This is what happens without divorce
This is what happens without divorce: people carry on regardless, and the web tangles up. Rachel Vella, the former television star, is not married to Colin Aquilina but to another man, from whom she has been separated for several years. When required to give her husband’s name, she still has to give the name of that other man, even though she has now begun a family with somebody else. Why, and more to the point, what for? The situation is ridiculous.
Sunday, 10th August 2008, The Sunday Times
Announcements
Births
AQUILINA. On August 2, at St Philip’s Hospital, to Rachel Vella and Colin, God’s precious gift of a first-born son – NICHOLAS CHARLES. Thanks to the obstetricians, Ms Carmen Cannataci and all staff at the hospital.
36 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
And your point is?
[Moderator – the point is that you can ban divorce, but you can’t ban the divorce lifestyle, so banning divorce is ultimately pointless.]
The above comment reminds of what old village busibodies with plenty of time on their hands used to do., count all the weeks from the marriage date to the birth of a first born of a young couple to figure out if hanky panky went on before the marriage ceremony. If the baby was born before nine months from the marriage ceremony had elapsed, then all the world would know that the marriage had been a shotgun wedding.
Exactly, well put.
At times I can’t help but become really cynical with the whole scenario; it appears as if the holier-than-thou brigade wants this kind of situation to develop so that they will be able to wag their finger at the “offending” couple and screach “eeeee x’gharukaza”. They ignore the fact that there are no longer courts of public opinion to take heed of their hypocrisy (except for the particularly weak politicians who fear every loss of a vote or who, even worse, are themselves part of the odious brigade). Unfortunately they retain a nuisance value which is still way too proportionally large. These damn fundamentalists actually expect to control our lives for ever. And a lot of us are letting them get away with it.
At least this is one issue where I am more than glad to add my tiny, insignificant weight to yours.
As you deem fit of course :) Smiley :)
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080810/local/man-charged-with-injuring-partner
Is this also what happens without divorce?
[Moderator – no, it’s what happens when married women are urged to carry their cross and think of Jesus, inside of packing a suitcase and leaving.]
Erm, DCG, Ms Vella’s surname is, to the best of my knowledge, her maiden surname – her married surname was something else. On seperating, the law contemplates reversion and, since quite a few years ago, women are also allowed to keep their maiden surnames after marriage, so it’s not entirely unusual for father and mother to have different surnames.
Doesn’t mean that we don’t need divorce, though – and the quicker the better.
[Daphne – yes, Bocca, I know that. I know her husband, remember? My point wasn’t about the surnames; it was about the fact that she is married to X while starting a family with Y, and blithely announcing the birth in The Sunday Times. Far from making Maltese society more conventional, the lack of divorce has made it completely unconventional.]
The very valid argument in favour of divorce for non Catholics is a serious matter. Please do not reduce the issue to banalities like adverts for St Philip’s Hospital as in this case. Surnames do not come into the equation either. They are utterly irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to carry on regardless and to get entangled in his self spun web as long as the law of the land is not broken. Woe betide if legislation were to serve to get all messed up members of society unentangled. I trust that the top quality of this discussion will be maintained in spite of the high ambient temperatures !!
DCG, point taken … that teaches me to try to be cute… grrr
Apart from all the issues regarding divorce, on which I agree to leave all couples to make up their decision, I would like to pass on the idea of castrating males when I hear yesterday’s news and reading article on today’s times of malta. really disgusting- raping a 6 and 8 year old – How can this man face the world!!!
Once again we are starting with kicking up a fuss on controversial topics.
Praticing Catholics should not really worry about the introduction of divorce. If they are against it they just do not divorce, period.
No one has the right to ‘crucify’ people who agree to the introduction of divorce. The days of inquisition are over (or are they ??).
Let us stop being hypocrites the situation is glaring and everyone knows what is really going on.
This is one of those issues where the Church will eventually come in line with social realities and apologise for its mistakes – but don’t hold your breath; it will come in about 200 years’ time.
@Anthony – it’s unfair to categorise all divorce cases as ‘messed up’. If you want to maintain a high quality in the discussion, pls refrain from labelling others.
Good luck to Rachel, Colin and the new arrival. Hope that his mother’s character doesn’t rub on to the offspring!!!!!!!!!
Isa, if you castrate male rapists, you might as well execute murderers. You’re not in favour of the death penalty, are you?
