Good grief, they spoke the word
During the last election campaign, when some of my friends, acquaintances and cyber-buddies were railing against the Nationalist Party for its failure to do anything about divorce, I told them that the best strategic move in this regard would be a vote for the Nationalists and not a vote for Labour or AD or abstaining in protest. Lots of them scoffed, but anybody who had bothered to examine the options, the psychology and the various turns of events that could reasonably be predicted could see that this was correct.
Any move that helped bring back Alfred Sant as prime minister would have set the cause of divorce even further back. Sant, despite his much-vaunted secular modernity, showed himself to be ultra-conservative and fearful of change, and this was exemplified by his horror of EU membership. And he was spectacularly unable to read the spirit of the times and social attitudes, something that the Nationalist Party is particularly good at, just as it is adept at moving to close the gaps in the political market.
We knew that a vote for pro-divorce AD would be a non-starter, though I ended up working hard to win some friends over to the concept of sensible rather than emotional behaviour. My argument was that those who wished to see the introduction of divorce should vote for those most able to introduce divorce, and not for those who spoke about it but who had no chance of being in government. First you vote for a party that can form a government, after first making sure that it is capable of legislating without throwing the country into turmoil only to produce a kawlata, as with the infamous CET. Then you put pressure on that government and open its eyes to the fact that, if it does not legislate for divorce within the next five years, it will lose the next general election.
This is not a threat uttered in vain. It is a statement of fact. With Joseph Muscat committing himself to the introduction of divorce if he is made prime minister, even though he sits on the fence as usual by saying that he will remove the party whip for that particular vote, the present government is left with no choice but to tug that particular rug from beneath his feet.
With Eddie Fenech Adami, the objection to divorce legislation was ideological. You may argue, correctly, that he had no right to impose his personal religious views on the entire population. He was often reminded of the separation between church and state. But I think for him it went beyond that: he truly believed that divorce would be a bad thing for Malta, that it would cause social chaos. He probably didn’t predict that the social chaos would happen all the same, because people don’t need a marriage contract or divorce to set up home with somebody else and start a family. And without divorce, the social chaos has ended up more chaotic still, with large numbers of children whose mother is married to somebody else’s father and whose father is married to somebody else’s mother.
Lawrence Gonzi disapproves of divorce not just because of his Catholic beliefs, but at a private, personal level. He said as much when I interviewed him about the subject a couple of years ago. He told me that he doesn’t think much of men who dump their wives and children and renege on their commitments, though he was polite about it and not condemnatory at all. It was left to me to point out that not all marital break-ups are instigated by the husband. Lots of women run off with somebody else, or simply leave their husband because they cannot live with him any more, even if there is no one else involved. And anyway, the absence of divorce legislation has never stopped a man from leaving his wife and setting up home with somebody else. We have lots of experience of that now. It has never prevented him from ducking out of his financial commitments to his children, or to his abandoned wife who cannot work and fend for herself if she has small children to look after. The lack of divorce laws has not stopped women from having children by men other than their husband. It has not stopped women packing up and leaving the marital home, boyfriend or no boyfriend.
It is not the absence of divorce legislation that keeps people’s sexual and marital behaviour in check. It is social censure. Once the fear of disapproval dissipated and being a ‘separat’ or ‘separata’ no longer made you a pariah or involved loss of status, people began to behave as they wished to behave. It wasn’t the lack of divorce that was keeping them in check. It was the neighbours, the extended family and even the parish priest. In the case of women, it was lack of work opportunities and money. Up to a decade ago, there were also issues about not having a place to go, because nobody would rent flats to Maltese citizens. Now things are different. When was the last time you heard the perjorative words ‘poggut’, ‘pogguti’ and ‘pogguta’? They’ve dropped right off the social radar, to be replaced with the Americanism ‘partner’. When somebody introduces another person to you at a party as ‘my partner’, you’re left wondering whether they mean business partner or sexual partner, or even both. I much preferred the old-fashioned word companion, but apparently people don’t feel hip and out there when using it.
Lawrence Gonzi is a pragmatic sort – a very pragmatic sort – and I have no doubt he knows by now that it was fear of social opprobrium and not the lack of divorce which kept people living with spouses they didn’t want to live with anymore. Well, he can hardly avoid seeing the evidence, which is all around us. People confuse pragmatism with opportunism in politicians, and often are unable to tell the difference. Sant was an opportunist. He would throw a policy ball into the ring without any prior consideration or planning, if he thought it would help him win a few votes (and then, oddly, he missed the biggest opportunity of all in EU membership). Gonzi is a pragmatist: he considers all the options in the content of the prevailing scenario and of existing policies, and then he takes a balanced decision.
I think that this is what he will do with divorce. He will weigh up the fact that his political rival has committed himself to introducing divorce against the fact that he himself has not. He will understand that, because he is prime minister and not prime-minister-in-waiting, a mere commitment is not enough. He will have to act, or his failure to do so will be a decisive factor working against him in the next election. And he will consider all this in the light of Malta’s present-day social reality, which is rife with men, women and children living in ambiguous situations, who wish for the secure legal status that marriage provides, to say nothing of the social status. The parish status of a ‘pogguta’ has long since gone, but the status of a wife is still perceived to be superior, at least by your average woman.
Whatever a woman might say to the contrary, you can bet your last cent that, secretly, she would be much happier referring to the father of her children as ‘my husband’ than ‘my partner’. This doesn’t seem to affect men as much; some of them actually think it adds to their kudos to have a partner rather than a wife. I rather suspect that the advent of divorce legislation is going to cause some tension in this regard, when the men who no longer have a reason why they can’t marry their partners suddenly have to think of a plausible reason why they don’t want to do so. Unless it is both partners who prefer not to marry, I would hate to hear the rows in the homes of those who find themselves suddenly able to marry, only to discover that they don’t really want to.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Gonzi is not the sort of man to let his personal or religious beliefs stand in the way of a sound political decision, and I don’t mean just a decision that will put one over on Muscat. Gonzi can see the social confusion that the absence of divorce has brought about. He knows that the situation is untenable. And he knows that Malta cannot be the only country in the world to try to reinvent the wheel by coming up with a solution that isn’t divorce, when the only reason that every other country has divorce is because it is the only equitable solution and the most practical one. He knows he cannot do a Canute and try to hold back the tide. He knows that he will have to decide within the next couple of years, and I imagine that he also knows what his decision will have to be. I assume, because the Nationalist Party tracks these matters, that he also has the figures to show that Maltese society has swung in favour of divorce legislation – which is not the same thing as being in favour of divorce – and that the main reason this has happened is because there remains hardly an extended family which does not have direct experience of marital breakdown. This has made our society more tolerant and less dogmatic, with even fervent church-goers of a certain age realizing that even though they might not approve of divorce personally, it is necessary for others.
So yes, it looks like divorce will be introduced before the next general election. John Dalli broke the ice with an interview in The Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago. The decision to make him responsible for the social policy portfolio suddenly seemed less arcane. Of the entire cabinet, he is the one with the most appropriate attitude towards divorce, and the one most able to swing it. He will have to work with the Justice Minister but the Justice Minister is also a practical person who seems to prefer to keep his religious beliefs to himself rather than impose them on the rest of the country. I can’t for the life of me imagine Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici doing what his predecessor did, and using his public office to campaign for Paul Vincenti’s Gift of Life movement and its attempt to manipulate the Constitution, so as to sabotage the wishes of future generations who may be very different to us.
“I think a discussion on divorce should start, and it should be a serious debate, steering away from emotions. We should avoid discussing certain aspects, which should not get into the debate,” Dalli said. The mistake he made is to suggest that debates are started when the government gives the signal. Debates are spontaneous, and the debate about divorce has been going on for years. There is no longer anything to discuss because those who are in touch with the zeitgeist – let alone the opinion polls – will know that the debate has reached the conclusion that yes, Malta cannot put off divorce any longer. For it has never been a matter of whether we should introduce divorce or not, but of how long we can postpone it. A debate about whether we should have divorce belongs in a century other than the 21st.
Dalli knows that he will have to contend with the local outpost of the Vatican, which seems to believe that it has special rights here in Malta that it does not have anywhere else except, perhaps, The Philippines. He had this to say, which I think is very sensible: “The Church rightly has its own position. I believe religion is a personal matter and if I’m Catholic, it’s up to me to analyse the Ten Commandments and the Church’s project.”
Where I do not agree with Dalli is when he plays the familiar tune that divorce hastens the destruction of families. This is a topsy-turvy way of looking at things, surely, though it is a mistake that many make. Getting divorced is far more difficult and complicated than simply walking out and going to live with somebody else. It is certainly no easier than the current legal option, which is identical to divorce in process though not in legal consequence: deciding you can’t carry on in the marriage, walking out (or staying put with gritted teeth), getting a lawyer each, fighting over the spoils, going to court, and working out who has custody of the children and where they will spend weekends and holidays. There is fear of the unknown, rather than commonsense, in Dalli’s comments, which is unusual for him: “If divorce is easily attainable, if couples split up after a single argument, then yes, it will destroy families. If divorce means the level of tolerance towards our partners’ mistakes will go down, then the effect will be negative.” But divorce can never be more easily attainable than the current option of legal separation. If you want a legal separation, you get it, just as you do with divorce, and the process is much the same.
Dalli says that he has not yet made a formal proposal to the prime minister, but that he intends to do so. Divorce, he said, is on the priority list at his ministry, but it won’t be tackled before rent reform, health services, and the social security and welfare systems, into which reforms divorce will of necessity fall.
