Companions, know thy place
The evil stepmother features in so many fairytales and folk-tales because the psychology is rooted in reality. Today in Malta, we have daddy's evil girlfriend.
I’m beginning to think that what we contend with now in Malta is not so much fear of and opposition to divorce as fear of and opposition to remarriage.
The tirades of the anti-divorce brigade are countered quite simply with the argument that divorce brings nothing worse than what we have already with marital breakdown and separation. The children of separated parents are no better off or worse off than the children of divorced parents (and where there are no children, who cares?).
The anti-divorce brigade has no answer to this because they can see the inherent logic. And yet they remain unconvinced.
Their concerns are not assuaged by such commonsense and they are unable to put them into words, either because they have not formulated them, or because they are embarrassed to do so out loud. They are not afraid of divorce. They are uncomfortable with the idea of remarriage.
Remarriage will give official status to somebody they can now disparage as a fly-by-night concubine or boyfriend. In the current situation, the spouse has superior status to the companion. Remarriage will put companions on an equal status footing to the spouses they have replaced. That is what people don’t like.
When those who argue for divorce say that it is a good thing because it allows people who live together to marry instead, they are unwittingly putting their finger on the root cause of the opposition to it. Others don’t want people to be permitted to remarry.
They can see that the consequences of separation and divorce are identical; they’re not blind or stupid. They are identical in every respect but one: remarriage. It is that one thing on which all their fear and opposition hinges. Religion has nothing to do with it. In Malta, it never really did. It is amoral pragmatism, not religion, which lies at the heart of Maltese social culture.
It is precisely because living together is considered socially and legally inferior that people who reason this way believe it to be preferable to divorce and remarriage. It gives the ‘original’ spouse superior status. I am certain that if there were some way divorce could be introduced without subsequent marriage being permitted, then opposition to it would fall away completely.
Up to a generation ago, when people left their spouse and set up home with somebody else, they were pogguti. Their status was beyond the pale. They mixed in a sort of alternative society with others who were in the same situation. Even if the relationship lasted for years, longer than their actual marriages, they still had, in the eyes of society, inferior status.
Even when things began to change and marriages began to break down by the thousand, with people forming not only new relationships but also new families, the lack of spousal status means that the people in those relationships are still regarded, at a subconscious level or even overtly, as not being official or even quite legitimate.
The disparaging word pogguti is now seen as politically incorrect and impolite, but like it or not, this is the way most people still think. The fact that couples ‘live in sin’ because one of them is married to somebody else allows others to disapprove, something they will not be able to do if the objects of their disapproval contract themselves to each other in marriage.
You may laugh at what I am going to say next, but think about it and you may well find some veracity in it. What we have now is a social situation (the legal situation is something else) of Chief Wife with legitimate status, whose children are the ‘official’ ones, and concubine/s with or without children who are usurpers of the rights and inheritance of the first, official lot.
I consider it mainly from this point of view because women are far less likely to have children in a subsequent relationship when their marriage fails, especially if they have had children already with their husband. Some do, but it is most unusual. Men say they won’t but then invariably get tricked into it, unless they take up with somebody past child-bearing years or they have a vasectomy.
What is certain is that both women and men, regardless of the circumstances in which the marriage broke down, tend to regard their spouse’s subsequent companion as an interloper, someone extraneous to the original family set-up when that family includes children. In this, they are entirely correct, because subsequent companions are indeed extraneous when the ‘original’ family meets, and so they should know their place and stay away.
They might not like hearing this, but they would do well to see the sense in it, even if only for their own sake. Nothing can endanger more the prospects for the survival of their relationship than continually engaging in battle with their companion’s original family.
Malta is only just learning how to deal with the social norms in terms of subsequent relationships. We are as yet uncertain of the etiquette involved, or how far we should go in respecting the feelings of others. This applies only where the married couple have children together, as those children will hold them together for the rest of their lives – something that subsequent companions, even when they have children themselves, often resent and fight against. They do their worst in imposing themselves on the original family unit, causing a great deal of unhappiness which could be avoided.
The companions of fathers are usually the worst culprits in this respect. This is not just because men can be less sensitive to their children’s feelings than women are, and more prone to manipulation by the women they sleep with, and so more likely to give in to their demands even when they are in conflict with those of their children. It’s also because women who enter into a relationship with a man who has children already tend to see the situation as a competitive sport.
I score points over her and her sprogs. She scores points over me. I’ll be damned if she’s going to get her way. He spent all that money on his children! Now he’ll have to spend some on me. I’ll be damned if she thinks she’s going to get away with it. My God, has he brought her to the party? He’s got a nerve. She’s got a bloody cheek.
The brawl at that First Holy Communion ceremony in Dingli last week was a case in point. The mother left her companion at home. The father did not. He brought his girlfriend to his son’s ceremony, where she did not belong and had no place. He probably reasoned that it would have been disrespectful towards her to leave her behind. He thought little or nothing of the disrespect he showed to his wife, her family and above all, their son. The girlfriend probably felt the same way. She was damned if she was going to let anyone ‘disrespect’ her. Neither of them stopped to think that it was not about them, that what they felt and thought was not important.
One of the most ridiculous examples of poor behaviour that I have heard of is that of the man who took his pregnant girlfriend – for whom he had abandoned his family – to his child’s First Holy Communion ceremony (seems to be where all the action is nowadays). The pregnant girlfriend, not content with upsetting everyone by her presence, also felt the pressing need to go up the aisle, hands meekly folded, to receive the Eucharist with her eyes closed. You can imagine how well that went down.
A situation like that involves the child only – the child and his biological parents. Third parties, even if they share a bed and a home with one of those parents, are completely extraneous. They do not have any place at or part in the ceremony, and so should have the dignity and the decency to stay at home of their own volition. There is no shame in this. There is only honour.
On the other hand, foisting yourself on the original family unit, when you know you are going to cause unhappiness because you do not belong there, is dishonourable, vulgar and downright nasty. It is true that women can be utter bitches, but then men let them be that way, and are in great part to blame. It is as though they enjoy, in a perverse way, having two sexual partners – one current and the other former – tying themselves up into knots of difficulty about them.
Then there are the men who actually get a thrill out of parading their current sexual partner in front of their former one, especially if she has a baby on her hip. It’s all so very tedious.
When the children grow up, the situation might change. Depending on what sort of relationship you have had with them, you might be a tolerated, if not necessarily welcome, guest at their wedding alongside their biological parent. But even then, if you see that your presence at the wedding is going to cause unhappiness and disruption to those who have more right to be there, then just don’t go.