“Moderator – no, it’s what happens when married women are urged to carry their cross and think of Jesus, inside of packing a suitcase and leaving.”
@ Moderator : Are you trying to tell us that the Church urges concubines” to carry their cross and think of Jesus”?
[Moderator – almost every Maltese adult over the age of 40 living in Malta today is the product of an uncompromisingly Catholic upbringing, with values taught and learned in the framework of Catholicism. This has conditioned the behaviour even of those who have chosen ‘alternative’ ways of life.]
When it comes to the fragility of human relationships, it’s really a question of Tista’ Tkun Int.
If we want to be serious about divorce Catholics and Catholicism have to be left out completely. The Catholic Church should not be involved because It does not contemplate divorce. Unfortunately the words Church, Catholicism and Catholics have appeared too frequently in the discussion so far. I used the word non Catholics; these are the only people that should concern us here. What the Catholic Church will teach in two centuries’ time is even more irrelevant. We are dealing here with the requirement of divorce in our social legislation. Leave the Church out of this . Do not make the argument sound like a yearning for Catholicism “a la carte”, because this will make it a very stale debate indeed. Finally if people who are desperate to divorce are not in a personal mess, as far as their relationship is concerned, then what on earth do they want to divorce for ? Maybe they think it is “cool” ? I doubt it very much.
[Moderator – It is impossible, and not very sensible, to divorce (sorry) the argument for divorce from the argument in favour of greater separation between church and state. This is because the ONLY reason Malta doesn’t have divorce legislation is because of the undue influence of the Catholic Church.]
@ Moderator: $0 years ago half of Malta showed the middle finger to the Church and voted in favour of Integration with Britain.
The Church has a right to communicate its teachings , it is up to its followers to follow its teachings. When in the 60’s it put “undue influence” , it lost a lot of its flock.
So as Anthony said “leave the Church out of this “. Attacking the Church to obtain divorce will only be counter productive for those who want divorce.
People will still start a “new life” with or without divorce , couples will still have “familiar” fights wether they are married or not .
My greatest concern is not divorce ‘per se’ it is how to make people responsible for their deeds.Right now in Malta there is a free for all supported by the State and according to our Moderator influenced by the Church, on such matters.
(In this blog the moderator takes sides and poses as a “know-all” , s/he poses as the one with the final say).
[Moderator – Please answer this question: if the bishops issue a statement saying that the government should be left free to introduce divorce for secular purposes, don’t you think that the government’s job of introducing it will be a hundred times smoother and less anxiety-ridden? The obvious answer is Yes.]
Moderator I agree. Except that I would say great influence of the Catholic Church rather than undue. BUT in Maltese politics the CC boils down to votes of Maltese citizens in a general election and with the two major parties currently running neck and neck this may present difficulties. This is exactly why there has to be a massive, mature countrywide debate on the problem after which a consensus should be attainable. IF the argument is presented, in any way, as a form of pressure on the CC, then it is doomed at conception.
What about having a sort of referendum? We all have the right to chose whether we want divorce or not! Catholics, non-Catholics religious beliefs are irrelevant in this case, as it is the state that has to decide not the church. Everyone has the right to chose and make his/her own decision.
[Moderator – for obvious reasons, a referendum on a minority rights issue is a bad idea.]
Anthony: “MATURE countrywide debate” is a non-starter as is the the belief that consensus is attainable. Have you seen the comments published on timesofmalta.com?
Moderator – Please answer this question: if the bishops issue a statement saying that the government should be left free to introduce divorce for secular purposes, don’t you think that the government’s job of introducing it will be a hundred times smoother and less anxiety-ridden? The obvious answer is Yes.]
…so what you’re saying is that all catholics might not ‘be offended’ by this ‘decision by the bishop’? Is that implying anything about the intelligence of catholics as against those who are ‘free thinkers’?? Think woman, think….
@ Moderator : don’t expect the Bishops to condone acts which the Catholic religion considers as being against Christ’s teachings. You will be expecting too much , remember that you are not dealing with politicians!
[Moderator – Christ said ‘What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.’ People married by civil contract are put together by a civil servant, and not by God.]
@ moderator
I believe Christ also said, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven’. Mt. 18:18
I assume the Church has decided to keep marriage ‘bound’.
[Moderator – Marriage is a social construct, not a religious one. The church decided to get involved when it sought greater control on people’s lives.]