His thinly veiled warning to the church to stay in its proper place did not go down too well in some church quarters. The archbishop said nothing. When he was appointed, one of his first declarations was on the importance of separating church and state. He said this, if I recall correctly, when being quizzed about divorce. The bishop of Gozo was rather less circumspect. He immediately delivered a homily telling Christians to take an active role in the nation’s socio-political debate, which is all well and good, except that the examples he chose to mention included the protection of the family based on indissoluble marriage. He said that man uses reason to establish order in society, but reason is often ethically blind. Faith, on the other hand, helps us achieve our aims without risks. I’m sorry, Your Grace, but it was established a good deal more than 200 years ago that it is actually the other way round, even if it may not yet be the case in Gozo: reason, not religious faith, should be the basis for establishing order in society.
Bishop Grech is upset because there are some who believe that religion is a private and personal matter which should have no bearing on public life. He said there is no threat to the secular state when people express their religious wishes. Actually yes, there is a threat if all the chest-beaters come out of the woodwork to try to prevent other people from getting divorced, or speaking as though legislation will oblige them to get divorced if they don’t want to. “The Catholic faith cannot be neutralised and eliminated from public debate,” he said. No, but it can certainly be corralled, and besides, most of the people who are in favour of divorce legislation for others are Catholic. Is Bishop Grech prepared to listen to the opinion of tens of thousands of Catholics who say that Malta should have divorce legislation? Or is he still living in a netherworld in which those who are in favour of divorce legislation make up a tiny minority of heretics?
The prime minister has since put his weight behind John Dalli on this matter, though he rather fatuously said too that the government is “prepared to kick-start a national debate” about it. The national debate has been going on for years, Mr Prime Minister. It’s reached its natural conclusion already. He said he would “welcome” a discussion on divorce at cabinet level. “My government agrees that the time is ripe for such a discussion to start,” he said. I read that to mean “My government agrees that the time is ripe for divorce.” Those who pooh-poohed me last February for insisting that it would be the Nationalist Party that brings in divorce had better start believing now. The thing about the Nationalists in government is that, love them or hate them, they have been consistently on the ball. It would be very strange if they slipped up and missed this one.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
113 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
they slipped on this one dear daphne cause they started talking about it since joseph introduced it in his way of talking and as soon they saw that he is getting positive comments about it the pn gang shooked up and they are trying to get on track with it and mentioning u turns this could be a classical one for Dr goNzi and co .
you do not have the guts to say that for once the labour party are putting forward a good cause . Believe it or not , you have to admit it dear daphne
As a christian, it makes no diffenece if divorce is introduced or not. If I’m against divorce, I need to do my utmost to keep my wife happy with me. The church should focus on how to strengthen the family. But this is too much work. Its easier to preach a seremony against divorce.
For Heaven’s sake … just organise a Referendum on this! That will sort out sooo many problems.
This article is an absolute masterclass in sophistry. A joy to behold. Congratulations.
i agree with what sigmund said but surely it ends up like a general election as it happened with the eu one .
i agree also that instead of referendum we could have all the parties concerned sitting round a tble and discuus it in the interest of the country and they come with one group idea instead of contrudicting each other .
surely like this the bon senso wins not like we ended up in the buses and taxi saga
“Maltese society has swung in favour of divorce legislation – which is not the same thing as being in favour of divorce ”
That is an important point. As a catholic I will never be able to divorce, or rather to re-marry, however, obviously there are others who need/want this option. It is or rather, should be their choice, but on the other hand they cannot then complain if they are censored by the church!(I know most won’t by the way)
For example a friend of my wife in the US who is divorced and re-married complained that she is not allowed to recieve communion by her parish priest who knows her situation. There have even been talks of suing the church for that, but then again that’s America for you!
I agree with divorce legislation, and for the sake of the argument would vote in favour in a referendum HOWEVER I don’t agree that a referendum should be held, it should just be introduced.
I would also hope that divorce is never available in 5 minutes, so to speak, as this would encourage people to rush into marriage without thinking it through, even though to be honest that already happens anyway!
Ramon,
I didn’t mention the word referendum. C Calleja did.
I called this article an exercise in sophistry.
Do you agree that it’s an exercise in sophistry? :-)
Sigmund
A referendum on divorce? Of course not – you should never put minority rights to the vote or to the test of majority rule. It’s bad enough that Malta has had to wait until public opinion turned in favour of divorce legislation. It should have been introduced years ago for those who needed it, and hang the opposition to it.
@Ramon Muscat – are you a political novice? That is the way things work in politics. It could have been predicated with no difficulty at all that Joseph Muscat (a political novice) would advertise his decision to introduce divorce legislation five years ahead of a general election, giving the government enough time to swipe his trump card. Do the words ‘like taking candy from a baby spring to mind?’. He should have waited until a year before the polls.
Yes, I agree with you that ultimately, it will be because of the Labour Party that Malta gets divorce – in the exactly the same way that it was because of the Labour Party (and it’s fight with Mintoff) that we got EU membership in 2004. Grow up – and tell your hero to grow up, too.
@Sigmund Bonello: no, it isn’t a masterclass in sophistry, but in clear thinking. Pity you don’t see much of that sort of thing about. People tend to prefer hysteria, overwrought emotions and conspiracy theories. Try seeing things as they really are for a change. It helps – unless you’re one of those people who actually enjoys getting upset about things because it gives a zip to their day.
Clear thinking and sophistry can happily cohabit – as they do in this brilliant article which ends up hailing the Nationalists for ‘consistently being on the ball’. As opposed to, say, ‘pandering to the Church for as long as possible before the inevitable stared them in the face’
Giving a zip to one’s day? What can I say? Don’t we all like a bit of controversy from time to time? Some of us actually make a living off it.
David Buttigieg – “For example a friend of my wife in the US who is divorced and re-married complained that she is not allowed to recieve communion by her parish priest who knows her situation. There have even been talks of suing the church for that, but then again that’s America for you!”
If she is such a devout Catholic that she would like to receive holy communion, then why would she be divorced/remarried? The two are simply not compatible.
This is like a recent long-drawn out wedding of a “fokolarina” which I recently attended (2 whole hours, complete with quotes from the bible, religious hymns, prayers, invoking God’s blessing, etc). But guess what? It was a civil ceremony, because the groom is still married to someone else in the eyes of the church (having obtained “only” a civil annulment or possibly a divorce).
I’m not against civil marriages, and am actually in favour of them myself, as opposed to church ones. The point is, if you really believe in God, you can’t preech one thing and practice another “ghax b’Alla ma’ tidhaqx!” Try telling that to the many couples all married to other people, dutifully going up to receive communion come Sunday!
But then again, Malta is Catholic, isn’t it? – “Ghal ghajn in-nies”, at least. X’qabda ipokriti!
I wouldn’t use the term sophistry but I do think Muscat deserves some credit for depoliticising this issue. Had Joseph Muscat proposed his thinking on divorce a year before the next election, Daphne would have been the first to call it a half-baked exercise in political opportunism (and I’d have been the first to agree with her).
He hasn’t, though, and in announcing this so early on he’s basically done the equivalent of showing his cards to the other players right before the flop, in poker terms.
The PN will introduce divorce – or lose the next election. The MLP will argue that it was the first party to really bring this to the fore. As a result, there will be little political mileage to be had from all this. And that is exactly how it should be.
Are you really a Christian Democrat, Daphne, or are you just an anti-Church, anti-MLP and anti-Maltese?
[Moderator – What is ‘an anti-Maltese’?]
@Daphne
for those, like myself , who didn’t know what “sophistry” means:
Sophistry means making heavy use of sophisms. The word can be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms
DEFINITION OF A SOPHISM : ” a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone ”
FROM WIKIPEDIA :
A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience’s prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e. raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is.
A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. Sophists will try to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether their argument is logical and factual.
Very interesting and positive development. Two observations: (1) The PN follows the lead of the MLP on social issues as it is dragged into the early 20th century in this about face on the divorce issue. (2) Joseph Muscat is either a political novice who has a lot of growing up to do or fairly canny depending on how you look at his decision to make an electoral promise on divorce legislation five years before an election.
@Sigmund Bonello:
“sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone”
After poisoning the metaphorical well, a good sophist would continue with points on why his opponent is wrong.
If you were the hardcore logician you make yourself to be, you’de be doing the latter and not the former.
This latest DCG article could have been entitled “Memo from the PN strategy team to PM on introduction of divorce”. WHat it means is that pressure is beinging put on Gonzi to push through divorce legislation during this legislature. Joseph (“Joe” according to maltarightnow.com) Muscat is clearly giving sleepless nights to the members of the PN inner circle. Now he’s been criticised for speaking his mind clearly regarding divorce. He is “naive” since he has given the government the impetus to push through what, according to the secret tracking polls, is now a majority view (so why fear a referendum, I ask?). So the PN strategy gurus, those unelected and out-of-public-view guys and gals, have begun putting pressure to bear on the prime minister and leader of the Christian Democratic Party to wake up and smell the coffee.
I can already picture the erstwhile leader of Catholic Action standing at the Kunsill Generali, telling the counsellors that it is now “a good thing” to have divorce. Never mind the years spent saying that “it is not in the interests of society”. But of course, this is no U-turn. Its a Gonzi-turn, recommended by the “Holy-of-holies”, tracking-poll follwing strategy team. And so it is legitimate and worthy of praise from all “independent” columnists.
One little question? Did I miss it, or where was it in the 300+ promise, fully proof-read PN electoral manifesto? Ok, I do not trust the Nationalists one tiny bit, but even I am surprised that they are telling everyone so loudly that they should not take their own electoral manifesto seriously.
