“To give you a general idea of what the party is all about. Nobody actually reads them. We just listen to the excerpts”

This is the practice. In theory, however, they are the legislative programme on which the majority will work, and it can legislate only with the consent of the people.

A majority which legislates without the mandate of the people is not democratic.

Yes, I agree.

So why are electoral promises (aka manifestos) done?

[Daphne – To give you a general idea of what the party is all about. Nobody actually reads them. We just listen to the excerpts.]

This is sophistry, Daphne!

Only crazy people would come up with a manifesto full of what they would NOT do if elected!

[Daphne – Exactly, Min. It’s an example of when a political party CAN’T go against its own manifesto. In other words, there is no situation in which a political party can do that, because political parties don’t make pledges about what they WON’T do (except for, as you said, the crazies who pledged that they wouldn’t take us into the European Union). Promising NOT to do something is most binding and serious than promising to do it. It’s the difference between saying that you will pass on some information and not doing it, and promising not to pass on the information and then passing it on.]

Hypatia: I know very well the difference between divorce and annulment. We have two annulments in the family and I was a witness in another one.

My point is that many people are orchestrating scenarios in order to get their marriage nullified. It is a long and painful process but for many it’s worth the hassle to get your social status slate cleaned.

I don’t really want to go into the religious aspect of divorce because I respect those who chose to tie the knot under their religion’s conditions.

I just wish that such respect is shown to those who have different believes. If you do not believe in divorce then do not get divorced plain and simple.

[Daphne – If people go to all the trouble of getting their marriage declared null to look ‘good’ in the eyes of society and when they want to marry again, then I must be very unusual. This is one woman’s perspective on things: when I hear that a man’s marriage has been declared null, my antennae go up immediately and I begin to regard him a little oddly. Let’s say I look more positively on a man who is divorced and is upfront about the fact that he was married, than on one whose marriage has been annulled and who clams up like his wife never existed or that it never happened. I find these things really weird. I mean, just look at the only possible grounds on which the Catholic tribunal declares a marriage null: they all raise serious doubts about the people involved. So why do they do it?]

There can be no divorce for Catholics under Canon Law not under civil law.

I would suggest you go deeper into these matters before jumping into the fray. Just as a matter of interest to you, you may be surprised to learn that Canon Law does, in fact, provide for the dissolution of a valid marriage: it is called dissolution in favour of the faith. Make a Google search and you may come out the wiser.

Then Catholics would not need to worry; they will still have their ‘gold-standard’ marriage as someone suggested above. It would be more like a gilded cage whose key is deposited in the annulment chambers of Mother Church.

But then Catholics would certainly come out and say such a measure would be discriminatory. Which is precisely why Catholics should not impose their values on the rest of us.

We are already enduring the social cost and financial implications you mention by not allowing cohabiting couples to marry. In Malta, where everything seems to stand upside down, (previously married) couples are asking for marriage and the State is telling them to cohabit instead. Many of them are registering as single parents and asking for social benefits. This is the present situation already.

You suggest a gold-standard marriage. But don’t we already have it? It’s Catholic marriage which is indissoluble. What we are talking about here is civil divorce. Couples will be able to terminate their civil contract and marry again. Full stop.

You say that a second or third marriage are less stable. There are statistics from Britain showing that around half of second marriages end up in a new divorce. That means the other half stay together. But as of now in Malta, previously married cohabiting couples are 100% unstable because we don’t let them remarry. Not half, but all.

Some of your arguments’ logic should lead you to the conclusion that civil divorce should be introduced. You say about marriage: “why ruin something which with all its problems has been around for eons and has worked for so many people? Why do we want to stop believing that people can commit themselves to one another for life, for better and for worse?” Precisely the argument why we should let long-separated people to divorce and enjoy the recognition and stability marriage affords to a new family. Why shouldn’t we believe that people can commit themselves for a second time?

The situations you mention in your last paragraph apply only before separation. But after years of separation, you cannot really keep people from re-marrying their new partners.

If your are in favour of the ‘value of the family’, you should enhance, even bless, the (new) family with marriage. You would not be in favour of the family if you keep telling people that they should cohabit rather than (re-)marry.

Your whole argument compares civil divorce with an (impossible) ideal. What politicians should do is compare divorce with the situation as of now. Civil divorce (and remarriage if they want to) would be much better for society, for the State, for the couples involved and for their children than the present situation of forced cohabitation.

But just because they cannot have they shouldn’t deny it from those who need it and want it.

An example of pious truthiness:

“That is my opinion and it is not based only on religion but mainly on the fact that divorce means more broken families and more children facing problems in their development”.

That is not a fact. It’s your opinion, conflating broken marriages with divorce. If you know it’s a fact point us to the relevant studies that support this view.