At one wedding I knew of a couple of years ago, the groom’s mother stayed home because she couldn’t contend with the presence of her ex-husband’s second wife. The second wife made a point of going despite knowing this would happen – or, as I suspect, deliberately to provoke it, even though she knew this would cast a pall over her stepson’s big day.
Of course, you can argue that the mother should have overcome her unhappiness for her son’s sake, but a stronger argument is that the stepmother shouldn’t have been so spiteful and manipulative. You can also argue that that her husband shouldn’t have been so weak, and should have demanded that she stay at home, rather than throw a shadow over his son’s wedding day. But then he probably reasoned, as weak men do, that his bread is buttered on his wife’s side, not his son’s, that it is her he has to live with.
I know that some people will find this a controversial position, but I believe that the parents-child relationship should be respected at all times and that those who willingly and knowingly enter into a relationship or marriage with somebody who has children already should be fully aware that a different code of behaviour is required.
If they are not prepared to accept this, then they should end the relationship and look for somebody who has no children, remembering always that children retain privileged status in their parents’ lives even when they are middle-aged and have children of their own.
A woman should never oblige a man to choose between her and the children he has had with somebody else. Yet women do this all the time. Sometimes, they even have children for the sole purpose of competing in status with the first wife. Then they put their children into competition with the first wife’s children.
I don’t feel sorry for the men in this position. In general, I think they are idiots who have brought it upon themselves. But I do feel sorry for the children.
When women are too old to have children, they engage in other competitive stratagems, like making scenes, forcing the man to choose, and other attention-seeking behaviour. This is most unwise, because though some men are weak, in general, the surest way a woman can ensure she gets dumped by her man is to compete for attention with his children.
The woman who does this is in a double-bind. Every woman knows instinctively that if a man chooses her over his children, then he is not worth having. The man who treats his children cavalierly will treat his companion in the same way, sooner or later.
It is the same double-bind women find themselves in when they try to remove a man from his current relationship. If they succeed, their prize is tainted with the knowledge that if he did it to the mother of his children, then he will think nothing of doing the same to them.
I once had to listen to a man’s companion speak with distaste and contempt about his wife, who had turned up on their doorstep a little while before to harangue her for breaking up her family. The companion had no children at the time (but later produced one by getting pregnant ‘by mistake’). The wife did. I remember thinking, “Don’t be so hasty with your contempt, my dear, because one day, that is going to be you.” And one day, it was.
Those who enter into a relationship with somebody who has had a family already have to learn that the rules of play are completely different. A wife with children does not have the status of an ex-girlfriend. The father of your companion’s children is not the same thing an ex-boyfriend. You are not entitled to make scenes if they ring in the middle of the night with bad news about a child, or in the middle of lunch with good news about examination results. You are not entitled to demand that your companion buys you a car when he buys one for his daughter. You have no right to ban your companion from meeting her husband for coffee to talk about problems with recalcitrant teenage children.
When you take on a companion with children in his or her present, a marriage in his or her past, and plenty of emotional and financial baggage, then you just have to accept it, and do so with honour and dignity. End of story.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
65 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Hawwadnl ha nifhmek. And this is today’s liberal society.
A work of art. I think this article outshines any other of your work. Pure genius!
Without overgeneralising I think you’ll find that for many of these people honour and dignity were what was lacking in their first marriage. It is therefore highly unlikely that they will act with honour and dignity in their subsequent relationships.
How does this facet of reality bolster the argument for divorce?
You said – and I thoroughly agree with you – “divorce brings nothing worse than what we have already with marital breakdown and separation”
I think you missed – or refused to mention – a pivotal point if divorce were to be legally recognized here. The spiteful – and shameful, may I add – behaviour you mention will be “a right” of the new spouse. I know that a basic sense of decency would reduce many “crimes” but the way I see it, I don’t think that people in “acrimonious divorce battles” (I like the phrase :) ) would be really concerned with showing compassion to a partner’s ex or even allow decency to govern their actions. I’m sure you can tell me stories of separation cases reading like something straight out of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. And what would happen in the case of a serial divorcee?
[Daphne – Everything I said applies equally to subsequent spouses, as well as to companions.]
You know that I am a practising Catholic with anti-divorce views. I acknowledge that marriages have always broken down and always will. But why should we allow the state to support “irregular family units”? (I’m afraid you’ll have to put up with me calling them this.)
If one wants divorce one is obviously not Catholic, so why marry in Church the first place? Maltese society is much more tolerant of irregular family units these days. “Pogguti” is nearly acceptable. Divorce is nothing but a convenience-driven contrivance. People who don’t want to marry can just draw up a civil contract stipulating division of goods in the eventuality of the partnership ending and that’s that. Businesses go bust every day.
Nobody enters marriage with a view to a breakdown, you may counter. (I ask you what is a pre-nup agreement if not exactly that, but that’s beside the point) If divorce becomes an option, we will.
A marriage which only makes sense in a Christian – not to say Catholic – point of view is one where both spouses make that extra effort to hang in there purely out of love for each other and love for God (remember him?) I know that sometimes unforeseen circumstances throw a spanner in the works, but we must not allow ourselves the luxury of a safety net.
Besides, all the people clamouring for divorce are not really aware of what it entails. “Be careful what you wish for” springs to mind. I rather see it as a two-fingered salute to the Church rather than a societal need.
The absence of divorce legislation has obviously done nothing to strengthen marriage. But its introduction will definitely weaken marriage. Children are necessarily collateral damage in separation and divorce. Do we want to make them subjects of prolonged court battles just to spite our first spouses?
Having said all this I can’t even begin to imagine the hardship of a failed marriage, but I still think that divorce is not the answer. I can’t see what good will come out of it …
“I can’t even begin to imagine the hardship of a failed marriage.”
I’m absolutely sure you can’t. Otherwise you would know that divorce, in certain cases, is the only solution.
People do not get divorced because of a mere spanner in the works. It takes much more than that.
“But why should we allow the state to support “irregular family units”
It’s not up to you or the state to allow it!
“If one wants divorce one is obviously not Catholic, so why marry in Church the first place?”
The spouse might be Catholic, one could lose faith (very easy to do) …
“People who don’t want to marry can just draw up a civil contract stipulating division of goods in the eventuality of the partnership ending and that’s that. Businesses go bust every day. ”
Whoever told you people don’t want to marry?
“Nobody enters marriage with a view to a breakdown, you may counter. (I ask you what is a pre-nup agreement if not exactly that, but that’s beside the point) If divorce becomes an option, we will. ”
You must have attended too much MUSEUM to say that! What would be the point?