Pragmatism? I stick to calling it using that simple old-fashioned word which all understand: dishonesty.
I think the Maltese have by-passed the system , those who do not want to tie the knot “live together” and if they are in serious disagreement , they just leave . This is divorce “a la Maltese” , with all the repercussions to the parties involved. They are living just like before marriage was institutionalised by religion and later by the state.
Divorce is a tool , it can be a solution but it can be misused.
Catholics should not seek divorce , but they should leave others to divorce.
As an ordinary citizen I want the state to educate couples before taking the step , they should know about the importance of sex in their married life , how to handle their finances , what are the best methods of contraception and their side effects , parental skills , there civil rights as a married persons, and so on.
When I met people abroad who are “happily divorced” they all said that it was the other half’s fault , that they have problems with there new partner’s children , that they hardly have time to see their children from their first marriage and that they have problems with their mortgages.
It is very frequent , especially in the US that one meets people who are three times divorced, I worked with persons who got divorce six times. I do not like this situation .Can we learn from the mistakes of other countries?
Presently in Malta marriage and divorce are being “bypassed”. The state should regularise persons who live and depend on each other and help to strengthen and encourage married life.
Daphne, in this article you missed Archbishop Cremona’s letter to Malta Today. I feel it will give you and your readers a more clear picture about this important social issue.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/06/01/acremona.html
perhaps the MLP should rename itself as the MSP, Malta Sophists Party
Yes, London Area – I know what sophistry means, which is why I pretty much told Sigmund Bonello where to stuff it. The facts are what they are.
And no, Sigmund Bonello, it wasn’t a matter of pandering to the church for as long as possible. It is actually the SUPPORTERS OF THE CHURCH who were pandered to, which is something else altogether. Any government can afford to take or leave the support and approval of a church with little or no influence. A church with considerable influence is another matter. Now that the influence of the church has waned to almost zilch, the government (any government) can act without the zealots coming out of the woodwork to rally the vote against. Even the happy-clappy meetings are jam-packed with separated people, and as pointed out in another comment up and above, no amount of happy-clappy Catholicism stops people doing what they want to do and marrying who they want to marry, divorced or otherwise. When I was at St Aloysius College sixth form, there was a religious group led by one of the ‘popular’ priests. They were very devout and stayed in the group for years, until one of them left his wife for another member, and one of them fell for a priest who left the priesthood to marry her, and so on and so forth. The rest of us (the non-devout ones) ended up living very pedestrian lives by comparison to all this excitement.
@Religio et Patria – sounds like you need to commune with Josie Muscat. Soon you’ll be telling me that a woman’s place is in the home and that we should have a minimum of 10 children each to ‘grow’ the nation. Let’s see now: do you wear a tweed jacket and converse with titled old ladies for amusement, while listening to the Innu Malti, saluting the flag and saying the rosary? Something tells me that you encapsulate everything that makes my brain go dead.
With or without Muscat, the PN would have started this discussion and maybe introduce divorce anyway. Social rality in Malta is what it is, and separation is a big reality amongst the educated middle classes, a sector that tends to vote PN.
The topic has been on the national agenda for years now, partially thanks to the AD. AD was more of a threat to the PN than anyone else, at least on this topic. But then, the AD were never able to elect an MP, let alone form a government.
I am an old staunch Catholic. I have absolutely nothing against divorce legislation. I think it is vital in all societies. Obviously it is not meant for Catholics like me but for others who I respect. If their beliefs contemplate divorce they should have access to it. I have one reservation though.
Those who opt for divorce have to be MADE to foot the bill. I.E. Those who go for this option have to personally pay the expenses involved (they can be ginormous) and not expect those who do not share their beliefs to subsidise their one, two, three or more divorces . They have to be prepared to provide for all their wives’/husbands’ and children’s needs indefinitely.
I wholeheartedly agree with John Dalli (a dear friend of 30 years) that the question has to be put. It is long overdue.
P.S. Less Philosophy please. More Brass Tacks.
I think it was a good article.
Divorce should be legalised.
It should be hard to get, but attainable.
The referendum would make place for a lot of manipulation by the church, and instead of getting the result the people want, the result would be what the Church would want.
Some of the comments are downright ridiculous, sophistry? Anti-Maltese?
Jeez, if you don’t agree with divorce don’t divorce.
Nobody is forcing you to, but in all fairness I believe those who are against divorce, are so, because they are afraid that their partners will leave them, else why be so anti-divorce? If you are catholic you have to abide by what the catholic church says, else you are living a lie.
Agreeing to start a discussion on divorce is one thing … implimenting legislation which will grant Maltese people the right to divorce is another.
As far as I know (I stand to be corrected on this) the PM has only agreed to open a discussion. If the time comes when the PN in government attempts to propose any legislation in favour of divorce, I predict that all the happy clappers, bible bashers, gift-of-lifers etc., who still hold considerable influence within PN circles will leave no stone unturned in their quest to abort this.
The PN in Government introducing divorce!!!! …. will only beleive it when it happens! In the mean time, as the PM proposed, let’s keep discussing!
I really cannot understand the contributors who are attacking the Church.
The Church , all over the world , is against divorce and will stay like that and it understands that there should be separation between her and the state:http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/06/01/acremona.html
What I would like to know is who is going to foot the bill, like Anthony is stating further up and wether we are going to have MORE innocent victims with this ULTIMATE solution.
I know and I understand that there are genuine cases who’s only solution is divorce , my preoccupation is that we will open the flood gates for people who want divorce for capricious reasons.
@ Daphne about the “happy clappers” :Once, the case of a cloistered nun who got pregnant by the gardner (no his name was not Gabriel) of her convent was brought up to the attention of Pope Sixtus (I believe) . His judgment was “Uomo e Donna!”. I hope you were not shocked because a priest left the priesthood to get married. Doesn’t he have a right to get married?
A different topic and a minor deviation.
In New Zealand the courts have banned parents from naming their kids with obnoxious names. I wonder whether Soleil (Sun) and Etoille (Star) would have passed through the net, even though these 2 names are not offensive but only embarassing for the kids.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_au_an/new_zealand_bizarre_names
@Albert Farrugia: “during this legislature” – legislature does not mean the period of time between general elections; it means the body of people who legislate (MPs, in parliament). And Joseph Muscat gives nobody sleepless nights: he is as far removed from George Clooney as a walrus is. When you and your fellow Labour obsessives bang on about Joseph Muscat and how he’s scaring the pants off everyone, you bring to my mind those husbands of unattractive women who won’t let them wear revealing clothes, not for aesthetic reasons, but because they might tempt other men. At some subconscious level, they’re aware that their woman is no great shakes, so they work themselves up into a frenzy thinking that everyone’s after her. As for political dishonest, Albert, just look to Alfred Sant for that. “I commit myself to removing VAT” – left unsaid: “But I will replace it with something much, much worse.” Another one: “Partnership won the referendum.” I couldn’t be bothered resurrecting more examples. I’m so glad I helped see him off.
I wasn’t shocked because a priest left the priesthood to get married, John (and by the way, thanks for posting the link to the archbishop’s letter, which I missed when it was first published). I’m shocked because people don’t realise that the obvious risk of throwing men and women together in a situation which fosters a very intensive sense of ‘togetherness’ and of ‘we are apart from the rest’ is that emotional/sexual attachments will develop. This is fine if it’s a singles group. Indeed, you can argue that it is one of the main aims of singles groups, even if the overt aim is prayer. But where married people are concerned? I don’t think so. I know of several cases where marriages have broken up as a result of relationships formed in prayer groups, or because one spouse becomes obsessed with the group and the other spouse stays ‘normal’ and can’t tolerate the obsession any longer. But all of this is by the by. It really has nothing to do with divorce.
@Graham: I don’t think the law should make it difficult for people to divorce, when the law doesn’t make it difficult for them to marry. The consequences of marriage are far more profound and far-reaching (and risky) than the consequences of divorce, and yet no authority has the right to tell a couple: “Look here, I don’t think you should be getting married. I deny you permission to marry.” Whether a couple want to divorce or not is their business and no one else’s. I always bear in mind the immortal line uttered by Albert Finney in his role in The Browning Version (1994): “Never presume to know the secrets of another person’s marriage.” Amen to that.
Divorce is a thorny question. I don’t believe in the old ingrained Maltese mentality that “il-Mara hobbla u tredda u zaqqha mas-sink tal-kcina” mentality. But I think that thinking is long gone anyway. When I see the way girls dress nowadays, and what they get up to with boys, be it whatever social “class” they are in; I really understand that the anti-divorce movement is fighting a lost battle. They are in danger of becoming useless religious zealots. I am a catholic, but even I know that most priests, faced with the failure of so many marriages and the setting up of new families from the wrecks of those marriages, privately advocate some form of divorce. Unfortunately men and women have an atavistic urge to live together and procreate. The way I see it, if divorce is made available, it will ultimately tear apart our social fabric because too many people will get married knowing that there is a relatively easy way out. And believe me, people do take easy way outs instead of making the effort to change and try and solve their problems and see what made them get together in the first place. Unfortunately again, it’s the kids who suffer. Not form any stigma at school, because half their peers would be in the same boat, but from the many unanswered questions of their young ones. Try telling a five year old that daddy isn’t going to live with us anymore but will pick you up three times a week and take you to another house, where you will meet a new woman who will look on to you with thinly veiled hostility. Children feel these things, deeply, and they will be affected by them, because they cannot understand them. Their whole world , which IS Mummy and Daddy together is shattered and their security is gone. Even twenty year olds suffer. The real suffering of our children, if we really had heart as a nation, would tell us to think twice before breaking apart the family. If we don’t, then we don’t really love our children, do we?
