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.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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?

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”?

You sure, Leonard? The Maltese population is getting older.

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.