“You are making the mistake of projecting the contemporary perception of marriage, of life in general, into the past” . That’s your impression.

In the case of separation, if one of the spouses is awarded some form of maintenance money, this is to be paid by the other spouse until either (a) the death of one of the spouses or (b) where – upon application to the Court by one of the spouses – it is determined that a change in the regime governing the maintenance repayments is necessary due to any changes in either party’s income or other related condition.

Are you sure? All major pre-Christian religions have religious rituals for marriage (including the Roman religion). So I do not think marriage was ever considered sic et simpliciter an economic contract.

[Daphne – Yes, it was. And where there was no distinction between the realm of the gods and that of Caesar, the ‘gods’ ceremony would have sufficed, as it does in Malta, but only for Roman Catholicism. In Europe until – what, 400 years ago? – the role of a churchman at a marriage was purely that of a witness to the marriage contract. He didn’t actually unite the couple in marriage. They did that themselves, by means of a contract.]

A good encyclopedia of world religions will show you that. [

As for your last assertion, a Catholic (Christian) marriage rite goes back to the IV century, evidence of which is found in various texts but can also be seen in a number of sarcophagi.

[Daphne – Please cite chapter and verse of those various texts, and explain to me how it is possible to find evidence of a marriage rite in a sarcophagus. Mention of the word ‘wife’ is not evidence of a marriage rite, still less a spiritual or religious one. A man’s wife was generally no more than the woman he chose for that role and who bore his children. There might have been a contractual obligation, or there might not. It all depends on their status. People buried in a sarcophagus would generally have had plenty of possessions, making a contract necessary. You are making the mistake of projecting the contemporary perception of marriage, of life in general, into the past. Marriage was and remains an economic union and a vehicle for the legitimisation of children and the extension of rights (and the concomitant obligations). Catholicism seized it as a means of legitimising the sexual act. Prior to that, all constraints on sexual activity were rooted in the need for men to ensure that the babies borne by their wives were theirs, and also to ensure that unmarried women were marriageable – hence no bastard children. And that’s why the constraints were on women and not on men, before the general Catholic ban on fornication.]

No, of course I am assuming that he DID indeed have terminal cancer, and if so surely there must be some record or other to prove it. And yes, she should have enlisted the help of a lawyer long ago! There are plenty who would have been happy to help even some for a pittance.

I suppose the real question is, why weren’t there a court order for this? A court case can be enacted in someone’s absence. In this case it seems like there was a legal process underway and a court can only give a finite respect in regards to someone’s absence.

But in simple terms, if they are separated, does that not mean that she would be entitled to maintenance (ooh, how I hate that word)? If she is entitled to maintenance, that maintenance should/could be extracted from the husband’s pension. Perhaps as you said (a few times now), there just isn’t enough details.

[Daphne – There has to be a court order for that.]

Of course economics cannot be excluded from the marriage package but I remain of the opinion that it is more than a purely economic relationship. What’s the economic advantage of marrying somebody who’s not in a good position to provide by virtue of limited financial means or limited abilities?

[Daphne – That’s why there’s a Maltese saying ‘Minghajr flus la tghannaq u l-anqas tbus.]

In some cases even the longer term prospects for improving the family’s economic situation appear bleak, yet people get married even in such situations.

[Daphne – Marriage is NO LONGER purely an economic arrangement in contemporary eyes. It remains, however, purely an economic arrangement, with responsibilities for any attendant minor children, in the law. And that’s is why it is so ridiculous that you cannot dissolve the marriage by means of divorce, when you can dissolve the economic unity – and hence the legal essence of the marriage – by means of a simple, one-page notary contract.]

Moreover, if marriage were purely an economic arrangement, one or both of the partners should be overjoyed if the other delves into the realm of prostitution, a trade whose revenue generation prospects are not insignificant. Yet I think we can agree that one of the main causes of separations remains infidelity.

[Daphne – A fatuous argument and a non sequitur.]

My understanding is that marriage is not a phenomenon limited to Christianity. It predates Christianity and in one form or another is found in most cultures.

[Daphne – Yes, precisely because it is not a religious or spiritual union but a contractual agreement between a man and a woman to share their efforts and resources in raising their legitimate children. Up to a few hundred years ago, the only couples to actually have a marriage contract, rather than simply moving in together after a quick verbal agreement witnessed by no one, were those with property, titles and goods and chattels.]
Therefore Christianity did not hijack anything in this sense. If anything it contributed to the consolidation of the institution.

[Daphne – Christianity, or rather Catholicism, definitely hijacked marriage. It was a completely secular thing up to a few centuries ago. It was secular well into Christianity. The Catholic rite as we know it is fairly recent in historical terms.]

I agree with you about the compatibility aspect in marriage bit but only to an extent. Compatibility is an important element that probably contributes to the forging of the initial spark in the first place.

[Daphne – No, that initial spark is sexual attraction. Usually, what compatibility makes for is friendship, not lust.]

Having said that, I know quite a few couples who were rather compatible, had great fondness of each other, shared similar ideas but ended up hating each other’s guts. Then I also know couples where compatibility was not the first item on the agenda, had to experience considerable turmoil but remained together in spite of adversities.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule in life but if I were to place my money on the likely prospects of a successful relationship, I would not throw all the money on compatibility and fondness on their own. In addition to the three ingredients I mentioned earlier I would add a good communication rapport. If two people accept that they are different, discuss their feelings about it, tolerate different points of view, agree to disagree on a number of points, are not too selfish on maintaining their ground and love each other, then I do believe that the prospects in such a scenario would be rather promising.

[Daphne – I agree, but I also think that you can talk a marriage to death. Endless discussion is what sends many husbands, and some wives, running for the hills. It’s so not restful.]

Naturally, the foregoing would not, in general, be applicable to marriages of convenience.

[Daphne – They’re some of the ones which last longest. Ask yourself why.]

And Madam – keep up the good writing. I may not always agree with your ideas but I enjoy reading anyway. Very refreshing.

Does this mean the government was already paying him an old age? Does this mean that the government is refusing to pay the widow’s pension instead of the old age pension? Surely, it cannot have it both ways?

[Daphne There’s a lot of misunderstanding about pension rights here. I understand it myself only because I once had to work in a related field. Regardless of the community of acquisition in a marriage, it is the individual who actually pays national insurance contributions who has pension rights. The rights of a spouse who has not paid NI contributions are derived not from the NI contributions of the other spouse, but from the community of acquisition regime. To spell it out: the pension rights are the husband’s alone (in a case where only the husband pays NI). But the minute that pension cheque is issued, it becomes income, and hence it is subject to the community of acquisition regime and 50% of it is the wife’s. That is why, if the couple are legally separated, the wife cannot lay claim to that pension but only to what the court has ordered her husband should pay her as maintenance. Separated women who have never paid NI do not have a pension – a point many women choose to overlook – nor do they have pension rights. They have maintenance from their husband and, failing that, they are given, ex gratia and after application, the state minimum pension, which is what Mrs Lopez appears to have.

The point being missed in this story is that Mr and Mrs Lopez were separated. That complicates matters further. Separated women do not have automatic rights to a widow’s pension. It all depends on the terms and conditions of their separation agreement. When you separate from your spouse at law, what gets ‘separated’ in actual fact is the community of acquisition, and hence the woman has no more of an automatic right on her husband’s pension cheque than she would have had on his pay cheque.]