I have however given up on Malta and the Maltese. We are such hypocrites. The Maltese basic values have gone. Illum Kollox Jghaddi . We as individuals are becoming more selfish and more prone to self gratification. As they say in Vodafone, Life IS Now. Grab the opportunity while you can, even changing the wife for a newer, sexier, model. Or the husband, for that matter. There are an infinite number of vamps out there who prey on moderately successful men as a way to earn a living, subtly blackmailing these neo Sugar Daddies in the process until he leads a double life and desperately tries to support the needs of a family and the excesses of a young nubile party loving mistress. Unfortunately, we are human and hopelessly weak. And ambitious.
Higher standards of education, more women seeking careers that do not involve homemaking and baby talk, late marriages, the phenomenon of the sexual prey and predator, the easy sex , the parties, the media, the travelling, the EU, have all contributed to a sea change in values more pronounced than when Daphne was at Sixth Form. Things have changed, and marriage is an inevitable casualty of that change. I still believe that if the couple really wants, and if there is enough qualified help on the island, which there isn’t, then most marriages can be saved, unless there is something stronger tearing it apart. Divorce is now a necessary tool, mainly for the social and financial well being of the shattered family. And the responsibilities of the failed marriage should be shared equally. I know of too many court decisions where the man was treated very unfairly, and shorn of everything he had and then some more to support an ex-wife who was two timing him whilst he was at work. And, unfortunately, I know of too many lawyers who make situations much worse, who antagonize and lengthen procedures because lengthy separation cases are just that much more lucrative. The legislator should incidentally cap lawyers’ fees when he introduced the legislation, eventually.
So yes, to conclude my tow cents worth this morning, I think the debate has been raging for too long now. We need to concretize and introduce divorce legislation with as much human face as possible. Its time. And let’s make sure that cases don’t take an eternity in courts. And let’s make it financially affordable to everybody, and if possible free. And let’s make sure some minion in the Ministry Of Finance doesn’t see this as an opportunity to tax divided assets, and property transfers caused by divorce. Otherwise, the legislation will be of benefit not to those who really need it, but to the bent lawyers and private investigators who revel in exposing sordid and lucrative detail…….
As for the church, it has as much right to speak as anyone else. It should not be excluded from the debate because it is Anti Divorce. And let’s not try to belittle the 2000 years of experience it has. Ultimately, the catholic faith is much more human than say Islam, or any other religion on this earth. The church’s duty is to speak and show us the choices in front of us. It doesn’t impose. Too many people here take umbrage whenever it speaks. Unfortunately, a culture of easy divorces will tear a lot of families apart gratuitously. The church is right. That fact is inescapable.
Apologies to Peter. And ABC. Lawyers both, but I know you don’t bother with family law. But I am sure you know what I mean about “bent” lawyers.
And Archishop Cremona’s letter to Malta today shows how much in tune this man is with today’s Malta. What a humane man! Thank you, John for bringing it to our attention. It is factual, and removes all the spin from the Media who are saying that most marriages are in touble. Statistics dont lie, do they ?
John Schembri – “I hope you were not shocked because a priest left the priesthood to get married. Doesn’t he have a right to get married?”
As far as I know, priest takes vows of chastity (a big joke, when many were usually co-erced into joining the priesthood as novices at the age of 16 or 17, when their contemporaries were out having a whale of a time). Likewise, nuns – on becoming nuns – call themselves “brides of Christ”, and the ceremony is sometimes actually (ridiculously) held in full BRIDALwear. They are considered to be “married” to the Church, and thus are unable – in the eyes of the church – free to marry again.
THEY DO NOT HOLD A CIVIL WEDDING TO JESUS, WHICH WOULD BE UTTERLY RIDICULOUS, IN ANY CASE.
Individuals marrying in church post-1995 are bound by the laws of the church, which override the civil laws, as far as I know.
Anyone who enters into marriage would not do so with the intention of abandoning it, and would usually enter into it for life. What happens afterwards is another matter entirely.
Why, therefore, should such individual’s lives be ruled by men (priests, archbishops – the pope, if you wish), who are free to abandon their “spouse” (the church) at any time to marry whom they chose?
They have the option to do as they please, and should not interfere in the lives of other people who, at present, don’t have a choice.
And, once you brought the subject up, what about holy-moley Fr Rector of 1984/5 who, not more than 5 or 6 years later (yuk, he was already an “old” man when I was in sixth form, being at least, or almost, 60 years old) got a then 28-year-old teacher pregnant, and was bundled off to America, away from prying eyes.
What about another Jesuit “of my time” who did a world of good in a country a boat-ride away from Italy (no, not Malta), only to shack up with a teenager there (who was still in white tights, for heaven’s sake).
There were many such cases, one or two or which were more-or-less in the public eye, but I feel you understand my point, which is – Why should priest be “allowed” to leave the priesthood and marry who they chose, and yet impose their own “religious” beliefs on others? (Especially when such “beliefs” may be abandoned at will – by them only, of course.)
@ Anthony. Those of us who do not feel Catholic have, are and will still be paying for religion (read Catholic) lessons in State schools. We pay for the exhorbitant costs of policing Catholic village festas …. the list goes is endless. Can we ask for a partial refund on our tax return, since we do not feel part of all this? I guess not. So please try to understand that we are not living in a Catholic theocracy.
Quote: “What I would like to know is who is going to foot the bill, like Anthony is stating further up and wether we are going to have MORE innocent victims with this ULTIMATE solution…my preoccupation is that we will open the flood gates for people who want divorce for capricious reasons”.
First, to reply to the above quote. The people who would be footing the bill would be the ones who are already footing the bill in separation cases. We won’t have more innocent victims simply because of the fact that Maltese people are not waiting for the introduction of divorce to leave their partners. Divorce will not “open the floodgates” for people who want to divorce for “capricious reasons”. The floodgates have been opened decades ago, when marriage separation stopped being seen as a stigma.
Of course, all the above points have been made clearly by Daphne, but apparently many people miss the obvious and immediately post according to their pre-conceived opinions without bothering to make sure they understood the article first.
Now for a personal experience of mine. I choose to remain anonymous (something I usually hate to do), just to protect the identity of my wife and that of my ex-wife (whom I have long forgiven for decieving me).
Several years ago, I got married (church wedding) after 5 years of “going out” with my ex. I had even lived with her for 6 months some years prior to the marriage. Some time before we got married, she got pregnant. Having no reason to suspect that the child was not my own, we got married (we were planning to get married anyway).
About six months after our church wedding, my ex left me without telling me why (she actually said she got fed up with me). I won’t go into the details of my temporary traumatic experience.
Having no valid reason why she left me, and knowing full well how much I loved her and how much she gave the impression that she loved me before the marriage, my family became suspicious. We made some investigations. Since both my, and my ex’s blood type is O Negative, and the baby resulted Positive, there is no chance that the child could have been mine. However, my ex never admitted to having been with someone else until the last few days in court (a whole 5 years after).
For everyone to get the whole picture, my expenses in court (including lawyer fees) amounted to thousands of Liri, so anyone who claims that divorce would be an easy way out does not know what he/she is talking about.
I am now happily married (civil wedding, even though I got both a church and a civil annulment) to a wife I simply adore, and my ex’s leaving me, in hindsight, is the best thing that ever happened to me.
Now here’s the gist of all of this. If my (and my ex’s) blood type had not been O Negative, I would never have had reason to believe or know that my ex had been with someone else prior to our wedding (and no means to prove it), and so, in all probability, I would have gotten neither a civil, nor a church annullment.
Of course, people who would wish to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, would say to people not as lucky as me to grin and bear it.
What, precisely, do people mean when they talk about divorce? I think that we are using the same word to mean different things.
I have a strong feeling that by divorce many people mean that they can marry, leave their spouse if anything goes wrong and remarry.
I do not have any statistics at hand, but I am quite confident that the figure of people who were married, separated and have started a new life with someone else is not negligible.
If by divorce we mean having all of the above “institutionalised” then I think that it will cause more harm than good to the parties involved. Both divorcees will have greater rights over each other. A remarried partner may still have to support his/her ex-family, for instance.
Probably a new support fund will have to be created – obviously paid for by tax payers.
Various countries are trying to make divorce a bit less easy, because they have seen that the cons outweigh the pros in the long run.
I have a gut feeling that all the hullabaloo surrounding this non-issue is the fact that many people perceive the introduction of divorce as the dealing of a significant blow to the power of the Catholic Church in Malta.If you think about it, it’s quite non-sequential. Catholics won’t resort to divorce. Non-Catholics are already (practically) divorcing and remarrying and the Church isn’t doing anything about it. Because adherence to the teachings of the Church is on a purely voluntary basis. Faith police do not exist.
I think that marriage-familiarisation courses should be thought up and included in education at secondary levels and higher. Marriage preparation courses should be on two levels – an obligatory “practical” one and an optional “religious” one for people who want a Catholic marriage.
The “practical” course could include basic “couple skills” such as money management, conflict resolution, scientific sex education, parenting skills etc etc. It is not my competence to suggest content for a religious marriage preparation course.
Having said all this, one must bear in mind the hardship experienced by anybody caught in an unhappy marriage. We must sympathise with the people and offer them genuine support.