“Besides, all the people clamouring for divorce are not really aware of what it entails. “Be careful what you wish for” springs to mind.”
That is their business, as a practising Catholic it won’t affect you!
“But its introduction will definitely weaken marriage. Children are necessarily collateral damage in separation and divorce. Do we want to make them subjects of prolonged court battles just to spite our first spouses? ”
Why, isn’t that the case as things are?
“I can’t see what good will come out of it”
What harm will come out of it for you?
At last, someone who remembers the phrase “for better or for worse”. This blog needs people like Reuben!
Great piece of work Daphne. If only everyone in this situation reads and understands this what a great world we would have.
I read this interesting article full of practical rules and advice.
The one quip that comes to mind is from an article by that great but much hated G.K. Chesterton when he once said “When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”
X’tahwid go din il-gzira sacra. Fejn m’ghandiex divorzju ghax ahna kattolici. Imbaghad kemm alla halaq tfal barra miz-zwieg u koppji mhux mizzewgin jghixi flimkien minhabba li jkunu gejjin minn zwigijiet li tfarrku. Xi zwieg li jkun tfarrak minhabba xi Kristjan li tkun ghogbitu xi ohra.
Shows that being a companion does not automatically make you a partner.
Very good article which only touches the tip of the complications iceberg when marriages with children fail and new families are started.
The issue should not be whether to allow divorce to be introduced or otherwise. In today’s society new families are still being created after the first marriage breakdown in spite of it not yet being locally available. Divorce may actually constitute a “solution” to some of the unfortunate families.
The drive should be to strive to encourage values which lessen the risk of marriage breakdown in the first place. Once the lesson “don’t do unto others what you don’t want them to do unto you” is firmly enshrined in the psyche, then the risk of marriage breakdown will most likely decrease substantially. The church, the media and the various leaders in our society have a very important role to play on this matter. However, each and every one of us is equally responsible especially through the example that we convey to the younger generation.
Yes indeed, the issue seems to be entirely opposition to re-marriage, even for the proposed co-habitation law that, as I understand it, would also limit live-in arrangements so to be restricted so as not to allow a new live-in arrangement with a third-party: in other words, all the limitations of “marriage,” but without actually being married. If you once marry, or co-habit, then “no other relationship” for you!
Such “regularization” of co-habiting couples amounts to a de facto marriage–without divorce. So, when a couple, for their own reasons, decide to live together without marriage, even though marriage is an option open to them, it seems that under the proposed co-habitation restrictions, if their co-habitation eventually “dissolves,” they would be prevented from taking up a relationship with another party, once their partnership arrangement is covered under the co-habitation law.
Is this simply my imagination, or are the current lot proposing co-habitation laws as absurd as it appears?
If I am not imagining, then there is ONLY one solution. Cease and desist from any co-habitation legislation; and go straight to DIVORCE legislation, which allows re-marriage.
That will rectify a great deal of the cases of co-habitation, with justice. And if people who live together do not want to get married, leave them be: it is THEIR choice. And if after divorce, people choose not to remarry–fine; if they want to remarry, fine again; let THEM be.
Stop the dancing angels on the head of a pin routine against RE-MARRIAGE, or the absence of MARRIAGE in a relationship not bound by a marriage contract when people may be living together. LEAVE PEOPLE FREE to make their own decisions without the interference of a busy-body state imposing its contortions on non-consenting adults.
The issue as I understand it is that there are two groups of people who use the same words but with different meaning.
For people like me “marriage” means a lifelong bond between a man and a woman with God as “glue”. Once you’re married you’ve got to stick with your spouse through thick and thin. If something happens that makes the situation untenable for one or both of the spouses, they separate. They are still married to each other. They cannot seek another “partner”.
Then there are people for whom “marriage” has an entirely different meaning. It involves a union between two people but with many provisos and caveats thrown in.
They will not accept my understanding of marriage and I will not accept theirs. On the other hand I appreciate that neither of us can impose our views on the other. However, as I see it, there is nothing that can’t be walked around in this divorce thing. Let’s face it. Divorce or no divorce people are carrying on with their business. That is up to them. It’s nobody else’s business.
It becomes our collective business however when we allow an already ailing institution – marriage as people like me and I understand it – to be exposed to further destabilising influences. Allow me to illustrate with a banal example.
In a class of students you have hard workers and students who don’t work as hard. Come exam season, everybody is promoted. Will it motivate the hard workers to work hard next year too? It was hard enough this year, they won’t be bothered if they’ll have nothing to show for their effort.
Divorce gives one the opportunity to get one’s own back at one’s ex-spouse. S/he’ll have the TV over my dead body sort of thing. Not that this thing doesn’t happen during a separation, mind you.
At the end of the day it all boils down to how we perceive marriage. Decency requires us to “agree to disagree”, halve our possessions amicably and move on. How many people you know can do that? Do you think that in granting divorce we’d be making life easier for anyone? I think not. I think that divorce (and separation in some cases) brings out the worst in us and our only objective is to inflict pain on a person we thought we loved.
@Reuben
Your reply is very thoughtful, sincere, and open to dialogue. Let me suggest some further thoughts regarding your exploratory thoughts and questions.
Re (1): “marriage” means a lifelong bond between a man and a woman with God as “glue”
One must keep in mind the distinction between “marriage” and “contracting a marriage.” If the marriage is “invalid,” it is not a marriage. Even the Church (as well as the State of Malta) recognize “annulment,” according to their respective and sometimes similar criteria. A “marriage contract” is a public legal bond; having one does not make a “marriage” valid. But a “marriage contract” gives legal force to a marriage bond. A divorce removes the “marriage contract” and at the same time provides legal recognition to any responsibilities for the couple derived from the former “marriage contract.”
While some may regard the existence of “annulment” as a sophist disregard for marriage, its existence proves the point against your likely presumption: it shows that the public entry into a “marriage contract” does not equate with “marriage.” In fact the “marriage” may have been invalid; and respectively Church or State, in their respective jurisdictions, may recognize that there is “no sacramental bond” or “no legal bond.”
If you want to maintain your “sacramental” definition of marriage, your concept is still respected by “annulment.” But as is implied by your starting position, you cannot maintain that entering into the contract of marriage itself makes the “bond” everlasting. There are finer points to be considered, of which we the people are not in a position to judge without very precise determinations from the “married” couple.
The couple themselves may correctly come to those determinations on their own or with professional help or after long struggle with the issue. But the Church reserves its jurisdiction to make that judgment of nullity; and the civil courts in Malta also make that civil judgment. Divorce is a different matter than determinations of validity and nullity: divorce, without such determinations, simply terminates the legal civil bond of the “marriage contract.”
