Divorce – there’s been another shift
Not the ideal poster-boy for divorce
My antennae tell me that the pro-divorce lobby is about to take one almighty knock as anti-divorce sentiment begins to crystallise. So far, it has all been in a state of flux, with opinion shifting one way or the other and rather a lot of people not quite sure what they thought.
I’m not looking at any polls or statistics here, but just picking up the clues and going on gut instinct. So I might be wildly off the mark, but I don’t think I am.
For many years, the divorce lobby was seen as part of the lunatic fringe because of the sort of odd people who fronted it and were its poster boys – no names mentioned here, but it really wasn’t helpful to have Emy Bezzina shout about it for aeons. Then, when the divorce lobby acquired a more respectable image and reputable people began to advance seriously the idea of divorce, it gained ground, helped in no small manner by the growing number of people whose marriages had failed.
But the crucial thing is that liberals who were previously too embarrassed to be associated with Dr Bezzina began to dominate media which were hungry for such stuff.
There is no doubt at all that the media have set the agenda and that’s not a bad thing, because one of the roles of the press and broadcasting is to get people to think about things. Yet when that happens, people can feel harried into forming an opinion because they feel they should have one and that they are inadequate if they don’t.
They can also feel bullied into adopting the ‘fashionable’ opinion: they think they should say, when asked, that they are in favour of divorce because that’s what ‘everyone’ seems to be saying except for some priests and right-wing politicians. And then they become resentful about it and are more likely to shift and change in the privacy of their own mind.
Over the last couple of years, the pro-divorce lobby has been in the ascendant while, in a curious reversal of the earlier scenario, the anti-divorce lobby had began to acquire that undesirable lunatic fringe status, with much talk of hellfire, of God not wanting divorce, and suggestions that the whole world might be wrong but we are right.
Now it’s about to change again as the birth of a new anti-divorce group led by people who command respect rescues it from that fate, while Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, unfortunately but inevitably, has manoeuvred himself into the position of poster-boy for divorce.
This is far from ideal and he undermines severely his own cause, though his personality being what it is, he is unable to see it and will hotly contest the suggestion that he is doing the pro-divorce lobby no favours at all by turning it into his own personal bandwagon.
Also, the pro-divorce lobby has become too strident and irritating, and I know that I might be considered guilty as charged. When you are dealing with irrefutable rationality and with what you see to be glaringly obvious, it is easy to lose patience with those whose fears you see as wholly irrational.
But those fears are real, and ironically, it is the pro-divorce movement which has done more to crystallise them over the last few weeks than any amount of shouting about ‘God not wanting divorce’ has done over the last two years.
As soon as I saw the pro-divorce movement’s new logo, I knew exactly the sort of negative effect it would have – the direct opposite to that intended. It shows two couples, one of them with children, and one lone child between the pairs, an arm out in either direction.
Because he’s at the centre, he’s the focus of the arrangement. Where we are expected to see a happy kid with mummy’s new family and daddy’s new wife, what we see instead is a poor soul tugged both ways and belonging to neither family, while his younger half-sibling gets to keep, smugly, both his parents together.
These are all faceless stick figures, which undermine the movement’s message that it is all about real people and their suffering.
The pro-divorce movement makes the mistake of thinking that because it has common sense and rationality on its side, then it is going to win out with ‘logical’ arguments over the other side, which plays to the emotions. It has not yet learned that in any contest between rationality and the emotions, the emotions invariably win.
After all, isn’t this how most marriages break down, when the emotions win over rationality? So it shouldn’t be too hard for the pro-divorce movement to understand.
What this means is that it should think harder about perception. Take the two couples who were interviewed on BondiPlus last Monday. The anti-divorce couple came across as young, good, in love, charming, full of joy and respect for each other, well aware of what commitment means. You warmed to them.
But the pro-divorce couple – heaven help us. As an example of people’s distaste for divorce made flesh, they were straight from central casting. They might be very nice people (I don’t know them from Adam) but they came across as a man edging into old age, who had already messed up the business of raising one family, by his own admission, who had fallen for a sexy bimbo type (those lips!) 20 years his junior (people would have inevitably filled in the blanks here and cast her in the role of marriage-wrecker, though there was no such suggestion) and thought it was love, producing three children outside wedlock.