Come on, Mario – there is no easy way out of a marriage. If you read my article properly, you’ll see that I make the point that the process of separation in the courts is no different at all to the process of divorce. The only difference is that with the first you cannot marry again, and with the second, you can. But legal separation can’t stop you forming a new relationship and having more children. So where exactly is the easy way out with divorce that isn’t an ‘easy way out’ already. without it?
I don’t know why people go all hot and cold at the thought of easy divorce. It’s easy marriage that does that to me. How many times have we all been to weddings and privately wondered what in hell’s name the couple think they’re doing, because they are so obviously disastrous for each other? Does anyone go about making scenes and trying to stop them (apart from, perhaps, their parents)? Of course not. It’s no one’s business. And so it is with divorce. It’s no one’s business either.
Quote: “I have a strong feeling that by divorce many people mean that they can marry, leave their spouse if anything goes wrong and remarry”.
You nearly got it right. Divorce means that people can marry, leave their spouse and remarry. But this is done both for trivial reasons (the spouse snores) and non-trivial ones (one of the couple is violent or otherwise abusive, for instance).
In any case, a marriage is between two persons. If one leaves the other for trivial reasons, the “victim” still would deserve to start a new life. Also, marriage separation itself does not keep people from leaving their spouse for “trivial” reasons (a sexier person).
Quote: “Both divorcees will have greater rights over each other. A remarried partner may still have to support his/her ex-family, for instance”.
This already happens in marriage separations, and it’s a good thing.
Quote: “Probably a new support fund will have to be created – obviously paid for by tax payers”.
Just speculation unbacked by any evidence. Never happened anywhere, and perhaps never will (except on a voluntary basis).
Quote: “I have a gut feeling that all the hullabaloo surrounding this non-issue is the fact that many people perceive the introduction of divorce as the dealing of a significant blow to the power of the Catholic Church in Malta”.
Your gut-feeling is mistaken. Divorce is only a non-issue to those who do not require it, or to people who don’t care about the needs of others. Regarding dealing a blow to the power of the Catholic Church, it shouldn’t be so. Catholics, as you say, do not divorce, not even if they could.
Quote: “Non-Catholics are already (practically) divorcing and remarrying and the Church isn’t doing anything about it”.
No, non-Catholics are not already divorcing and re-marrying, not unless they are rich enough to obtain a divorce outside of Malta.
Quote: “I think that marriage-familiarisation courses should be thought up and included in education at secondary levels and higher”.
Agreed. However, with all the best intentions and preparation, some marriages will still fail.
Quote: “Having said all this, one must bear in mind the hardship experienced by anybody caught in an unhappy marriage. We must sympathise with the people and offer them genuine support”.
The best “support” people need is for everyone to mind one’s own business and not to poke one’s nose into other people’s sex-life, relationships and beliefs.
On another matter, Amanda Mallia, I would like to reply to your blogpiece in the Times. I do not even know who the developer is. Whoever he is, he must be very very powerful. I do develop, but not in Sliema. All is ask is that after Sliema has been raped repeatedly by its residents selling up to cash in on their assets, there is very little worth saving, and its unfair to prohibit the rest from doing so just to “save” a few old houses.Whilst I admire your fortright attitude in keeping the houses as is if they were yours, not everyone is comfortable enough to do so and these people have rights that should not be diminished just because they are the last to sell up. You may also note that my blogpiece was removed. Unfortunately truth hurts. I live in the very real world, and i can guarantee that the Founder of the FAA’s family was the first to knock down and towerize Ghar il-Lembi. And some of those present at FAA’s meetings and BBQ’s and meals did the same.
@Daphne: I think what you just wrote makes a lot of sense, it is a question of attraction ,intimacy etc. wether it’s a prayer group,at work or in a bar people get attracted to eachother like the north and the south of two magnets.”the spirit is willing but the fesh is weak”
Priests do not need the vote of celibacy to be good priests , after all St Peter was married , in my opinion they would understand their flock better.
It is really hard for anyone with an open mind to understand why people, the church, or any other institution should ever impose such things onto others.
The lame excuses of those objecting divorce are completly unacceptable, people seeking a divorce are mature enough to take such decisions and will only do it as a last resort, on average. There is no need for anyone to impose on anyone when it comes to such basic rights.
Free your mind people, and lets start burying the dark days when bishops, priests and co. dictated our lifes….
flesh not fesh
People are so dramatic: “tear apart our social fabric”? Look at the rest of the world, they seem to be doing fine. Yes divorce rates are high but I bet you if there were statistics recording the number of infidelities in each country, Malta would win hands down. Why? Because there is no other way out for people in unhappy marriages. I don’t mean to say cheaters should be excused for this reason, but that’s just the way it is. I say the problem with the world is that there are too many marriages and not enough divorces.
I think Christianity in Malta is at an all time low, and catholicism is at an all time high.
Divorce not legal, yet families still get torn apart due to unchristian going ons (like cheating), which is very odd, in fact its very strange. You go to church, stand up for the church than you cheat on your spouse. Strange very strange.
In fact such a case happened at the Pembroke church, where a man Shot another man with his cheating Wife coming out of church with their children. (What was she doing in the church? Bribing the priest?)
Instead of being a Nation of Hypocrites, I suggest that we Maltese get all the Rights that our European neighbours have.
I think the statement that 95% of Maltese are Catholics is a lie, because only 5% of that 95% actually practise the religion, the Rest just join to be in a Faction…to be part of something … what are they called? Bench warmers.
We’re a Secular country, we’re past Banana Republics, but its a pity some people are still chucking spears.
@ Non-double standards : I know more cases of priests getting married or getting girls pregnant.What is the point ?Does this mean that the Church’s teachings are wrong?Are you feeling threatened by the Church in this day and age? You are not separating the Church’s Laws and our Civil Laws, when we are talking about divorce we must leave the Church out ,because we already know it’s teachings. This does not mean that the Church does not have a right to communicate it’s teachings to it’s followers.Probably that is why some do not want a referendum , because they are afraid of the Church’s followers.
I would like to know wether the taxpayers will have to carry the burden of divorce.
BTW how is it that one of our MEP’s got “married” on a cruse liner while as far as we know he did not obtain a divorce or got an annulment from his first wife?
Mario Debono – If you are answering my comments on The Times blog, then that is were you should continue post your replies.
THIS blog has simply got nothing to do with it, unless of course, you assumed that I’d be reading this too.
In case you’ve lost it (excuse the pun, but I know you’ll take the joke!) here’s the link:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080724/local/asds
I agree with divorce legislation because it is a lucrative business to lawyers. Well, on second thoughts divorce is not really an issue to me because I don’t think I’m ever going to get married. When I decide to live with a girl I do so without rites & ceremonies & when I decide to leave I do so without rites & ceremonies. After all the primative customs of Hagar Qim are only a tourist attraction. Isn’t everyone bi & polygamous these days? For unwanted pregnancies there is contraception & for unwanted children there is abortion. Hakuna Matata. I’ve had such a lovely time reading through some comments that today I can truly say that LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL. Or at least, mine is, and more so now that I have learnt, thanks to Sigmund, a new word, sophistry.
“Anthony Thursday, 24 July 2147hrs
I am an old staunch Catholic. I have absolutely nothing against divorce legislation. I think it is vital in all societies. Obviously it is not meant for Catholics like me but for others who I respect. If their beliefs contemplate divorce they should have access to it. I have one reservation though.
Those who opt for divorce have to be MADE to foot the bill. I.E. Those who go for this option have to personally pay the expenses involved (they can be ginormous) and not expect those who do not share their beliefs to subsidise their one, two, three or more divorces . They have to be prepared to provide for all their wives’/husbands’ and children’s needs indefinitely.
Best practical and sensible posting I have seen here.
One last point though, do the more vociferous pro divorce people have any views about the Islamic “Talaq” system of Divorce that seems to be accepted by the registrar in Malta?
There seem to be some people here who think that there are more bills to be paid with divorce than there are with formal separation. Well, there aren’t. The taxpayer doesn’t foot the bill for divorce, no more than the taxpayer foots the bill for legal separation. Some comments posted here demonstrate quite clearly that people don’t understand that the PROCESS of legal separation is exactly the same as that of divorce. So are the human and material consequences. Who do you think ‘foots the bill’ for all the marriages that are breaking up now? One or both of the people involved, that’s who.
@Clifton Mcloud (Yeah right)
“When I decide to live with a girl I do so without rites & ceremonies”
We are talking about real people here not fantasies, in the real world the girl gets a say too:)
amanda….i did lose it. and found it, and replied :) thanks. But I assumed rightly. This time.
Mario Debono – Assumed what?
@ Sybil
“One last point though, do the more vociferous pro divorce people have any views about the Islamic “Talaq” system of Divorce that seems to be accepted by the registrar in Malta?”
Where is your problem?
You do not need to be envious of Moslems. Just divorce yourself according to the Islamic “Talaq” system, itlaq, and your divorce will be accepted by the “registrar in Malta”.
To introduce divorce requires changing Malta’s constitution.
According to it, Malta’s religion is Catholic, not atheist or anything of the sort.
Quoting the archbishop:
According to the Report on the Evolution of the Family in Europe 2008, published by the Institute for Family Policies, the United Kingdom has experienced a fall in the marriage rate of over 33% since 1980. One would have expected more marriages not less, since divorce gives a right to remarriage.
@eyesonlyonmalta: atheism is not a religion, but a lack of belief in any god. The fact that Malta’s religion is given in the Constitution as Roman Catholic does not mean that Malta is a theocracy. Those who divorce are not by definition atheists.