You seem to be arguing that “marriage” always must be regarded religiously or sacramentally, and that “marriage,” once “contracted,” cannot be dissolved. I am insisting that the social contract of “marriage” is independent of any religious formulation or connotations. There are State marriages and Church marriages, but both must be given their civil status, for the “social contract” of marriage is what is regulated by the State. All Nation States, except Malta and the Philippines, recognize that this same “social contract” can be properly dissolved under the “justice” of the civil law.
Like you, I believe that marriage is no small matter; I regard it most highly. My regard for divorce does not lessen my regard for marriage, or sacramental regard for marriage. In fact, after a divorce and church annulment in my first marriage of over twenty years, my present wife and I were married twice, to each other: first by the State (1996) and then by the church (2008), soon after the last technical impediments (ligimen) to a church marriage were removed (when her first husband ultimately died); long, long before, my present wife also had a civil annulment of her first marriage.
My second marriage was not a contradiction to my religious beliefs or values for marriage, as a matter of conscience and choice. Nor was my original use of “divorce” in the instance of my first marriage any violation of conscience, either. The social dissolution of the “marriage contract” is an independent consideration from “religious issues.”
Re (2): It becomes our collective business however when we allow an already ailing institution – marriage as people like me and I understand it – to be exposed to further destabilising influences.
I can tell you this, I had fought the “good fight” for twenty years in the first “marriage.” However, it was “destabilized” from the beginning. It took me ten years before I could, at last, admit it; and after that I continued “trying” to make it work for another ten years, exhausting every available interpersonal and professional resource.
Divorce is a tool of stabilization, not destabilization. Divorce is not the weapon, but often the children are, when one spouse tries to use the children to beat the other spouse into submission. There are many emotions and turmoils experienced by a couple when a marriage is in trouble or has failed or never was, in truth, what a marriage is or should be. Try fear or terror at the prospect that the marriage relationship is failed. Life in the “ideal” is entirely threatened: interpersonally, socially, economically–especially when there are children (I had four sons) when the first undeniable crisis exploded on the scene.
There is wild frustration, anger, resentment, and sometimes blaming, persecution, and hostility–generally throughout all the efforts to make the “marriage” work.
Divorce is a final straw and a tool of last and necessary resort. Divorce is not motivated by revenge. Divorce is not escape. Divorce is necessary when otherwise the individuals involved will “self-destruct,” when “murder” and forms of “suicide” are not options, in the interest of family and personal sanity. The angry thoughts of “revenge” are more likely to arise when one spouse feels aggrieved by the “divorce.” Revenge is often visited upon the spouse who pulls the plug.
Divorce is a rational choice in the interests of self, one’s spouse, and one’s children. In my not untypical “American” divorce, I had to leave all of my earthly possessions to my ex-wife and children, with all of its future financial liabilities and crucifixions: in order that everyone would survive, live, grow, and recognize truth, even when it is hard truth.
I would say that I have succeeded. I am re-married in a relationship that is already 17-years old. My first son had the misfortune of disastrous first marriage, which became evident early on; without children, he had the courage to bite the bullet after six years. He is independent, successful, and in a committed loving relationship with his partner; his experience was brutal, but he learned from mine and had the courage to move forward.
My second son is very happily married in the church: and there is my only grandchild, in a marriage that is thriving and with family.
My third son always has been “gay.” His life is more complicated.
And my fourth son, 30 years old, will be married in October: he also is very independent, successful, and refused “to be told” how to conduct his marriage with his fiancee; it is their business, and having lived together for a couple years, they are having a small wedding; and he is not going to convert to Judaism (as the in-laws would like), etc. They plan to take their marriage on “world tour” and will be visiting family shortly thereafter, as he kindly explained why he didn’t really expect me to fly to New York for four hours of cocktails.
Like Abraham, who was nearly 100 years old when he and Sarah were still childless, when a “marriage” fails you have to have “faith,” “courage,” and a firm sense of “hope” for what cannot be seen, but, for those who may be religious, trust in God, despite the torturous paths we have to take. Divorce may be a tool of revenge for some; but for other, like myself, it was a tool of “love” and ultimate “self-respect” and parental guidance for my children. As for my ex-wife, I don’t know: that is her responsibility. I am abiding by mine.
Divorce is a human right based upon the essence of human dignity. For others to try to deny access to divorce for others, is playing “God,” who alone is the judge in these matters. Divorce is a personal decision, and it is a social tool that ultimately brings about stability in families, where before that could only be disaster, chaos, and a possible perpetuation, if parties remain in denial.
Divorce may also strengthen marriages by making spouses be more responsible to their marriage commitments, rather than taking marriage for granted, because they have bound their spouse to a “marriage contract,” but without the essence of what a marriage should be.
@ Edward Clemmer
I would not like to comment on your painful experience because it is not my place, nor would it be fair (for me) to use it in any of my arguments. I am sorry to see what you had to go through.
I would like to clarify a crucial point in your reply. Annulment is not a “cancellation”. It is not tantamount to divorce nor is it man tearing asunder what God has bound, to borrow a phrase. A declaration of nullity means that the marriage – in the Catholic sense – was never there to begin with. In a way I think it’s even more “painful” than divorce, as it seems to imply (my understanding) that the “spouses” were living something that wasn’t. I will not go into the ramifications of all this, but it’s important to establish it at the outset.
Obtaining a declaration of nullity is no easy matter – even though nowadays it’s becoming more frequent. We must also bear in mind that in some cases – one or both parties perjure themselves to achieve their goal.
I think that one’s view of divorce is based on one’s view of marriage. I am not implying that there are no valid reasons for people wanting to leave a marriage, nor am I trying to say that some reasons are more valid than others. I think that marriage (as I understand it) has to be looked at as a sort of investment. If you invest heavily in a venture you fight tooth and claw before giving up on it. If your investment was minimal it doesn’t really matter if the business does well or not. I am not talking about any one case in particular, but I think that it’s a helpful analogy.
I think that we are falling victim to the “Life-is-now” syndrome. I want to become rich. NOW. I want to have a slim figure. NOW. Life has become a caricature of the “No pain, no gain” maxim. We are led to believe that there is a plane of life with no consequences.
You may think that I have gone off at a tangent, but if you look hard enough you will see that our “expendable commodities” mentality has spilled over into our interpersonal relationships.
I apologise for having cast this mood into what should have been some light-hearted banter, but I don’t believe that our perception of marriage can be divorced (witty, that :) )from our perception of people.
