Divorce is a CHOICE and the right of the individual, and not a matter that should be put to a referendum. What if a referendum had to be held on banning Catholicism in Malta, and the majority were in favour?

Imagine the outcry from adherents to the Catholic faith, and rightly so. Whether they worship or who they choose to worship is their right.

The real issue here is not whether one has the right to divorce or not, but whether one has the right to impose his moral or religious views on others. About time that Malta had a secular government that protected the rights of all, regardless of religion. No doubt we all appreciate the right we ought to have, to make our own choices.

Now let’s bear one thing in mind. The main and possibly only reason why the Maltese happen to be Catholics is because we were born in a Catholic country to Catholic parents who baptized us into the Catholice faith at birth. Had we been born in Israel we would most likely belong to the Jewish faith.

Had we been born in Pakistan or the Middle East we would have been Muslims, and so on. We did not choose to be born in Malta. We did not choose whether to have Catholic parents or whether to be baptized at birth.

We did not even bother to research the origin of our beliefs and the beliefs of others, so that we could make an intelligent and informed choice about our religion. If a Jehovah’s Witness knocked on our door armed only with a bible, how many of us could defend our Catholic beliefs which are based on the bible?

The point I am making here is that we still have a right to be and believe what we want to be, whether we chose to be ignorant or not. It’s our choice and we have a right to it.

But for a few moments, let’s not concern ourselves with either religion or the anti divorce lobby who try to rob others of their rights. I am here appealing to those of you who want your rights protected regardless of whether you make up a majority or minority of the population.

Many of you here condemn the gutless and hypocritical politicians who prefer to dodge the issue of divorce, either because it suits them or because they do not wish to associate themselves with an ideal that is contrary to their personal religious views.

It must therefore be fair to assume that none of us pro divorce people would like to associate ourselves with these narrow minded, unjust, hypocritical and cowardly traits.

That being the case, let us spare a thought for gay people. I myself am an extremely happily married person who loves my wife with a vengeance. I have never been divorced and cannot imagine it ever happening to me. I am also neither religious nor am I gay. That’s me.

Had I been gay, or had I been divorced or a staunch Catholic I would have been equally proud of who I was. But gay people have no choice. They are born that way. They do not hurt anyone or infringe upon others rights.

In fact, because of their situation, they are most tolerant towards those who are different, and least likely to be critical of others and the choices they make. Yet, in this day and age, they are still reproached and villifed, simply because they are different and because they are a minority.

Perhaps you could justifiably argue that if homosexuality were the norm, then it would be the heterosexual minority who would be on the recieving end. The point I am trying to make here, is that we need to become a tolerant society. For too long the Maltese on the whole, thrive on gossip, and have not learnt to mind their own business.

Next time somebody wants to be critical of someone else because they are different, let’s not get involved. I personally had a friend many years ago whose son was gay and had committed suicide. He had left behind a note to his father who was embarrassed about it and never accepted his son’s situation. The son could never understand why his father, who had loved him so much as he grew up, had now disowned him, because of the way he turned out.

And remember the son had no choice in the matter. In time the father too committed suicide as he could not endure his guilt. Below is a plea, in her own words, by an aquaintance of mine who is gay and who is gutsy enough to stand up and fight. Good on you Siona. I am with you all the way.

SIONA SULTANA: ‎1 in 10 people born are gay. That means 1 of every 10 people is instantly put down, given bad labels, left alone, put in a minority, and so much else…all for something they didn’t ask for. Many gay teens are going to commit suicide as a way of escaping. If you want to tell them life will get ……better, and you res…pect them for who they are, copy and paste this. Most of you won’t, but let’s see the 5% who will.

Unfortunately, real life is not so and sometimes, after much soul and conscience searching and persistent attempts to hold things together, some decide to bring things to a head – or have that decision made for them.

Thankfully, there are many lifelong partnerships and the church in Malta should carry on honing it’s attempts at providing up-to-date preparation for marriage and counselling partnerships in difficulty.

A referendum would absolve the major political parties in Malta from the responsibility of making decisions which may conflict with one’s religious beliefs and/or propensity to win the next election (shades of Pontius Pilate?) However, the needs of minorities in society must not be ignored. Both parties should bear in mind that they have a duty to take an impartial stand, debate and legislate and provide the right legal framework to prevent social injustice.

It is then be up to the individual to decide on his moral choice – and not for the rest of the rock to pass judgment!

I can see where your reasoning stems from and agree with certain points however it’s too late for many – the issue is intrinsically politicised because both parties are afraid of losing votes in the context of having an unelected church which has and will continue to exercise undue influence by threatening everybody spiritually. They’re both trying to kick the ball out of their court with a ‘let the electorate choose’ or a ‘free vote’ (the latter makes me convulse uncontrollably).

We’re not debating whether married couples should break up. That’s been happening for eons. The question here is about the right to dissolution of marriage and access to the rest of the family rights. Civil rights are human rights, universal, precise and legally defined. There’s no need to waste time and money on a referendum. You either provide rights like the rest of the world or you’re the bastard child of Robert Mugabe.

Dissolution of marriage as a civil right is not disconnected from the suit of family rights. Furthermore in practical terms the situation in Malta is that you simply cannot remarry. Those who are happy with the one-chance-to-happiness-game over model are free to continue adhering to it. No one seems to think of the benefits of re-marriage to those children born to separated couples.

Adrian, yes they will actually, such is their hatred for this blog and its author.

In the past it wasn’t the Labour Party taking on the Church. It was Dom Mintoff squabbling with Michael Gonzi – a personal feud – and they both dragged their respective tribes into it.

By doing this, he would remove a lot of uncertainty that there is at present and will emerge as a most honest politician and not just a runner-after of votes.

Firstly, the significant cost in time and money if not combined with another national event such as an election or the issuing of new ID cards. There is the need to seriously evaluate opportunity costs when proposing something of this sort.

Secondly, referendum questions are just like survey questions, they can be drafted by skilled persons to encourage the type of answer wanted by the proposer – dishonest yes, but it happens all the time. Only if the questions are drafted by a truly independent professional will a fair result be obtained, any other way will skew the results.

Thirdly, referendums are used to obtain decisions on matters that will affect all the population, EU membership was a case in point. Divorce is a minority matter most of the population will not ever come in contact with.

Finally, how can the population decide on such a matter when there is practically no information out there to evaluate it on. The dogmatic way the Roman Catholic Church and other interested parties are defending their position is not creating awareness of the true strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that may result from such legislation

Which is the political party thathas guts to introduce divorce?

In the past the Labour Party had the guts to fight the Roman Catholic Church and still no one ever mentioned divorce.