It is interesting and most liberating for everyone to enjoy such freedom of speech in today’s day and age. Gone are now the days when any Tom, Dick and Harry, including particular political parties, could not air their views socially in the open and freely for fear of being attacked by the Church and its “weapons of mass destruction of personality”!
Divorce is needed in Malta, especially in view of giving dignity to children who are usually the victims that bear the toughest part of the load. One should only hope that it will not be used as a simple pressure valve with blatant excuses at the first molehill encountered in married life. After all lives may still be torn by the act and sufferings may induce a lot of rough patches.
[Moderator – The greater suppressor of free speech in our time was not the Catholic Church but the Labour government of 1971-1987. Let’s give credit where credit is due.]
@ Moderator : can you please tell me why you did not publish a copy of Bishop Cremona’s letter to Malta Today , which I posted to you yesterday?
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/06/01/acremona.html
No one likes to be censored.
[Moderator – That’s better; you posted the link, not the actual article. This isn’t a forum for the reproduction of entire newspaper stories or articles. A simple link suffices. Thanks.]
@ Moderator : People married by civil contract are put together by a civil servant, and not by God”.
So why exactly would you like the bishops to interfere in something which is not religious?
For the umpteenth time “leave religion out of the argument and stop attacking the Church , it will backfire against you”
[Moderator – You misinterpret me. I wouldn’t like the bishops to interfere. I would like them not to interfere.]
@Mod , I cannot understand what you want ,you must be a woman!! LOL .
The bishop’s duty is to guide their flock in what the Church teaches..Pro-divorce campaigners should bring arguments in favour of divorce and not ask their “opponents’ to give a helping hand towards a cause they (the bishops) are totally against.
It is always easier for you if your opponent makes statements which favour your cause.
John Schembri: The bishops’ concern is not just with their flock. They want divorce to be unavailable to everyone. They could adopt a different strategy and simply preach to their flock not to fall into temptation. Witholding divorce on the grounds that it might affect Catholics is like introducing a blanket ban on sex in case people commit adultery.
[Moderator – Yes, that’s right. The bishops want divorce to remain unavailable in Malta, so that it will be unavailable to those who were ‘captured’ into the Catholic Church in infancy.]
Chris Buttigieg: Exercising that right is not possible as things stand. When divorce is available people have a choice. When it isn’t, they don’t.
Two points
1. Why marry in church in the first place, if you think that if anything happens to your marriage you have the right to divorce???
2. @Moderator – the point is that you can ban divorce, but you can’t ban the divorce lifestyle, so banning divorce is ultimately pointless.
So, if you adopt this argument, may I ask if you are also in favour of Abortion? It is the same argurment, or not?
[Moderator – The ban on abortion in Malta is qualified by the fact that Maltese girls and women have access to abortion clinics a short, cheap catamaran ride away in Sicily. We have no idea what the real effect of denying abortion to Maltese people might be, because there is no way we are ever going to experience it. There is a difference between banning something and denying people all access to it. Abortion is banned in Malta but Maltese still have very easy access to it. It’s not the same as the lack of divorce legislation, because to get a divorce overseas, you need to be resident there, a complicated, expensive and at times unrealistic process available only to the very few. If you need an abortion, on the other hand, you just hop on a catamaran with your credit card in your pocket or some euros you’ve withdrawn from the cash machine. So yes, banning abortion in Malta is ultimately pointless. The only purpose it serves is to salve our collective conscience and allow us to pretend that nobody in Malta has abortions, even though thousands have done so over the last couple of decades – and that’s just going on the statistics from the London clinics alone.]
Allowing the church to dictate or decide on the issue of the introduction of divorce or not is pathetic. However, I do not think that the church in Malta has as much leverage as it used to have 10 years ago. Getting a divorce is a very simple, but expensive, and I know a few people who have managed this and also remarried (civilly) in Malta. Why is it that married couples are not allowed to get a divorce, yet nuns and priests are allowed to leave the church and get married – is this not the same principle? A case of 2 weights and 2 measures!!
@ Trevor Zahra :”Why is it that married couples are not allowed to get a divorce, yet nuns and priests are allowed to leave the church and get married – is this not the same principle?” As a lay person I find that there is a big difference : if a married person wants divorce s/he will involve her partner in a lot of ‘unwanted’ trouble, while if a priest leaves his priesthood he will not involve or hurt anyone.
The Church has no power to dictate about divorce . Divorce is solely the State’s business , and lay people cannot dictate to the Church on its internal business….. using the same reasoning.