So sad. I wonder why people do such things to the detriment of their own children. True that certain marriages are beyond repair, but to harm the upbringing, either through hatred of the other party (and I mean of the broken marriage) or by using a partner (probably to show off anyway) is one of the worst sins anyone could live through.
It always gets back to you in the end. So don’t do anything that you don’t wish to rebound on you.
Thanks, Daphne – another article worth reflecting on.
One of your best articles, by quite a margin, of late.
apropos of companions and stepmothers … http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/7896513/Wicked-stepmother-I-just-want-be-their-friend….html
From The Sunday Times today:
1) Joseph Muscat says of divorce: “not if, but how”.
2) The gay rights movement feels ‘insulted’ with the cohabitation-law-in-the-making, because it puts them “in the same basket as relatives, siblings and friends living together”.
This country needs time-out to get its act together and take a firm grip on reality. My message to these people is, u jiehdu ghalihom kemm iridu:
1) Gay rights lobby: Shut up and join the queue. Divorce first, gay marriages second. There are still scores of ‘civilised’ countries without cohabitation laws. Take the cohabitation law and say thank you for the time being. You are getting more than separated heterosexual couples in their thousands will have.
2) Joseph Muscat: Join a boot camp. You need it. Grow up, rabbi ftit il-b*jd, and return to the political scene afterward. You are nothing but a bandwagon-jumper with no guts or principles.
3) Lawrence Gonzi: Act like a prime minister, not a cowering rabbit. Introduce divorce now, rather than later. The election is still three years away, and you don’t need a referendum or party electoral manifesto to make a minor amendment to the civil code – and you jolly well know it. This problem is not going away, so take the bull by the horns and get rid of it.
In my humble opinion those who are in favour of divorce are more pro family then those who are against divorce. Those whose marriage have broken down simply want to put the past behind them and given another chance of starting another family.
The whole point of marriage is that you are not allowed to throw the past behind you even if it breaks down. The vow one takes (religious or secular) means one has to stay there and work hard at it even if the other party fails to do the same.
The essence of marriages and families has a permanent attribute attached to it. The sad thing about divorce is that it will change that principle by turning marriages into temporary things.
And yet the funny thing about divorce is that it allows a man to escape his vow so as to be able to take another one. To me that is a dilution of the marriage vow into a complete nothingness.
It seems that we are too tired to take our vows or demand others to take theirs seriously.
Well said, AP
Daphne, I agree with your arguments. Ultimately, you are speaking about innate egoism and envy. So thumbs up.
But I think that the antagonism towards divorce reflects many other factors: incessant negative publicity from the Catholic Church, our parents, some of the media, opinion leaders, some of the politicians, and so on.
Then there’s the lack of balanced information. Because we do not have divorce, we do not know what divorce would be like when we have it. And that may mean that many people (say married women who are financially dependent on their husband) are scared of, for instance, the legal implications on custody and bringing up children, the separation of the property, esp. the house, held in marriage etc.
[Daphne – The situation with divorce is no different to the situation with separation. I cannot understand this drummed-up fear of legions of people dependent on social benefits because of divorce. Just as you get settlement and maintenance with separation, so you get settlement and maintenance with divorce. Divorce is actually more efficient at safeguarding the interests of financially dependent women than the situation we have now.]
It has been proven over and over again that when people are scared of something because they do not know enough about it, or have only been told negative things about it, they show aversion to it.
The debate is set to continue under the sweltering heat.
You see, Daphne. I was not aware of some of the points you make here. So for instance, I was not aware there would still be maintenance with divorce – probably you mean the children, not the former spouse.
[Daphne – How could you not know that? Define alimony.]
Now do not forget that many people who never got separated probably do not know (and I would not be surprised if they do not want to know) what separation, let alone divorce, is about – so they feel comfortable to oppose it.
And I believe that even the difference between separation, divorce, annulment, cohabitation laws etc is still not clear in the minds of many people. Surely, an education campaign is part of the process.
The difference between separation, divorce, annulment, cohabitation laws etc, are simply the pieces of paper that define the status of each one. Its all in the mind.
Divorce simply gives ONE ‘status’ in the eyes of the law above separation – the ability to remarry.
In practice, anyone can do anything they please, with all the trimmings they want to pick and choose or ignore, which is what happens in Malta anyway due to the lack of divorce.
I wager that the majority of people who want divorce are separated people in a relationship, along with their friends and family, who want to formalise their status. These are the same people who have been brought up believing in the family. It is a moral mind-set, nothing else.
The lack of divorce in Malta merely pushes these people towards an a-la-carte relationship.
Believe it or not, the lack of divorce is actually destroying the concept of a family backed by legislation, as more and more people are forced to slowly realise that they do not need ANY kind of legislation to get what they want. A notary will suffice in ANY circumstance. And this reality is spreading fast, especially to the younger generation.
The bottom line is that society is ruled by law. The lack of divorce leaves an incredibly HUGE gap in Malta’s legal structure, which in practice causes havoc in the overall cohesion. Except that in this case, the lack of a law does not stop people doing whatever they ruddy well want. And there is NOTHING the government, or the church, can do about it.
Jekk il bieb mghaluq, hemm twieqi kemm trid. In the long run, anarchy will rule across the majority of the board in marital matters at this rate.
For those who oppose divorce, just think of it as the lesser of two evils, the second being doing nothing, if that’s the way you want to define divorce.
No ‘insahhu il familja’ rhetoric or Playstation-sponsored billboard is going to change reality.
Alan, well said. Especially this statement: “the lack of divorce is actually destroying the concept of a family backed by legislation…”
Just wanted to point out that should say “bieb maghluq”, and do not be surprised if the Sony Corporation comes out to disassociate itself from that billboard in Zebbug.
Very informative and true to life. I can only add that there are people who don’t want divorce because it will bring down their paraventu, Tispiccalhom l-iskuza li ma jistghux jizzewgu! If divorce is introduced no one is obliged to go for it.
“In Malta, it never really did. It is amoral pragmatism, not religion, which lies at the heart of Maltese social culture.”
Brilliant.
May I add something? It is not political principles, either.
I am glad we are finally sharing the same view. The divorce issue could perhaps – finally – introduce to this country the idea of discussing matters, understanding them, and taking a position which has some moral validity.
I commend you for this insightful article. Prosit!
Meta taccetta persuna li gejja minn zwieg iehor trid taccetta kollox fosthom il-problemi finanzjari (f’kaz ta nies b’income normali).
Nista nitkellem dwar l-Italja ghax hawn qed nghix bhalissa. Hawn hafna kazijiet fejn il-mara halfet li ma tridx tahdem wara d-divorzju halli tkun tista tghix minn fuq ir-ragel. Mela r-ragel obbligat li jmantniha ghal dejjem anke jekk dan jerga jizzewweg u jkollu it-tieni familja. Sakemm din tibqa b’ida fuq zaqqha u ma tahdimx trid tmantniha.