Your second comment: have you ever heard the qualifying expression ‘all things being equal’? The marriage rate may have fallen in the UK over the last 28 years for reasons other than divorce. The main reason is that people have become a whole lot more wary about marriage, and a whole lot fussier about their choice of spouse. Some of them prefer to remain unmarried than to marry somebody who’s not perfect. I’m not saying that I think that’s a wonderful idea; I’m just making an observation of a well-known fact.
@eyesonlymalta
“To introduce divorce requires changing Malta’s constitution.
According to it, Malta’s religion is Catholic, not atheist or anything of the sort.”
That’s a load of bullwinkle. True the official religion is Catholicism BUT that has nothing to do with allowing or not divorce!
Using your argument adultery, sex before marriage even masturbation would be illegal :)
Quote: “To introduce divorce requires changing Malta’s constitution. According to it, Malta’s religion is Catholic, not atheist or anything of the sort”.
No problem – change the constitution. The constitution is discriminatory as it is, in any case.
Quote: “According to the Report on the Evolution of the Family in Europe 2008, published by the Institute for Family Policies, the United Kingdom has experienced a fall in the marriage rate of over 33% since 1980. One would have expected more marriages not less, since divorce gives a right to remarriage”.
And so? The assumption seems to be that the availablity of divorce is directly related to the fall in the marriage rate, which is not necessarily so, and it is dangerous to think so naively.
Let me give an example.
Suppose the government, by some miracle, subsidises fuel to the extent that fuel becomes very cheap – the cheapest in the world.
Now suppose that people suddenly become more environmentally conscious and public transport becomes excellent, so most people sell their cars.
Naive thinking would conclude that making fuel cheaper is what made people use less fuel.
Like this fuel example, the “less marriages” phenomenon should take into account other factors, such as a growing trend in believing that the sanction of state or church is not necessary to form families.
“@Religio et Patria – sounds like you need to commune with Josie Muscat. Soon you’ll be telling me that a woman’s place is in the home and that we should have a minimum of 10 children each to ‘grow’ the nation. Let’s see now: do you wear a tweed jacket and converse with titled old ladies for amusement, while listening to the Innu Malti, saluting the flag and saying the rosary? Something tells me that you encapsulate everything that makes my brain go dead.”
First off, I absolutely am against most of the kooky elements of Maltese politics and, unfortunately, Dr. Muscat has placed himself in that corner with AN. In reality – and if you haven’t by now noticed – your position on many issues is more similar to those of Norman Lowell rather than the Nationalist Party.
Secondly and with regards to the role of women, I personally am of the opinion that if we had more women in power – be it in the public sector, the professions or in commerce – I feel we would all be better off since I have learnt to value and respect the qualities which women can bring into any organisation. The irony is, alas, that it was the Nationalist Party in 1948 which was against the vote to women and this is one thing which I have always questioned.
Finally, you may make swipes in my direction but, really, I don’t llke tweed and prefer my Hugo Boss and Armani suits (even though right now I prefer jeans and a light shirt) and, yes, I do say my rosary daily (albeit privately) and do feel moved whenever I hear Dun Karm’s words. Anything wrong with that? If you think there is it does not to me but it does a lot to yourself.
Oh… and with regards to children, the magic number which all well-meaning couples should aspire to is three since in this manner we can reverse the aging population trend which shall cause us no small grief over the coming years.
Religio et Patria – “Oh… and with regards to children, the magic number which all well-meaning couples should aspire to is three”
Go ahead, then, do the country a favour: Pro-create! (On the other hand, maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea, because they’d obviously inherit your genes.)
Yes, Religio et Patria – I’m very similar to Norman Lowell. Sigh. Funny how I never had any doubt you are a man – what does that tell you about your arguments? That they’re a bit…errhhhm….paternalistic? You’ll be pleased to know that I have the magic number of offspring. Oh and by the way, Hugo Boss and Armani are very 80s wannabe.
Iss…lili ccensurajtuni…mhux fair…min jiehu hsiebha c-censura hawn? Anyway, David Buttigieg said what I wanted to say – less dramatically but more politely – so I do not really mind. Yet censoring comments intended to hurt others, like that attack on Religio e Patria, would have been more appropriate. If he/she wants to say the rosary, salute the flag, etc leave him/her alone. One cannot proclaim a laissez faire attitude & then interfere in the affairs of others. Is censorship compatible with laissez faire?
[Moderator – Your comment wasn’t published because your sex life is nobody’s business but your own.]
Clifton McLoud – “One cannot proclaim a laissez faire attitude & then interfere in the affairs of others”
Try telling that to Religio et Patria
Religio et patria: How many children do you have and do they also wear Armani?
After reading Daphnie’s article & the postings, we can conclude that separation & divorce are very much alike. The only difference seems to be that with separation one can go through the entire, mind numbing process only once (tibla’ kanna wahda) whereas with divorce one can go through the entire, mind numbing process more than once (u b’hekk tibla’ hafna kanen). Which still leaves me at a loss as to which is the better of the two.
Re Political Comments – I am refraining from political comments because my anger will definetely get the better of me & I will end up saying things which I will later regret. But I had the impression that this was an independent blog, ideal for lost lambs like me. Is it? The more I’m trying to reconcile with my ex (PN – please don’t call it GonziPN – that name is full of arrogance – as if we are being offered a new saviour, a new hero – leave these things for the US) the more I’m thinking of divorce. Even more so now that I have my eyes on a young, attractive alternative. But it is hard to leave the past behind, isn’t it? But partisan politics will only make things worse.
Qannec! It’s just dawned on me that the groom in the civil wedding I mentioned in my comment of Thursday 24th July at 1247hrs (above) may actually have been a Roman Catholic priest, in which case, he’s still effectively “married” to the Church (his spouse) under the rules of the Roman Catholic church.
Why is it, then, that he’d be free to get married civilly, whilst a couple getting married in church would have to depend on a church annulment (if married post-1995, the church – as opposed to the state – having the ultimate power of deciding on the couple’s fate) to be able to remarry somebody else civilly?
Two weights and two measures, no?
OK Moderator, I understand. Probably you did the right thing – after all I’m not hiding behind a nom de plume or anything. And thanks for not lying to me by saying that you have not received it. I bet you have read it but ehh :D Good night.
Whether divorce will finally be enacted during this Government’s tenure is still a moot point. Let’s hope it will. For those already in their middle age, it will not make much practical difference. For the bill to be brought before parliament and then, hopefully, enacted it may take years. The forces of obscurantism and fundamentalism will rally to sabotage it, no doubt.
Then there is the little problem of the hundreds of divorce cases, brought by those who have been waiting for this law, that will suddenly tumble on the courts like a ton of bricks. It may take years or even decades for one’s case to be decided unless some special swift procedure is devised and this is unlikely. How many divorce courts would be set up and how many judges would be appointed to cater for all these cases once the dam would have burst?
The matter is already politicized — why don’t we discuss these practical difficulties rather than indulge in party politics? Those in need of divorce find no solace in party politics and may be irritated by those who try to gain political mileage from a matter which is intensely personal in essence. There is also the question of what sort of divorce law would be enacted. Would this be one making it painfully difficult to obtain a divorce? A sop to cerberus to those who have been clamouring for divorce legislation?
When will uninformed posters stop mentioning the pious article in the Constitution declaring the RCA religion the religion of Malta? This article is there for historical reasons and has no value whatsoever while serving to confuse the uninitiated. It is totally unenforceable unlike the entrenched article guaranteeing freedom of worship.
@Moderator
“[Moderator – Your comment wasn’t published because your sex life is nobody’s business but your own.]”
And nobody’s interested in it might I add :)
“Qannec! It’s just dawned on me that the groom in the civil wedding I mentioned in my comment of Thursday 24th July at 1247hrs (above) may actually have been a Roman Catholic priest, in which case, he’s still effectively “married” to the Church (his spouse) under the rules of the Roman Catholic church.”
Please, “t’ghidx cucati”!
Sorry, the second part of my comment above was addressed to Non-Fokolarini
Well! I’m gobsmacked and flattered… The three Vella sisters all replying to my last comment! What can I say? Let’s see…
@ Corinne Vella: Yes, my wife and I have children of our own and they do have their preferences and styles… None of them have as yet indulged in Armani suits though one of them is rather hooked up on D&G’s more casual wear. Having said this, all of us tend to prefer the merits of jeans for most of the time.
@ Amanda Mallia: What’s wrong with my genes then? I have values which I don’t compromise and that is not something genetic… But, of course, you come from a litter which is well endowed with all the knowledge and wisdom that homo sapiens has reaped throughout the ages…
And with regards to your comment to Clifton McLoud regarding laissez-faire, laws and rules are continuously being set in society and these do impinge on how each of us should behave. Now, if laws are to be changed then we’re in a democratic country and there is the due process through which such changes can occur – starting from the changes needed, before everything else, in the Constitution, the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, the Oaths of Office of our elected officials and so on. Up till now, Malta has ascribed to adopt a secular set of laws which however are based on Catholic values.
Now, we cannot have the cake and eat it: If the predominant majority of the country wants divorce or any other so-called liberty then we must all shed aside our sanctimonious hypocrisy and not call ourselves Catholic and expect to be treated like Catholics when we do not abide by the basic rules of the Church.
@ Daphne: I don’t need to be a wannabe since I already am what I wished to be and with regards to my comment on Armani & Co. may I gently point out that labels are like perfume… They’re all useless unless one takes care of one’s person and has the right attitude. On the other hand, I have also said that I tend to prefer jeans and shirt. There are certain people who can wear the most expensive and flashy stuff and they’ll still remain the garbage that they may be.