When asked whether they would marry if there is divorce legislation, you’d have thought they would answer with an enthusiastic ‘Yes’. But instead she answered with a laconic “Nithajjar” (ar’ hemm, hej) and he said “If she wants me, yes I will get married. Why not?”
It was as if they were being offered a new pension plan by their bank. It was a disaster, because it illustrated perfectly what I have said for ages: that it is wrong to assume that those who live together, with or without children, necessarily want a marriage certificate or are gagging for one. Well, we have yet to see what lies ahead.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
65 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Can there be interests within the PN and their apologists to undermine anything that is coming out of the pro-divorce movement? I assume that the PN’s official position will be against divorce and they will do everything they can to push that agenda – obviously indirectly, not to politicize the issue.
[Daphne – Bit difficult, given that all of who you call ‘PN apologists’ are pro-divorce.]
The anti divorce bandwagon in the PN is using a different tactic:
They are slowly but surely going back to a warm and fuzzy Catholicism. They cannot beat this rationally. They are laying siege guns at the walls of the pro-divorce lobby. The first heavy volleys at the doors came with the Xarabankata of a terminally ill patient and attendant funeral with a full complement of party apparatchiks.
They cannot beat this using rational arguments. Gonzi can only win by rallying up the catholic troops. I hope am sorely mistaken as this can backfire and lose the government a lot of credibility.
The problem is that rational catholics will not remain blindly loyal. The ideal of a secular state that represents all citizens is too precious a value to lose. This is going to create a new rift amongst the faithful or many will no longer consider the church a viable social leader anymore…
Daph, priests will agree with you in the privacy of a conversation but then say the complete opposite on the pulpit. Don’t you see that they have no credibility at all? As long as they gather the flock to god, they will use any tactic, including lying as St Paul instructed himself…
It doesn’t help that the pro-divorce lobby is chaired by a strident, bossy woman either who makes you want to disagree with her just for the hell of it.
I have no idea who you are talking about when you say ‘strident woman’. So obviously she is not as as strident as you make her out to be. For me, only Pullicino Orlando comes to mind.
Then you are living under a rock, not on it.
The Times, Wednesday 26 January 2011:
“”I – labelled a conservative since I am anti-divorce (which goes to show the great democratic credentials of the pro-divorce lobby!) – will respect whatever decision the party takes. If that decision goes against what I conscientiously believe in, I would resign from Parliament since I would not be able in all conscience to back a pro-divorce party and I cannot ever expect my view prevails over the majority view,” Dr Gatt said.”
Am I the only one to read this as: “If that (PN) decision goes against what Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando conscientiously believes in, he should resign from Parliament since he would not be able in all conscience to back an anti-divorce party and he cannot ever expect his views to prevail over the majority view”?
“”I – labelled a conservative since I am anti-divorce (which goes to show the great democratic credentials of the pro-divorce lobby!) – …”
Well, you cannot blame anyone for labelling you a conservative, given that being anti-divorce in 2011 must spell the epitome of conservatism. If not, how best can one describe you without losing ‘democratic credentials’?
Surely not ‘liberal’, ‘progressive’ or ‘Maoist’. Your party’s name doesn’t help, either. So that leaves ‘Christian democrat’. But isn’t that exhuming an expedient political ideology long dead and buried in Rome?
And by the way, ‘respecting a decision’ and ‘resigning because of that decision’ are mutually exclusive. Unless you meant you wouldn’t do a Dalli.
How do you mean Christian Democracy is long dead and buried in Rome?
Have you forgotten about the CDU in Germany, the powerhouse of Europe?
And what’s the CDU’s political ideology, ciccio2011?
I am still struggling to understand your political ideology, Kev.