Fl-opinjoni tieghi meta f’pajjiz jidhol id-divorzju jrid ikun hemm ligijiet li jipprotegu sew lill- partijiet involuti. Jekk dan iz-zwieg spicca u l-istat hallu kif il-ligi tghid lir-ragel ibqa mantni lil ex-mara ghal ghomrok?
Naf kaz ta’ koppja Welsh fejn iddevorzjaw. Hi kellha partime job li ma kienx bizzejjed biex tmantni lilha nfisha. mela r-ragel irid jghina tirranga s-sitwazzjoni billi jaghtiha l-manteniment (minflok marret sabet full time job ha taqla aktar flus). Il-qorti qatghata li hi kellha d-dritt li tkompli bil-hajja pjuttost lussuza li kellha ma zewgha, ghalhekk il-manteniment kien veru gholi.
Nies b’income normali u jinqabdu f’certu xibka ta’ separazzjoni, il-mara, il-partner, tfal miz-zewg nisa, propjeta fejn tghix l-ewwel familja u t-tieni, ma noqghodux nimlew rasna b’li naraw fis-soap operas. Kull min inqabad f’din ix-xibka qieghed f’sitwazzjoni tal-biza. L-iktar jekk il-mara u l-partner jiddeciedu li jridu jghixu minn fuq dan il-proxxmu.
“Mela r-ragel obbligat li jmantniha ghal dejjem anke jekk dan jerga jizzewweg u jkollu it-tieni familja. Sakemm din tibqa b’ida fuq zaqqha u ma tahdimx trid tmantniha.”
If that’s what their divorce agreement stipulated, tough luck to him.
“Il-qorti qatghata li hi kellha d-dritt li tkompli bil-hajja pjuttost lussuza li kellha ma zewgha, ghalhekk il-manteniment kien veru gholi.”
Again, if that’s what they agreed to initially, tough luck. It’s the way things should be.
Any financial hardship a divorced person has because of a divorce agreement or judgement, is totally irrelevant to the subject of the availability of divorce.
There is absolutely no difference whatseover in Malta between a separation and a divorce, except the right to remarry.
A remarriage after a divorce does not mean that prior obligations to the children / spouses just go away or change in any way.
Important point that.
@ Daphne, Alan and Ciccio 2010
This is precisely the thing I meant when I said that people who want divorce don’t really know what it entails. Divorce is not a simple parting of ways.
When you read other people’s experience of divorce you begin to see how complicated it can become.
Reuben, the experiences of people who have been through a separation are IDENTICAL to those who have been through a divorce.
Find me ONE difference between separation and divorce (except the right to remarry of course).
To make matters ‘worse’, nobody is saying that there should be the availability for proceedings for a divorce straight away.
What they are saying is that people should first file for a separation, and if they have not reconciled after X number of years, then a divorce is granted …. which, at that point, means the ONLY thing that will change is the couple’s right to remarry.
Any previous agreement of a separation would still stand (child custody, support etc).
What the fuss is all about is beyond me.
[Daphne – The fuss is about precisely that, Alan: the right to remarry. Those who oppose divorce want ‘separati’ and ‘pogguti’ to remain in a sort of subculture that is somehow inferior and unofficial.]
U ha nispiccaw b’kawlata ta socjeta hamsin sena ohra, ghaxar darbiet ‘ghar’ milli ghanna illum.
And that kawlata will be normaility, by far exceeding the ‘traditional family’ in their numbers.
Bye bye to the concept of ‘family’ those who oppose divorce are so eager to protect.
The fact remains. A man who bothered to make a public vow in front of witnesses and the State is expected to honour that vow.
The essence of marriage excludes remarrying. Divorce does not introduce remarriage. It kills the concept of marriage in the first place.
I can perfectly understand the mistrust of the comman man with the common subconcious against another man who wants to remarry. For him this is a huge contradiction.
AP, in the eyes the state, marriage is a contract.
We are talking about a civil matter here, not religious.
With all due respect, the common man who has a moral contradiction against another who wants to remarry, can jolly well get stuffed and mind his own business.
Nobody is forcing him to separate, divorce, remarry or cohabit.
The fact remains, AP, that man has no right to dictate what other people want, in their thousands, and increasing.
I say it again, to me, this divorce business is all bla bla bla, as people do whatever they want anyway, outside of the law as it does not exist, but with a handy notary to get exactly what married people have. Kollox bicciet tal karti at the end of the day.
Majtezwel regulate it by law through giving the right to remarry, instead of, as is usually done in Malta, insewwuwa bl’istik – cohabitation law – sakemm tinfaqa u taqa bicciet.
Umbghad kullhadd jibki u isabbat saqajh. Kemm haj jidispjaccihom il knisja li qed izzumuha lura through their political puppets.
Alan. You enter into a contract to puchase a cow or a car but not to marry a wife. That most noble of creatures can be yours through a vow. Do not worry. There is nothing religous about it. Vows can be secular as well.
[Daphne – I hate to disappoint you, but marriage is a contract. Everybody knew this before the romantic notion took over. Up until the 19th century, if not the first part of the 20th, marriages were carefully negotiated with terms, conditions and settlements, especially between persons of substance but even among those who had little. Until the 19th century, even engagement (the agreement to enter into marriage at a future date) was a contract. To break it, you would need just cause (criminal behaviour, promiscuity, unfaithfulness, etc – and NOT simply changing your mind) otherwise you could be sued by the injured party.]
We do expect people who marry to honour the marriage. When a man makes a promise in front of the whole village then the village is right in expecting him to keep that promise.
Well done. This article is badly needed. Someone needed to spell it out because people keep showing incredible immaturity when it comes to this issue.
Hopefully many will read it. I was appalled when I read that the man’s companion accompanied him to his son’s Holy Communion ceremony. What was she doing there?
It seems like Malta has absolutely no idea about etiquette regarding former spouses. It should really all be common sense but it’s rare when common sense wins the day around here.
Delusional politicians and self-deception regarding Maltese ‘traditional strong families’: isn’t this famous comment an insult to all other good families around the world? It’s as if Maltese families are better than families anywhere else. That and lack of divorce add to the murkiness and confusion.
I love to drone on that we live in an Asterix and Obelix village. Today’s The Times, front page, yet again, does not disappoint.
GIANT billboard in the Zebbug parish square shouts out:
“ID-DIVORZJU: ALLA MA JRIDUX!”