More seriously, however, I think you too often generalise and attack people personally without looking at what is said: This is a very serious flaw which, really, you should take care in addressing and it’s rapidly infecting others (as can be seen in this very blog).
With your intellect, you should be above this and having said this I still reiterate that, unfortunately, your positions on certain issues are more in line with those expressed by Norman Lowell rather than those of the Nationalist Party.
Religio et Patria: The question was ‘how many’ not ‘do you’. Armani doesn’t only supply suits. He very rarely wears one himself.
@ Corinne Vella: I am quite aware, thank you, that Armani does produce much more than suits but I personally think that Armani jeans or shirts are not my cup of tea.
Anyway, regarding the progeny, I took the opportunity to also answer your erstwhile sister, Amanda, when she remarked “Go ahead, then, do the country a favour: Pro-create! (On the other hand, maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea, because they’d obviously inherit your genes.)”
Religio et Patria: The question was ‘how many’ not ‘do you’. Armani does not only produce suits, jeans and shirts. My name is not Amanda. How many children do you have?
Religio et Patria: What puts you off using your actual name?
@Non-Fokolarini : Don’t continue with this balderdash , priests are not married to the church , they can do whatever they like after leaving the priesthood and they can still perform some holy rites .
The Church,after it makes its investigations, also declares certain marriages as null, this is not divorce. And it’s not “TALAQ,TALAQ, TALAQ”
As I said earlier on this thread : one does not need to bash the Church to introduce divorce, in my opinion this can backfire on those who genuinely believe that it is the best solution.
BTW : maybe I am wrong , if the divorce law is enacted by Parliament can’t it be overruled by a referendum?
@ Religio et Patria : Daphne , sometimes is nationalist ,and many times is liberal, don’t try to pigeonhole her like many people do on this blog and on other Maltese blogs. There are many freethinkers on this blog and may I add that there are (were) some who seem to behave as permanent watchdogs( & bitches) guarding an ivory tower . Daphne is herself , like many people on this blog.
@religio etc,
“Now, we cannot have the cake and eat it: If the predominant majority of the country wants divorce or any other so-called liberty then we must all shed aside our sanctimonious hypocrisy and not call ourselves Catholic and expect to be treated like Catholics when we do not abide by the basic rules of the Church”
I would probably be called a Catholic fanatic by some, and yes, I do my best to be a good Catholic BUT I believe that if some people, even if 1 couple want divorce then it should be available.
WHEN divorce is available in Malta I assure you I will continue to call myself Catholic with the straightest of faces. Divorce, or rather “re-marriage” should simply not apply to Catholics, but should not be denied to whoever needs or even wants it!
Corinne Vella – “Religio et Patria: What puts you off using your actual name?” – Probably his fictitious wife.
@ David,
I agree with you: If one is a Catholic, one has to balance this with the rules of one’s faith.
My main concern lies encapsulated in your closing paragraph, namely:
“WHEN divorce is available in Malta I assure you I will continue to call myself Catholic with the straightest of faces. Divorce, or rather “re-marriage” should simply not apply to Catholics, but should not be denied to whoever needs or even wants it!”
Whereas today we are debating divorce, what shall tomorrow be? Legalisation of abortion? Where do we draw the line?
What may be acceptable in other cultures may not certainly be acceptable for us: We have to account for the ‘multicultural’ upheaval which western society is currently experiencing and ask ourselves where we want to go: Unless we aspire to anarchy or a ‘free for all’ we have seriously address matters like female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, honour killings, equality of status of husband and wife, etc.
Indeed divorce can be the beginning of much more radical issues.
If we have to respect different socio-cultural groups, we have to define standards and in so doing accept that what may be acceptable to us may be seen as unacceptable to others. Society cannot please each and every member of it.
And divorce – or the lack of it – may be such a case that’s why I often take the route that, ultimately, there should be some form of clear majority consent to such things.
@Religio,
Please don’t be so ridiculuous!
“Whereas today we are debating divorce, what shall tomorrow be? Legalisation of abortion? Where do we draw the line?
What may be acceptable in other cultures may not certainly be acceptable for us: We have to account for the ‘multicultural’ upheaval which western society is currently experiencing and ask ourselves where we want to go: Unless we aspire to anarchy or a ‘free for all’ we have seriously address matters like female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, honour killings, equality of status of husband and wife, etc.”
All of the above, including arguably abortion concern harm done to a person again’t their consent.
Divorce is a matter of two CONSCENTING ADULTS and it is none of the majority’s business what goes on between them! What right have YOU or any number of you, got to dictate to ME who I should be married to or RE-married to?
@ Religio et Patria:
This thin end of the wedge argument is utilitarian at best and utterly misguided at worst.
One should determine an issue on the basis of its merits, not on the basis of it being a battle line between in some war between traditional values and secularism.
Besides, divorce and abortion are completely unrelated except to the extent that the Church opposes both. Abortion is a thorny issue because it presents a conflict of rights: the mother’s right to decisional privacy vs the unborn child’s right to life. There is no such conflict in the case of divorce since nobody’s fundamental rights are affected, save for those of the married couple.
As for a definition of the standards to be upheld in our society, the lines should be quite clear. We should be a society that respects equality and individual liberty, in the context of internationally recognised fundamental rights. That means that we should respect minority rights, including the rights of women in minority groups not to be subjected to genital mutilation (I’m still searching for some reason how genital mutilation, or honour killings for that matter, is in any way relevant to a discussion about divorce).
@ eyesonlymalta ‘To introduce divorce requires changing Malta’s constitution.’
No we do not need to amend the Constitution because Article 2 simply states that we have an official religion – it does not say that Malta is a theocratic State. That said many people, myself included, would be happy to see Article 2 repealed as a matter of principle.
@ Sybil:
I’m not sure what the position is regarding recognition of Talaq divorces in Malta, but there is a principled argument against such recognition because there are substantive and procedural inequalities between men and women in that system: http://law-research.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-archbishop-and-islamic-law.html
@ David: In reply to the following comment you made:
“All of the above, including arguably abortion concern harm done to a person against their consent.”
Cannot, therefore, the same argument be raised that since divorce can be against, say, one of the spouses’ consent or, indeed, against the consent of their children (especially if minors)?
@ Justin: Secularism, libertarianism, modern values… I believe all these to be labels which are often used to shed personal responsibility towards others. One can be secular or libertarian but be respectful of traditional values.
You state the following:
“One should determine an issue on the basis of its merits, not on the basis of it being a battle line between in some war between traditional values and secularism.”
This is where you are wrong because we have elements in our society who are ready to shed-off traditional values in order to allow others impose on us their own much more bigot standards… and here I am not referring just to Islam but also to other groups which are small minorities in the west.
Regarding your question: “I’m still searching for some reason how genital mutilation, or honour killings for that matter, is in any way relevant to a discussion about divorce.”
My answer is simple: Through divorce we are moving the goalposts towards issues which are today not debatable. The more people come accustomed to one thing, the more easy it is to go the next step… and when these things start, clearly somewhere a finish line must be placed.
Of course, I believe the matter of divorce to be a subject which should be debated and maybe it should have been debated years ago and, yes, a lot of people are suffering because of the problems associated with marriages that did not work for whatever reason.
My concern – and I am sure many agree with this – is that we should discuss divorce openly but at the same time keep in focus of where we want our society to become and also consider that today – if we were totally honest with each other – we too often resort to the ‘easy way out’ in too many situations.
Maybe we should discuss divorce on two levels namely, by helping those involved in existing marriages which didn’t help but then also addressing the fact that people get married too easily and without due consideration of rights and obligations.
@Religio et Patria: “Abyssus abyssum invocat ” the latin saying goes.
The problem lies where to draw the line . Are we heading towards a society with no limits ?
Don’t know whether anyone’s mentioned divorce Maltese-style; the one where you’d drown your spouse in the bath, stab her, strangle her, throw her off a cliff or simply shoot her (and perhaps pretend it was the work of armed robbers). Strange how it’s always the men who go down this route; for once, women are less dramatic and just pack their bags and leave.
Religio et Patria: Today we divorce = tomorrow we cut off other people’s genitals? Where do you go shopping for such thrilling ideas? And who, exactly, are you talking about when you say ‘we’ and ‘us’? And how do you suggest ‘we’ address the fact that people get married too easily without due consideration of rights and obligations? By setting up a committee chaired by Religio et Patria?
Someone who does not wish to get divorced can contest the case, though I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would wish to remain married to someone who has abandoned all responsibility in other ways.
Your concern about children is touching but your argument is nonsensical. If we are to set up mechanisms for obtaining children’s consent over the dissolution of their parents’ legal relationship, then that builds a case for divorce much in the same way as it could build a case against it. Many children’s parents are married, but to other people rather than to each other.
@Religio
“Cannot, therefore, the same argument be raised that since divorce can be against, say, one of the spouses’ consent or, indeed, against the consent of their children (especially if minors)?”
Are you serious? Really?
If one of the spouses doesn’t want a divorce, well I hate to say it but tough luck – welcome to real life! If my wife chose to divorce me then that’s it! I will always consider myself married to her, but I cannot force her to do the same can I?
The same with children, unfortunately it is probably their worst nightmare but the parents cannot be held hostage to that can they, it is still their choice.
The other nonsense you mentioned (sorry but it really IS nonsense) like honour killing etc involve violence against a non consenting person so has NOTHING to do with divorce for heaven’s sake!
Quote: “The more people come accustomed to one thing, the more easy it is to go the next step… and when these things start, clearly somewhere a finish line must be placed”.
That same argument could equally have been brought up (and actually has) prior to the abolition of slavery and the recognition of women’s equal rights.