Is anyone really ‘pro-divorce’? Divorce is something nobody wishes to go through – I cringe at the term ‘pro-divorce’ because it is, in itself, absurd.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s dubbing his movement as a ‘pro-divorce’ one doesn’t help with gaining popularity; what he seems to be trying to do is convince people that divorce is okay or acceptable, rather than affirm the importance of choice, and the irrationality of choosing to impose your views on the rest of the population.
Like the abortion debate, this is a question of being ‘pro-choice’ i.e. in favour of one’s ability to choose getting a divorce, rather than ‘pro-divorce’.
My sentiments exactly. The big debate should have been based on ‘pro-choice’ or ‘anti-choice’ parameters.
A person could be a fervent anti-divorcist but still logically accept that a choice should be made available to those who do not share his views. As it is, we will all go to vote thinking that we are being asked whether all that the Church has drilled into our sub-conscious for centuries is right or wrong. We all know the outcome of such a plebiscite will be.
I didn’t watch Bondiplus, but Xarabank on abortion was equally one-sided, with pro-life guests on the panel, articulate and well prepared. Whereas the pro-choice were a couple of goons who by the end of the show had started to applaud the anti-abortion speaker.
You cannot be “smart” and favour divorce or abortion. What you saw on Xarabank – which I watched as well – was typical of such exchanges.
The “pro-immorality” is always fronted by shallow people whose world view is hindered by solipsism and severe megalomania. They hold their beliefs for either of two reasons:
a) it’s the “cool” side
b) it goes against what the Church says
It has always been my impression that whenever something of the sort is being discussed – the Church always gets it in the neck.
I enjoy following internet fora (forums?) that debate divorce and abortion (i know it can get quite lowbrow sometimes, but then again … horses for courses). The participants are generally North American – where one can safely assume that the “grip” of the Church is nowhere near as strong as it is here. You still get people attacking the Church for its “backward” ideologies. All this in a country where they have divorce AND abortion.
I’ve said this a million times over and I’ll say it again. There is no “rational” argument against divorce. Every study presented by the anti-divorce movement can have its results questioned, because it is very difficult to establish objectively a causal link between various ills and divorce.
Unsavoury as it may sound, in essence the Zebbug parish priest was right. He may have gone the wrong way about it, but the message was correct. It is the only valid reason to oppose divorce.
Matthew 5: 11 – 12:
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
How insulting. Remember Reuben, Sarah Palin and George Bush happen to be on your side. Still sure you’ve got all the “smart” people?
Actually it’s more a case of the media filtering who appears on panel.
It’s very common for important ‘guests’ to demand what is asked and how questions are framed, the no go areas, the ban on certain opponents etc… There are also issues that the government doesn’t want to talk about (eg: decriminalization of drugs)
So, yes it’s a charade that you’re falling for hook line and sinker
Heather,
Norman Lowell is on yours.
“There is no “rational” argument against divorce” … umm I got across this article today ..’Sons of Divorce Fare Worse Than Daughters’
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/sons-of-divorce-fare-worse-than-daughters/?src=me#x26;ref=health
[Daphne – Where there is divorce, Steve, there is no distinction between divorce and separation. What they mean when they say ‘divorce’ is marriage breakdown. We have that here, too.]
Daphne, I agree perfectly with you about your observations about the logo of the “Iva ghad-divorzju” movement.
It conveys precisely the wrong message, because it shows the young boy caught somewhere in between the two resulting families (not that divorce always produces two families). It automatically begs the question “In which family – exactly does that kid belong”?
This is usually the line of attack of the anti-divorce movement. As it stands, the logo shows 3 families, two on each side, and one in the middle, but there are only 2 men and 2 women there. Divorce is supposed to result in 2 families in cases like this. The message is not clear.
The problem with Pullicino Orlando is that he couldn’t give a flying wotsit about introducing divorce. This is just another one of his campaigns for personal aggrandisement.
It doesn’t help that he comes across as a godawful narcissist. I mean I’m fervently pro-divorce legislation and all, but if he were to come knocking at my door (highly unlikely, given that I’m Mr Nobody) asking for a YES I might consider voting NO. Just to spite him. It’s that bad.
Oh dear. Here we go again with personal character judgments and partisan politics coming in the way of doing what is right for one’s country. When will this country ever change?