Sponsored by……Vision Tech – Mega Games Store – Wii – Xbox – Playstation – PSP.
[Daphne – You’ve made my day. This place is just so hilarious.]
“ID-DIVORZJU: ALLA MA JRIDUX!”
Imma Alla ma hux mizzewweg – x’jambih?
Dalwaqt johorgu it-T-shirts.
BILLBOARDS STUPIDI: ALLA MA JRIDHOMX!
I’m waiting for JPO to vote against co-habitation legislation, in order to go straight for proper legislation on divorce–not necessarily the details of his bill on divorce, but setting about what the country really needs: divorce legislation. Let’s see how far his “moral courage” goes.
The majority – great majority I should say – abide by what the Church says and directs. It seems that the majority still feel that there is good reason behind condemning divorce.
The majority, great majority I should say, favoured slavery in the Southern USA in the 1800s, which, with all due respect, is where your reasoning belongs, red nose.
Smoking harms society but the majority – great majority – do not smoke, yet they accept the right of the minority to poison themselves and divert everyone’s resources to combating the results. There is good reason to ban smoking. How can you tolerate a person’s right to smoke but not to divorce?
Well done!
This piece really hit home today as I am a girlfriend whose boyfriend has a son, and I have accepted that from day one. I knew what I was going into and it was not always easy, but I do stay away, on weekends and birthdays and Christmas for the first four years I was never present as I never wanted to impose.
Now I am present in the holidays but I still stay away from the big stuff. I stayed away from the Holy Communion (even though the ex’s new boyfriend did not). I felt it was not my place.
However then it comes to a point after a number of years that you cannot help but be there, and I feel that is the point where I am now. As after a certain number of years that child becomes more than just your boyfriend’s son.
However we still cannot get married and I am still “the homewrecker” even though it was never the case.
Without entering into the merits of divorce or not, has anybody ever discussed the consequences on Malta’s gene pool of second and third families?
We are already dreadfully interbred as it is. I wonder whether with the introduction of divorce, certain genetic diseases will rocket or not? I know that the current situation is not helping matters but perhaps, divorce will make the creation of second and third families even easier.
[Daphne – You don’t need divorce to have children. as the current situation shows: one baby in three in Malta is now born out of wedlock.]
Also, I’m pretty sure the level of poverty is going to soar. How on earth are people going to afford to pay alimony and support the new family on salaries of 1200 euros monthly?
[Daphne – That’s their problem. It’s happening already. Please understand this one simple thing: divorce is no different in effect to formal separation, except for the inability to remarry. When you separate, you separate your possessions, decide who gets the home or whether it has to be sold, and specify – by contract or court order – what the maintenance is to be for non-working wives and minor children.]
A friend of mine is separated and the husband has a new partner.
One day her 10-year-old son needed an emergency minor op and she took him to a private clinic. When they arrived they saw the husband there – his partner was there having a baby.
The 10-year-old was so upset he asked the father “So you left us and you’ll be living with this new baby?’ and had an asthma attack.
This all happened with separation – it wouldn’t have been any different if there was divorce would it.
Granted that this article is really good.
It seems that both parties SAY that they want divorce BUT will seek a way not to vote it in. How. Most probably they will say that the people can vote in a referendum or something like this. It is the way of Pontius Pilate. We tried but the people said no.
People will say no because although, I think, that most of the under 40 will vote for divorce, some are still tied to a no directive by the church. Furthermore, those over 40 will most probably follow what the church will order, although, I hasten to add this is absolutely NO CHURCH MATTER. It is a civil decision;
Unfortunately, the one thing divorce will not stop, curb or mitigate is people’s viciousness (“Hell hath no fury . . . “) and I refer equally to both sexes. I have seen people of either sex out to destroy their former partners and it is not pretty at all.
If only legislation could be devised that forces the vicious amongst us to act civilly.
hear, hear
Chris, divorce should be part of our civil law. But I suppose that will not be enough to make us behave civilly.
As asked before, can poor people “afford” divorce?
Can poor people “afford” separation ?
The question is IDENTICAL.
Let me answer you by breaking down the costs and consequences of a separation or a divorce.
Court expenses – identical for a separation or divorce, be you rich or poor. The cost is there and it is a constant.
Lawyer’s fees – So are these, be you rich or poor, wanting a separation or a divorce. No difference.
Reasons for filing for a separation or divorce – same reasons are valid for both a separation or a divorce, rich or poor.
Causes for a separation or divorce ; Infidelity, irreconcilable differences, violence etc – filing for a separation or divorce, rich or poor, does not cause the reasons for what led to it in the first place.
Children’s custody – There is no difference whatsoever between any arrangement reached through a separation or divorce contract / court judgment, be you rich or poor.
Visitation rights – No difference, be you rich or poor, filing for a separation or a divorce
Child maintenance – No difference, be you rich or poor, filing for a separation or a divorce
Spouse maintenance – No difference, be you rich or poor, filing for a separation or a divorce
House – No difference, be you rich or poor, filing for a separation or a divorce
Investments during the marriage – No difference, be you rich or poor, filing for a separation or a divorce
Any financial matters and obligations – No difference, be you rich or poor, filing for a separation or a divorce
Inheritance – All rights cancelled, be it by a separation or divorce, be you rich or poor.
Social obligations – Out the window in both cases, be you rich or poor, filing for a separation or a divorce
Obligation of cohabitation – Out the window in both cases, be you rich or poor, filing for a separation or a divorce
No difference so far between a separation and a divorce, be you rich or poor. Let’s see what happens afterwards :
All issues pertaining to the separation contract / judgement mentioned above – Will stay the same irrespective if its a separation or a divorce, rich or poor, and will not change if there is a remarriage after a divorce.
Meeting someone else after a separation or divorce – no difference in that possibility, be you rich or poor.
Taking that person out to dinner after a separation or divorce – No difference. A pizza is a pizza is a pizza.
Living with someone else after a separation or divorce – rent or purchase of a house is the same, irrespective if you are separated or divorced.
Having a child with someone else after a separation or divorce – possibility is the same, irrespective if you are separated or divorced. Nappies will not cost less.
Nope, no differences between a separation or a divorce up to this point either. Be you separated or divorced, rich or poor, all the above are real possibilities, that, believe it or not, red nose, happen … in the thousands. The availability of divorce or otherwise does not influence ANY aspect of ALL the above. That is reality.
Inkomplu ….
Wanting to get married to that second person – WHOA. Here is the difference. Ooops, there is no divorce, so remarriage is not possible.
They have just involuntarily saved the 15 Euro or whatever, needed to register the marriage at the registrar.