Quote: “My concern – and I am sure many agree with this – is that we should discuss divorce openly but at the same time keep in focus of where we want our society to become and also consider that today – if we were totally honest with each other – we too often resort to the ‘easy way out’ in too many situations”.
One cannot control what society will become. One can only direct it through education. Society is composed of individuals who all have a mind of their own (for better or worse). The last time an attempt was made to form and mould society politically was in Bolshevik Russia, and we all know the outcome of that.
Quote: “Maybe we should discuss divorce on two levels namely, by helping those involved in existing marriages which didn’t help but then also addressing the fact that people get married too easily and without due consideration of rights and obligations”.
Actually, what we should do is to introduce divorce (which has been discussed for at least hundreds of years) while making sure that education on the virtues and responsibilities of married life starts early in schools.
@Corinne
“Someone who does not wish to get divorced can contest the case”
Actually I don’t even agree on that, if one of the spouses wants out then I don’t see why the other should be able to stop it.
Biex ma nsemmi lil hadd, If my wife divorces me legally, I as a Catholic will always consider myself married to her as I personally don’t believe in divorce, but I still have no authority (as I shouldn’t) to stop her marrying again – civilly of course :)
David Buttigieg: I said ‘can’ not ‘should’.
Trying to follow what is being written on/about the divorce issue I think that the most important factor is being completely ignored. Divorce is not a human right, it is not even a right. The right/human right factor comes into the equation when a section of the population has the means to acquire a legal right on the merits of its affluence.
Can the less rich claim the right to divorce overseas at the expense of the exchequer?
Can a constitutional lawyer advise if it is unconstitutional for the less rich to get what the rich can have? Is it unconstitutional for the local administration to accept de facto divorces between Maltese citizens acquired abroad?
I believe this to be the main point of the whole argument, and not if it is right or wrong. After all if and when it comes to the final say in front of the creator everyone has his own account to balance.
@Corinne,
I understood you but if one spouse wants a divorce, why ‘could’ the other have a reason (legal) to prevent it?
Logic is not always the hallmark of these posts. David Buttigieg hypothisizes “if my wife divorces me legally”. A divorce is either legal or else it’s not a divorce. ME mentions “de facto divorces” – there is no such thing as a de facto divorce since a divorce must be pronounced by a court. It’s not like de facto separation.
Repudiation (so-called talaq) may not be registered in Malta as the Marriage Act clearly states the divorce decision must be made by a “competent court”.
But what takes the cake is a reply at the foot of a letter in today’s Times. A certain J Farrugia provides an example of the hysteria which is already in the air at the mere mention of the remotest possibility of a divorce bill (we’re not even there yet as mention was only made of discussion). Whether Farrugia’s fulminations in the second person are generic or whether they are addressed to the letter writer is not clear – if the latter is the case, these exemplify the incapability of these fundamentalists of presenting arguments “ad rem”. More of the same will follow and evidence of Malta’s protracted middle ages will continue to surface.
@Freethinker
“if my wife divorces me legally”. A divorce is either legal or else it’s not a divorce”
As I thought I explained, I may be (hypothetically) legally divorced, but personally will never recognise it! Is it too hard to understand?
David Buttigieg: That comment was a reply to Religo et Patria’s comment that divorce would be unfair if one party wanted to divorce against the other’s will. The solution to that inanity is not a blanket exclusion of divorce but for the reluctant party to contest the case for divorce.
@Leonard/Joey: yes, exactly. How many men have killed their wives most horribly in Malta over the last few years? The last time a wife killed her husband was around 30 years ago – the infamous case where she conspired with her lover and then tried to burn the body in a valley outside Mosta.
@Religio et Patria – where do you get off trying to run other people’s lives according to what you think is best? Boss your wife and kids around and leave the rest of us alone. X’tindahal fiz-zwieg ta’ haddiehor?
The status is accepted ‘de facto’ by the Maltese administration and not the divorce as such is ‘de facto’.
‘de facto’ divorces is what we have in Malta at the moment.
Hope you understand.
I still believe that over and above any argument, it is pertinent to ask if the present situation is anti constitutional against those who are not wealthy enough to get a divorce abroad and for the local legal system to accept a new legal status decreed in another country for a marriage celebrated locally when same legal status cannot be achieved locally.
I have read j.Farrugia’s post in the Times and I totally agree with you. The following is what I wrote but was censored by the Times:
1)the Magna Carta has nothing to do with human rights;
2)no one is in a position to decide for himself what is right and what is wrong more than the person suffering the extreme consequences (beating, threatening etc.) of his own past misjudgement.
3)the breaking of a citizens right is when the wealthy can go abroad an get a divorce and those of lesser means cannot
4)spineless creatures are those people who are insensitive for the need of the downtrodden and continue to support the beating partners
5)everybody pays for his momentary follies even those who think that they are the chosen speakers of the creator. They have to give account as to why they abandoned the needy in their hour of utmost need
Can someone answer this?
If a partner wants a divorce and the other doesn’t, what happens? Corinne mentioned contesting a divorce in court, what does that mean exactly? That a court can deny a divorce? (WHEN divorce is introduced of course)
David Buttigieg: That depends on how the law is drawn up – if at all. If you want to put a spoke in somebody’s wheel, you’re bound to find one.
@ Daphne :” The last time a wife killed her husband was around 30 years ago – the infamous case where she conspired with her lover and then tried to burn the body in a valley outside Mosta.”
You should have written “The last time a wife killed her husband and was caught or convicted ”
There were times where wives were the main suspects , or suspected of being accomplices in murdering their husbands .
BTW; there were also murders and attempted murders between unmarried couples , they did not need divorce .
John, I honestly don’t remember any murder case in which the victim’s wife was the suspect but there wasn’t enough proof. Please enlighten me. On the other hand, I remember many, many cases in which men murdered their wives. Some of the most memorable were the man who shot in wife on Ghajn Dwieli road and then shot himself in the leg and pretended they had been ambused; the Gozitan who enticed his estranged wife out for a romantic walk on the cliffs, called her to the edge to look at an unusual bird, and then pushed her off (her body was never found); the man who stabbed his wife more than 20 times while she was lying in their bed with her infant son beside her, and who then went to the lavatory for some bleach to pour over her as she lay writhing in agony on their balcony, having gone there to call for help; I won’t go on, because these things don’t bear thinking about.
@David – I don’t know about the divorce laws of other countries, but in Britain if your spouse doesn’t agree to the divorced, you can get one all the same after two years (I believe it’s two) have elapsed. And the law was changed some years ago to avoid the horrible recriminations that were the result of having to give the judge a reason for your wish to divorce (“she committed adultery”; “he beat me senseless”). Now the British have what’s called ‘no fault’ divorce, which acknowledges the reality that sometimes a marriage just dies, without the parties running around with Russian lapdancers or giving vent to alcoholic violence.
@David Buttigieg. A divorce is a divorce irrespective of whether you recognize its legality or not. Is it too hard to understand? As if court decisions depend on your recognition for their validity. How absurd can you get?
@ME: yes, I’m trying to muster enough acumen to understand you. I admit, it will take me some time to soar to your stratospheric levels of intelligence — I guess I must humbly accept my limitations. In Malta we do not have de facto divorce, as you say. We have a recognition of foreign court decisions on divorce. This is not de facto divorce, but de jure recognition of foreign decisions. Hope you understand (but I darn well doubt it).
@ freethinker
I accept your veiled insults as a confirmation of your arrogance.
Still I was expecting some comment on whether the administration can be challenged for going against the constitution.
The term de facto may also be used when there is no relevant law or standard, but a common practice is well established, although not universal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
@Daphne,
Thank you for explaining that, it is what I was trying to get at, basically one spouse should not prevent the other from “leaving” or re-marrying (civilly of course).
I would hope that WHEN divorce is introduced here something along the British lines is implemented. Otherwise I can already see the pique and blackmail from the “jilted” spouse.
@Freethinker,
Let me assume we are both misunderstanding each other. As a practising Catholic (even though in favour of divorce legislation) I will never “recognise” a divorce. But if my marriage (God forbid) had to break down and my wife divorced me (legally or civilly) then according to law I am divorced. According to my conscience I’m not! My conscience has no bearing on our legal status – agreed.
A divorce is in effect automatically legal, also agreed, but to me personally has no bearing! (Again this obviously does not effect the legal status). By saying legal divorce I am trying to differentiate between a marital status according to law and one according to conscience. Perhaps I used the wrong term, in which case my apologies!
@Corinne
“That depends on how the law is drawn up – if at all. If you want to put a spoke in somebody’s wheel, you’re bound to find one.”
And we Maltese are experts at that …..
@All,
An interesting comment that has nothing to do with divorce –
“Women can be fun and serious at the same time – men do not have that fluidity and are better at compartmentalising their emotions – which is why they make much better serial killers!”
@me: Which article of the Constitution would you cite if you were to institute the hypothetical case you have in mind?
@freethinker
I wouldn’t know. It is a query I’m doing. My guess would be something that has to do with equal rights or discrimination.
My question is:
Is it discriminatory to have a couple who acquired a legal status under Maltese law to have that legal status changed by a foreign country that is automatically recognised by Maltese law on the basis that couple ‘a’ have the financial means and can and couple ‘b’ don’t have and cannot ?
Any ideas?
Let us expand a bit;
Is it discriminatory to have a foreigner who has done a sex change abroad and the fact goes undisputed in Malta, maybe even marrying locally without questions and a local has to go through all the unimaginable summersaults because the facts are known by the registry?
Even that is a change of legal status