Try meeting him in the flesh and you’ll come over to my side. This country may change, but I won’t. My “personal character judgment” (not partisan politics, please) stands. Let no one be in doubt: If the divorce referendum passes he will strut around with the hero’s mantle, reminding us that he alone had the courage and foresight to save Malta.
I’ve been long enough on this goddamn planet to spot a huge ego miles off. That man is a buffoon. And a scheming manipulator. The sooner he quits politics and buries himself in something else the better for everyone, especially the Yes lobby. He’s not doing us any favours.
H. P. Baxxter – you could not have described this man better. I am convinced you are not basing your judgement of Pullicino Orlando on partisan politics. I share the same opinion as you regarding this character. I cringe every time I see him.
Partisan politics is something that does not exist in my book. Most of you make the mistake of thinking that because I am an unknown, I do not know the jet set. Oh but I do.
All of the people I have commented on on this blog, I have met, bar Mintoff.
Perhaps you will say that my judgement is coloured because I have never received any favours from anyone, but then what would you rather have, an embittered man who has seen how the other side lives, or some fawning sycophant who owes everyone a favour?
I suspect that the only reason that Jeffrey is involved with the pro divorce movement and is the driving force behing the proposed law, is to salvage his political career after the Mistra case. This ‘straw’ is what keeps him from political limbo.
Likewise, I do not think that Austin Gatt will resign from parliament just because the PN votes in favour of divorce. He already declared that he will not run again in 2013, while his ministerial responsibilities have already been reduced.
I notice that there is a lot of internal debate within the PN on this issue. But is there any debata at all within the MLP? They also have a mix of views on divorce.
How long will the party sit on a fence on this issue, hoping to attract the pro divorce vote of the upper middle class?
The PN will “soon” announce its “position”, which will be that of giving a free vote to its electorate and its MPs. How’s that for a decision?
Tactically, the LP is winning the strategic game on this one hands down. After so much NET TV airtime wasted on telling us how the LP has “no postion”, the PN comes round to tell us that its position is….that it has NO position!
And it was Joseph Muscat, NOT JPO who brought this thing in the public forum. JPO, in circumstances as yet unclear, was the catalyst which is bringing this issue to a head. Muscat did what was possible within Malta’s particular situation: he declared that Labour MPs will have a free vote.
This is what the PN is saying now. Tell me, pray, who is sitting on the fence?
If by internal debate, you mean twisting the arms of the MPs so that they toe the leader’s (and not the party’s) personal view, then so be it. Typical MLP definition of internal democracy. It reflects the spoiled brat personality of your leader.
I am in favour of divorce. However I believe that the MLP MPs who oppose divorce have a right to express their opinions as well since they represent a certain category of constituents.
Without divorce, in a couple of generations, Malta will be a nation of bastards.
An illegitimate nation, you mean?
Yes. It’s already started.
Daphne, once again Joseph Muscat failed to read where the public is on any important position. Maltese people at the moment are not ready for divorce. I agree with you that the mood in the country is against divorce. Can you imagine the people’s mood once the anti-divorce movement is unleashed? So far they have been quiet.
My reasonable prediction is that Muscat, Everist Bartolo, Anglu Farrugia and Marlne Pullucino will stop championing the cause. I think result of the referendum is going to make them look bad.
I believe the public though, is ready to see an improvement in laws that will help people who are in cohabitation. The sooner this is done the better it is for the government.
Pray can you tell me the difference in moral between a divorced and remarried couple and a separated cohabitating one. Being against divorce and in the same breath asking for an improvment in cohabitation laws is to say the least sheer hypocrisy.
You’re right up to the point that there’s no difference in both cases you mentioned. However, you cannot punish everything else a person does afterwards.
What I mean is that cohabiting divorced/separated couples may need some sort of protection/regulation for their material possessions. Their may be some inheritance rights which are being denied to their offspring in the absence of such laws. It is not fair to deny them that even though “they may not be doing the right thing”. I do not see it as hypocritical
Then there’s another thing. I strongly suspect that if divorce legislation is introduced we will observe a drop in “marriages”, as people won’t want to put all their eggs in one basket. You’d still end up with a significant “grey area” so to speak.
