Both of you easily furnish the limitation contained in the right to freedom of expression enshrined in our Constitution and in the European Convention

Both of you easily furnish the limitation contained in the right to freedom to expression enshrined in our Constitution and in the European Convention.

First off, residence and domicile are two different concepts and are not incompatible with one another. So, your statement that you prefer residence over domicile, is quite frankly, an inanity. Indeed, one of the two criteria required in demonstrating the establishment of a domicile of choice, as distinct from a domicile of origin, is residence together with permanence.

Secondly, you refer to domicile of choice in reference to a court decree on divorce as a sine-qua-non. This is not the case. Frequently, foreign jurisdictions do not require that one or more of the parties to the marriage be domiciled, but merely resident in that country in order to qualify for divorce. Indeed, if this were not the case, then many Maltese ctiizens (domiciled in Malta!) who wanted to opt for a foreign divorce decree in one of the renowned registers of convenience, would not be able to do so!

Thirdly, if one has obtained a valid divorce decree from a foreign jurisdiction, and that is to say that that decree is in accordance with the laws of the granting State, then the local registry has NO AUTHORITY to refuse registration of that divorce, domicile or no domicile. This is a question of publc, not private – as in the case of domicile, international law. For if the Registry had to do so it would be inquiring into the legislative criteria of the foreign state to grant (or deny, for that matter) divorce decrees, when it simply has no jurisdiction to do so.

“….to think of divorce as the cause of marital breakdown, when it is just the symptom and the solution”

Daphne, though I am in favour of the introduction of divorce on our statute books, I disagree with the way you worded the statement I quoted above.

I’m sure you understand that Divorce cannot be the SYMPTOM of marital breakdown and neither can it be the SOLUTION. Symptoms of marital breakdown, would be the spouses sleeping in different rooms, filing for personal separation, not speaking to each other any more, etc. The solution to a marital breakdown would be saving the marriage!

That said, I believe it is A solution of sorts for those who may find solace in a fresh marriage after the first has irretrievably broken down.

Lastly, your cough syrup analogy was used incorrectly in reference to the anti-divorce lobby. It ought to have been that having cough syrup around would make people negligent about their health, relying on cough syrup if they were to catch a cold. This is what would encapsulate the anti-divocrce lobby’s notion of a society with a facile and lackadaisical attitude towards marriage. This is what they believe divorce will bring about.

Little do they realise, and this is where they are partially correct so to speak, that this is already happening – with or without divorce. it really is a fait acompli.

No relation to Arthur Dent, I suppose?

No wonder the Roman Catholic Church is so much against divorce then.

When I look around me I don’t see this as a particularly Christian place. They seem to me to be Catholic in the same way they support foreign football teams.

There seems to be very little consensus too. I reckon any referendum will be a narrow margin either way. The No vote is my bet. You can’t underestimate the power of being told you get into heaven if you vote No. A priest once took my great-granny’s savings in her eighties on such a promise.

. . . and, if that sounds far-fetched, let me remind you these guys thought nothing of selling indulgences, nor of taking 29 million – I stand to be corrected – of our taxes to run their schools, when all we got in return was a chance in a lottery!

sorry – he had to PAY . . .

You don’t know the half of it, I.B. An acquaintance of mine once told me he had to 12’000 quid for his annulment here – I don’t think he was lying.

I was also involved as a witness in 2 annulment cases – it’s a farce at best, a tragedy at worst.