It would be a “mistake” if MPs went against the people’s will as expressed in the upcoming divorce referendum, according to pro-divorce movement chairman Deborah Schembri, who equated the scenario with winning an election but not having enough seats to govern the country.
Despite the fact that it was not legally binding, the consultative referendum had a “big moral weight” on the legislators who represented the people and would be going against their mandate if they ignored the result, she insisted.
Dr Schembri maintained that “few” MPs would ignore the result of the May 28 referendum, adding many were responsible enough to pay attention to the people. She was referring to those MPS who have declared that approving a divorce law would go against their conscience and said they should abstain.
Dr Schembri was being interviewed in a public event in Rabat under the banner Give Love A Second Chance. Posters saying divorce was a personal choice and a reality that no one could deny were displayed.
Those who were happy saw “no farther than their noses”, Dr Schembri said, auguring that the divorce referendum would serve for the Maltese too see beyond.
Although it would be a “difficult” referendum – an exercise of altruism or egoism – she was optimistic, having “faith that the Maltese would be compassionate towards those worse off”.
Dr Schembri believed the Maltese would go out to vote to “help others”.
“We give millions of euros to charity and to help the less fortunate. It is the least we can do for those suffering,” she said, referring to couples who wanted to get divorced. Those who were happy had to allow others to be happy too, she said. “The day may come when anyone could need to resort to divorce even if they do not need it today.”
Dr Schembri said marriage had lost its significance in that separated couples, who were in conflict, were still married.
Divorce was a state of fact, she insisted, comparing the situation to a carton of rotten milk – whether it was kept or not it remained rotten. Divorce was merely a declaration that a marriage had ended.
Society, she said, was living a lie. It was living in a dream world, saying something existed when it did not. But what was broken was broken, she stressed.
Asked whether divorce, by nature, weakened the institution of marriage, she said broken marriages could not be weakened any more.
Did divorce weaken the significance of the words “until death do us part”, used both in Church and civil matrimony? Dr Schembri replied they did not reflect today’s situation because many couples were separated and they were still alive. It was not death that had separated them, she said.
The four-year time lapse until a couple could divorce, as proposed by the Bill before Parliament, was what made it “responsible” and this was specified in the referendum question, Dr Schembri said.
Studies had shown that if a couple had to get back together, it was normally within two years of a separation, she explained. But she preferred to be “conservative and err on the side of caution”.
The right for maintenance after divorce was not automatic but the proposed law would guarantee it, Dr Schembri said.
As for being able to maintain two families, nothing was stopping anyone from cohabiting and doing so already, she continued, adding that “the second woman is not a second-class citizen” and needed to be maintained too.