My opinion is that with “good” cohabitation laws you wouldn’t need divorce legislation, but with divorce legislation you’d still need cohabitation laws.
Muscat? What has Muscat got to do with the referendum? Why don’t you look at Gonzi and Co? The referendum is the Prime Minister’s mess, and its’s he who has got to sit on it now!
The only thing Muscat did was to declare he is in favour of divorce and that he will give a free vote to his MPs, precisely because this is a very sensitive issue and there are many circumstances one must consider in a closed insular society such as ours. The PN has now come round to think in this way too. So, please, stop talking about “Muscat” in this.
I just can’t bear to hear or read about divorce anymore. To me the point is ‘choice’ – give the individual freedom to decide. It’s not a matter of majority or minority rule, every person should have a free choice. Why do we have to drag religious morality into this. Why should Catholics and non-Catholics be deprived of divorce on this god forgotten island?
First it was Emy Bezzina, now it is Mistra Orlando.
Unbelievably, the pro divorce legislation movement cannot produce a single credible and respectable individual out of 420,000.
Their support must be next to nothing.
[Daphne – That’s not the case at all.]
I watched Bondi Plus and observed Lou’s body language when the 40/60% changed to 60/40% against a divorce after four years of separation. I also noticed that the question was changed to who should decide about this issue.
[Daphne – The question wasn’t changed. There are usually two questions.]
We were told by Lou that Fr Rene’ Camilleri is Dr Andre’ Camilleri’s brother but we weren’t told that Lou has a vested interest on this issue.
[Daphne – The fact that one is separated from one’s spouse does not mean that one has a vested interest in divorce. That was the final point of my article above. To many of the people I know who have long been separated, divorce is by now an irrelevance. I actually know one man whose marriage broke up around 35 years ago, who has been with another woman since then (the same one), they have a child (now grown up) and he is actually against divorce. I know, too, that Lou has never, in 18 years of hosting that show, discussed the topic – precisely because he never wanted to be seen as having a bias or vested interest, as you put it. It is also the reason that, when he finally did discuss it, last Monday, he started by giving a platform to the anti-divorce movement. So please, let’s be fair.]
Dr Camilleri was very convincing when he recounted his experiences during his long stay in Holland. He was also assertive and businesslike. I noticed that all the pro divorce people on the show were casually dressed while the pro marriage were more formal.
PN diehard voters see in Pullicino Orlando the antithesis of Fenech Adami. When they see his face they see red. Austin Gatt gained the respect of many who resented him, with his statements about divorce.
“PN diehard voters see in ………………… (do not even wish to utter his name) the antithesis of Fenech Adami. When they see his face they see red.”
I am not and have never been a diehard voter of any political party and I will keep my political views to myself, but when I see that face I do not see red, my stomach starts to churn. There, that was decent and polite.
Funny you should say that because I did not hear a single argument against divorce which made sense in the whole programme.
The choice of cohabiting couple was an unfortunate one – I cannot understand how they could present a case for divorce if they themselves were unable to clarify why they want it or what they would do with it (Daphne was spot on as usual).
It was a cold shower for all those who see this as a life or death battle (on both sides) and they probably hardened the opinion of anyone on the “anti-divorce” side who was waivering on the issue.
“Vested interest” does not necessarily mean that the guy wants to divorce. It may mean that people like Lou want our ‘approval’ for their behaviour , or how avant guard , liberal and progressive they are. The program backfired.
I know of people who divorced and left their spouses empty-handed with two young children to bring up.
[Daphne – I agree with you that people whose marriages have ended should preferably not be involved in the pro-divorce lobby because it weakens their argument. But equally, John, and by the same token, people whose marriages have not ended are less convincing in their arguments against divorce than a person whose marriage ended would be. When a man like the one I mentioned (marriage ended 35 years ago, lives with somebody else, has a child) argues against divorce, I really listen, even I think he’s being inconsistent.]