Conclusion : A poor person will save 15 Euro if there is no divorce.
So you are right, red nose, having no divorce is better, especially for poor people.
Skuzani, ma flahtx iktar nisma ic-cucati.
red nose, are you suggesting that a poor couple should continue with marriage so that they can “afford” a certain style of life?
Or is it a very direct question on the cost of divorce?
If so, I would suggest that at the time of the wedding, some savings should be made as an “insurance” for the eventuality of a divorce. But a proper law should ensure that proceedings can be efficient and not costly as part of affordability to everyone.
Epic comment by a friend of mine, which I just have to share with you:
“God may not play dice with the universe, but judging from that billboard he’s into console gaming.”
The Maltatoday survey on divorce implies that the PN’s best bet is to commit itself to a referendum or to simply do nothing, while the PL’s would be to include divorce legislation in its manifesto.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ArSwai6S9z6QdENMY1BSaHhqTGJ0VDN0dXJXUFFfZEE&hl=en#gid=0
More specifically, the replies to the last two questions indicate that whereas 15.5% of PN voters are less likely to vote PN if the government introduces divorce before the elections, just 6.5% are less likely to vote PL if it commits itself to divorce legislation in its manifesto. The ‘don’t knows’ are stacked against the PN since most of these would be expected to be pro-divorce.
‘Less likely’ to vote for a party does not necessarily mean ‘more likely’ to vote for the other party, of course, and in this the survey is lacking, but it seems PL have the upper hand here. It’s now a chess game, since each party’s gains or losses depend on the other party’s move. Again, the party in opposition would have the upper hand.
[Daphne – I wasn’t quite comfortable with that survey. The figure given for those in favour of divorce seems to tally with other numbers I have seen, but there is something not quite right, and the report is in fact qualified on the basis that, where political conclusions are concerned, the margin of error is high because the sample was small. This is what doesn’t square with me: anti-divorce sentiment is shown as being highest among those with a primary school level of education only (which would be socio-economic group DE). DE electors vote en masse for Labour, not PN. Yet support for divorce is shown as being highest among Labour voters. Meanwhile, pro-divorce sentiment is shown as being highest among the ‘typical’ PN voter (ABC, higher level of education, etc), but anti-divorce sentiment as highest among PN voters.]
Rather than political or socio-economic leanings, it’s the age factor that will eventually make the difference. That’s why those who are against divorce legislation are fighting a losing battle.
You sure, Leonard? The Maltese population is getting older.
Will divorce “benefit” the state?
red nose, I noticed your series of questions, which had been left without answer. One of the “Presidenti emeriti” has stated that divorce harms the state – The Sunday Times, 11 July 2010:
“Dr Mifsud Bonnici too declared himself against divorce because he believes its introduction “will do great damage to the State”.
“I want to be precise – without entering into religious matters – divorce harms the State. I feel it harms Maltese society, a lay society,” he said…”
Interesting. Divorce harms the state and society. But no hint as to its worth to individuals, which is where it is critical. One British prime minister once said (on a different subject):
“They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations.”
Since I agree with this quote, I have to ask, who cares about the impact of divorce on the “state”?
The absence of divorce harms individuals; therefore, the absence of divorce also harms the State.
The presence of divorce harms the State-sponsored religious or cultural ideology opposed to divorce; therefore, divorce harms State ideology, when that State is committed to non-secular religious ideology [more specifically, orthodox Catholic ideology, because all religions (and secular States) accept and allow divorce, even among our Protestant Christian brethren–the Christian exceptions are churches in union with Rome].
The benefit of divorce to society can be measured more clearly after its introduction. Then the social, interpersonal, and personal harm caused by the absence of divorce can be measured by the reduction of harm to individuals and families by the regularization of the option for re-marriage.
Of course, the implicit strengthening of family values after the introduction of divorce could be measured over time by the immediate and long-term impact on Maltese cultural traditions that presently are anti-family.
However, a cost-benefit analysis of “divorce” on the basis of financial, psychological, and inter-personal criteria will always yield a great initial “cost.”
It is the tragedy of a non-functional initial marriage that inflicts its “costs” on society. Divorce does not create that marriage dysfunction. The “benefits” of divorce become obvious only over the medium or long-term.
It would seem, from the experience of other societies which benefit from the option for divorce, that those societies are thriving and are very unlikely to go into extinction because of divorce. Those societies are probably far healthier psychologically, inter-personally and culturally than more rigid societies, which do not allow normal processes of human adaptation and normative evolution to occur.
Not allowing divorce is a lot like human sexuality before Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey or Virginia Masters (and her husband). It took some time to overthrow the unnatural repression of sex by Western (and American Puritan) society and cultures. It is no honour for Malta and the Philippines, in their remaining opposition to divorce, to be the last bastion of State-sponsored repression towards the human right for re-marriage.
Malta and its politicians with their fingers in the dike must adapt to reality, or their continued denial and repression will continue to take its social and personal toll at a great cost to Maltese society.
It makes no sense for Malta to legally recognize “divorce” from other States, but to deny divorce to its own citizens, unless those citizens have the resources to live in another State that provides divorce. This is a discrimination by the State against its own citizens, as it provides divorce only for those who have the means to obtain it.
Divorce will eventually come to Malta, but at what cost to the politicians and the future politics of Malta? There will be poltical casualties along the way, both for those in favour and in opposition to divorce.
In the long run, the 15,000 Maltese currently enduring separation from a first marriage, and their families, and the growing future numbers of persons and families, should not be discarded as collateral bodies and lives on the battlefield of an anti-remarriage culture. What society is not harming itself by its disregard for a significant minority–should we estimate that 40,000 persons (adults and children), 10%, are directly affected by the absence of remarriage?
The Writer of the article has a point with her own wants, of course no child wants the parents to separate and divorce, Ive been from a broken family, believe me I know how it all feels, but I think the article is too self centered and too scared in holding onto something you dont have the decision over. Like in the chil’s communion, its about the child, divorce is not easy to make considering children will be in the center of it getting hurt, but as I mature, I think if we love someone, like our parents, we would like them to be happy right, and if we love them that much it means maybe because they were good parents to us, good parents means they loved us too, with respect and trust in it.
I feel youre over protective of something, your status maybe? But what status do all of us have in the end but Equal. Times are changing now, Im Christian too, but not hardcore but I read the bible. the rules changes to fit the times, like how it was a sin to be drink alcohol because it makes you do foolish things, but now there is drugs, if there were drugs before, I bet God would have forbidden drugs too. Yea its hard for a rich man to understand because he/she has all those belongings to worry about protecting or getting robbed….