Trevor you are not comparing like with like , a priest or a nun are considered by the state as “single” and if you are thinking with the lay person’s hat ,keep wearing that hat.
Why are people asking for divorce legislation when they can live together and are ‘recognised’ by the state (e.g.when they have children)?
Why are people in the first place making a wedding ceremony where they solemnly vow that they will support each other “till death do (they)us part”?
Nowadays it is not even financially viable to get married formally. While filling an income tax form lately , I found out that under the section where one declares “other income” , ALL the income from dividends , rent etc is added to the spouse who earns most money even though the income is earned by the other spouse, resulting in a higher tax rate!
In this case a married couple pays MORE tax than two unmarried persons even though the married couple chooses a “separate” assessment? How’s that for supporting the ‘traditional’ stable family?
[Moderator – Couples are NOT “recognised by the state”, by which you probably mean that they have special legal status and rights, just because they live together, whether or not they have children. Where did you get this notion? It’s not even the case in the UK, though the myth persists about common-law husbands and wives. You don’t have to have a joint income tax return when you’re married, and you don’t even have to have community of acquests. You can be married and still keep your financial affairs completely independent of your spouse. Community of acquests is the default regime, not the only one, but almost nobody knows this. Married couples can agree to do away with the community of acquests regime by means of a simple notarial document, and still stay married. The spouse who earns much less or even nothing would be crazy to agree to it, but if both spouses earn roughly the same amount, and agree to make all investments jointly, then it should be no bother.]
@ Corrinne Vella & Moderator:”They want divorce to be unavailable to everyone”
“Yes, that’s right. The bishops want divorce to remain unavailable in Malta, so that it will be unavailable to those who were ‘captured’ into the Catholic Church in infancy.”
Can you please show us where Archbishop Cremona hinted to such strategy?Did you read this:http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/06/01/acremona.html ?
[Moderator – What the Archbishop says is irrelevant, given that he doesn’t appear able to restrain Anton Gouder, who has embarked on a holy crusade against divorce.]
@ MOD “You don’t have to have a joint income tax return when you’re married” I tried and checked with IRD and was told that there was no way out.
This is the reply I got from IRD
“Ghaziz Sinjur
Nixtieq ninfurmak li t-total ta’ qlieh li hemm f’kaxxa numru 23 irid jigi iddikjarat kollu jew f’kaxxa 24 d jew 24 e. Jigifieri dan l-income kollu irid jigi iddikjarat ma minn ghandu l-ghola income.
Ma tistax tintbghat karta ohra tat-taxxa f’isem il-mara tieghek.
Dejjem Tieghek”
XXXXXXXXXX
I would be very glad if your statement was true.
{Moderator – It is true; you can have separate tax returns. What this civil servant is telling you is that you can’t add income from investments to the lower of the two salaries to get away with paying less tax, the reason being that this income is jointly received also by the person with the higher salary. That’s the trouble with community of acquests: it’s considered one income.
What I meant by “recognised by the state” was as far as Social assistance is concerned, they get children’s allowance ,and if they are cheeky they also get an allowance for ‘unknown father’ and other social benefits.
Some people really know the ropes.
[Moderator – That isn’t recognition of couples by the state. Children’s allowance is for the children, regardless of the marital status of their parents.]
@ Moderator :you wrote “Yes, that’s right. The bishops want divorce to remain unavailable in Malta, so that it will be unavailable to those who were ‘captured’ into the Catholic Church in infancy.”
I didn’t know that Fr Gouder was a bishop !
[Moderator – I never said he’s a bishop. I said he is unrestrained, and is likely to be the source of a lot of trouble that nobody needs, all in the name of God.]
@ Mod :Thanks for the informative ‘advice’. What made me really mad was that in previous years it was not like this ,separate assessment was separate in the true sense of the word.
Does” community of acquests ” apply to bank accounts? In other words if a married person dies ,should the money of the surviving spouse be included as part of the money of the dead spouse?
[Moderator – Community of acquests does exactly what it says on the tin: what’s yours is hers and what’s hers is yours. The only exceptions are legacies and inheritances. So if your mother gives you a cash gift while she is still alive, your wife has an equal claim on it. But if your mother leaves you that same amount by virtue of her last will and testament, it’s yours alone. The legal regime is one of the most important things that should be taught to people entering into marriage, but it isn’t.]