The reaction to the likes of Dr Camilleri would suggest that this only works one-way though, doesn’t it? He’s (presumably) happily married and also known to be a devout Catholic, but it doesn’t appear to be making his arguments any less convincing, especially as he isn’t using his own situation as an argument.
My impression is that in Malta, people are still quick to associate ‘married and devout’ with ‘upstanding and trustworthy’ irrespective of whether they really are, while divorced or separated people are treated with suspicion.
[Daphne – Unfortunately, that suspicion is often justified, though I rush to add that there are significant exceptions. It’s not a moral judgement, either. It’s usually taken as a sign of weakness of character rather than anything else.]
Why will they recognise a divorce obtained abroad but not give you one themselves? Why is the Maltese government being so discriminatory?
[Daphne – Malta has to recognise divorces obtained elsewhere for the same reason it has to recognise marriages contracted elsewhere: to avoid anomalous situations.]
So they will give you a legal separation, even an annulment, and yet still let you register a divorce from abroad but not let you get a divorce in Malta? Does this make sense to anyone?
[Daphne – Obviously not. It’s the strongest argument in the divorce arsenal, but for some reason, they don’t use it much. ]
Separation, declaration of nullity (annulment in popular parlance) and divorce can only be mentioned together inasmuch as they are situations pertaining to marriage.
“Annulment” is when a marriage is declared null, it means that the marriage never was. The “contract” was vitiated. You-could-have-never-sold-that-property-because-it-wasn’t-yours-in-the-first-place sort of thing.
Divorce and separation, on the other hand, necessitate the existence of a valid marriage that needs to be broken up. You cannot break up and/or leave something that never existed.
Another thing – not really ground breaking, just a “semantic” observation. As I’ve had occasion to state previously, I follow online debates about divorce, among other things. Most participants are North American. I do not think that they have a “separation” concept. You’re either divorced or married. I’ve even seen priests use this “terminology” as in “You can receive Holy Communion if you’re divorced, as long as you’re not involved with anyone else after you left your wife/husband”
I cannot see how divorce will be introduced in Malta while the Catholic Church annuls marriages of those who have had children. In my mind, this makes the children born out of wedlock but with some mental gymnastics the Maltese law sidesteps the issue.
[Daphne – It’s called a ‘legal fiction’. The issue of marriages declared never to have existed are not illegitimate.]
“The issue of marriages declared never to have existed are not illegitimate”
Not that it really matters, but are they considered illegitimate to the Catholic Church?
[Daphne – No, and that’s another legal fiction. There are civil annulments too, remember.]
You say that as if any of it made sense.
My head hurts.
So that explains why they don’t want divorce – because it will be carving into their annulment racket!
I am pro-divorce because I had so much fun at my wedding reception, I want to do it all over again. One question: is the VAT refund scheme on the wedding expenses still on?
I suggest you should check about anti-avoidance rules which may apply in your case.
“….it is wrong to assume that those who live together, with or without children, necessarily want a marriage certificate or are gagging for one. Well, we have yet to see what lies ahead.”
And yet, elsewhere, you have written about people who you probably do not know and about their wish to get married should ‘gay marriage be introduced in Malta’. This was in one of your posts about Joseph Muscat.
[Daphne – I always write about what I observe, never about what I hypothesise or wish was the case. I happen to think, as a result of my observations, that many people who live together do not want to get married because they have realised that they are perfectly all right as they are. Another observation I have made is that, among cohabiting people who are married to somebody else, those who were left are more likely to want divorce and to remarry, while those who did the leaving couldn’t give a damn either way. I don’t think gay couples are any different. A few will want to marry, but the majority will probably prefer to carry on as they are. You can see this pattern already where gay marriage has been introduced. It’s also the reason why divorce does nothing to reduce levels of cohabitation, contrary to what the pro-divorce movement says here. Cohatiitation is actually a choice for many, and not the default position.]
Thanks for replying. Meanwhile… Any idea why The Malta Independent does not have a comments section like ToM and MT have? After all this is a TMI article.
Because having one online newspaper where everyone can barrage all their rubbish is more than enough!
