marriage, the division of assets and the degree of support of the spouse and children guaranteeing them a level of comfort not drastically different from what they had been used to prior to the marriage breakdown.
As a matter of fact, a divorce law may very well in some cases, deter spouses from obtaining one hastily since the consequences, legal and financial, could very well create more misery than the initial problem did. Depending on how the law is written, maybe a precondition could be counseling without which the divorce proceedings cannot be commenced.
Most countries, a good number of which are Christian/Catholic, have divorce laws going back decades, so I ask, are those Catholics less catholic than Maltese Catholics?
Personally, I have no use for divorce but does that mean that I should not care about anyone else whose circumstances are such that they make their life unbearable?
Most countries, a good number of which are Christian/Catholic, have divorce laws going back decades, so I ask, are those Catholics less Catholic in the eyes of the church?
Even the church recognizes the difficulties in some marriages and has an annulment procedure. What is odd about this procedure is that when an annulment is granted, the church, in effect, declares a documented event which had happened some time before, void, as if it never happened.
Does the State then not have the power to look after the economic aspect of a union which has failed?
All parties should have a long and serious discussion and the government had better make sure that it creates a separate Divorce Court, suitably staffed and be prepared for the list of 'pending cases' to multiply.
Although ABC has no intention of ever stepping inside of the divorce court, there are plenty of lawyers rubbing their hands together hoping for a bonanza like never before because like always, the only winners in a divorce situation are none other than the lawyers - for the plaintiff and the defender!
Firstly, what would lead a couple to divorce? (Quite simple question this, but I think it's necessary if we're going to do this maturely.)
Secondly, what would be the difference between a couple who cohabitates and a couple who is married (who live together, obviously) if divorce is allowed?
And, with divorce, what value would marriage actually have?
Finally, I'd like to say that if divorce is allowed in Malta (to which I still neither support nor object), I hope it doesn't become available just for the sake of "being like other countries" but rather for the benefit of the Maltese society.