Better to throw it in the bin than vote for PN or PL.

People.. it is so simple. If you cant follow the Church on this, then just don’t accept marriage, which after all, is and will always be, a religious Sacrament. If you do not recognise it as binding, then simply refuse it and, live in.

Instead of having all this fuss about divorce, we should be discussing about the repercussions of separations (and divorces), the effect on the children, and so on… why are people getting separated, is life becoming too hard to maintain a relationship, and if so, who is making it so hard ?

These are the issues MP’s should be discussing, if they really want to make a difference, then deal with social issues, and to hell with the institutions that make our lives so complicated in the first place.

This was the heading of this article but was lost – In my opinion, even though at the time I believed what the PN said, and totally was against Alfred Sant, today I must admit that Alfred Sant in hindsight was not the idiot he was made out to be.

It would be interesting to see the results of a referendum today, now that we have tasted the cake. Actually Sant’s mistake was being unprepared, as his partnership idea was not expanded upon or researched properly.

Now when Alfred Sant lost the reins of his party and was not in control, he called an election. That was the right thing to do. Today we have a prime minister in a similar position, but who is holding onto power.

I feel sorry for Dr. Gonzi as he inherited a dirty party, all the cover-ups and corruption surfacing – and these are just a few which surface are beyond his control. He needs to call an election, drop all the old dirty members of the party and start off afresh with him in command.

If he does this many, like me, will applaud him and vote for him. If he does not, many of us will abhor him and the PN, even though we have been lifelong PN people.

The ordinary citizen who lives a normal and straight life, absolutely does not want anything to do with this dirty party or old politicians who live with consultants, secretaries etc etc passing laws and decisions which affect the man in the street, and 90% of the time those who can least afford the laws.

Recently in Robin hood we saw the King with his finance minister taking from the poor to give to the rich. Dr. Gonzi and Mr. Fenech, it’s time for Robin hood to appear – nowhere in sight yet – or Dr. Gonzi to actually accept that his party has lost it and make the changes that we need to see our party back as a champion of the people.

David, who am I to deny you the pleasure sarcasm gives you?

Because the constitutional clause on neutrality is ambiguous. It refers to “the two superpowers” – a fact-situation which no longer exists. Labour would have been utterly nuts to go to Court with such a clause.

@Min Weber

So what about Partnership for peace? How did they manage to do it and why didn’t Labour force them to stop it through the courts?

@ Min Weber

Like I said “you are absolutely right, it’s written in stone, m’hawnx bhalek!”

I agree with you on this: “Both divorce and marriage are CIVIL rights, not human rights.”

That is why I said, elsewhere, that my reasoning is in conformity with the reasoning of the European Court on Human Rights which found that the non-availability of homosexual marriage is not a violation of human rights.

Also, since we agree that divorce is a civil right, we will also agree that it does not exist by itself (like FHR) waiting to be recognized (this is the accepted theory of FHRs, as far as I can recall), but it is a right which has to be created by the state.

For the democratic state to created such a right, its legislative branch needs a mandate from the people, otherwise the State would be usurping the sovereignty of the people.

P.S. I hope no journalist-turned-law-student decides it’s wise to cut-and-paste these ruminations and present them as his in some Constitutional Law assignment!

I do not think you are right in labelling my argument “sophist.” Sophistry implies a conscious attempt to deceive by presenting arguments one knows to be invalid.

I would like to underline that I am genuine in my reasoning and am not trying to deceive.

If my arguments are invalid, they are genuinely so, not because I know them to be so.

I am convinced my arguments are valid. Still, I appreciate your efforts in trying to prove them invalid. As I hope you appreciate mine in trying to prove yours invalid.

When I write that I would want to see an intelligent debate on divorce, I have a mind what we are doing here. People are engaging in an exchange of (presumably) genuinely-held opinions for their own benefit and for the benefit of the onlookers.

The debate will then engender a process in the participants leading to a better understanding of the “truth”. This is getting very, very close to philosophy. (I say this encouraged by your reference to philosophical jargon.)

Philosophy lifts the fog and allows clear reasoning. Of course, it does not necessarily entail persuading your “opponent”. But it helps to see things better. In this I think your blog is doing a great service to Malta.

Which does not mean that I agree (or will agree) with everything you say!

Sorry Baxxter, didn’t see this comment before: “I wouldn’t want anyone to be silenced. I just expect CEOs (like the archbishop) to be sharp.”

What do you mean by this?