This if for all the Nationalist Party fold but in particular to the topmost executives.
From inception the epigram of the party has been Religio e Patria, and this is still engrained in its institution and belief.
I am not sure whether the party can move away from basics for some temporary or illusory reason, be it divorce or other.
Morally you cannot do this without the consent of the party echelons.
No consumer politics please but stick to principles.
From timesofmalta.com:
“Dr Fenech Adami insisted during a debate on RTK radio he did not need an impact assessment to tell him divorce was bad because his religious beliefs already told him so.”
I would have expected better of him.
Actually, I think that’s a very sound reply as it’s one of the few honest ones.
This is a religious question, dressed up as a reasoned debate. Austin Gatt’s article, on the other hand, was nothing but mumbo jumbo made up to cover the fact that his stance on this is due to upbringing. Gatt did admit that it was a matter of conscience, which was virtually the only honest opinion he put forth.
This is so, so simple for those who care to understand. The conservative-liberal coalition within the PN is simply over. The interesting is, where will the PN-friendly media be on this one? I mean the most “known” exponents who usually express views parallel to those of the PN – no names needed – are mostly pro-divorce. What will they do now? And what will the PN do without the help of these? Boy is this interesting!
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110128/local/fenech-adami-hits-out-at-quick-fix-divorce-bill
Whilst I have always had great respect for the man, I consider his stance to be rather hypocritical. Whilst it is true that one is not responsible for one’s children, one should not deny current and future generations options other than those which were accessible to members of his family or to their current spouses.
Instead of reading what was reported, wouldn’t it be better if you listen to the programme?
http://www.rtk.org.mt/ondemand.asp?cat=14
http://www.il-gensillum.com/news.asp?issue=70&newscat=12&news=5959
Daphne you said << [Where there is divorce, Steve, there is no distinction between divorce and separation. What they mean when they say 'divorce' is marriage breakdown. We have that here, too.]
Does that mean that if divorce is introduced, legal separation will finish?
[Daphne – No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Where there is divorce, you are free to separate without divorcing. It’s just that most people don’t. You separate when you no longer want to live with the person, so then you might as well divorce.]
The comment that being pro-divorce legislation does not mean that you favour divorce makes sense. I am totally against divorce or rather re-marriage but still don’t feel the State should take religion into consideration.
Divorce wouldn’t affect the sacramental side of marriage, just the civil side.
Those who don’t care about the sacramental aspect of marriage have no problem in co-habiting even if both are free to marry.
Those who believe in the sacramental aspect would carry on as they do today = live a celibate life if they separate.
So what is divorce going to change?
Civil disruption in known to increase dramatically when divorce is introduced in a society. Francis Fukuyama, an american philosopher, wrote a book about the great disruption that took place in the U.S. as a result of several issues foremost of which was divorce.
Also, statistics extracted from another source about the US divorce experience goes to substantiate this arguement further.
Quote –
“ Married adults now divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago… between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability within… the first five years is 20%, and the probability of its ending within the first 10 years is 33%… Perhaps 25% of children ages 16 and under live with a stepparent.
”
—Brian K. Williams, Stacy C. Sawyer, Carl M. Wahlstrom, Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships 2006 – unquote
The small island of Malta can ill-afford to go through this social and economic scourge. The economic cost of a great disruption of a high magnitude will have an untold strain on our economy but also on our cultural and social roots.
Our common good comes foremost and demands that this issue of divorce is analysed objectively from a macro level.
Although I sympathise with the increasing number of legally separated, circa 13000 it is reported, many of whom may want to dissolve their nuptial contract, I am afraid that their plight should not take precendence on the common good.
The statistics you quote are clearly just descriptive of US society. There is nothing in there that says this was all caused by the introduction of divorce.
Without divorce, Malta is still going through a similar experience, albeit on a smaller scale. Have a chat with any teacher and they’ll tell you what a sensitive issue Mother’s and Father’s day have become in class.
Malta is acting like the proverbial ostrich in this issue, ignoring the fact that marriages are breaking down. You can only influence culture and lifestyles to a certain extent by legislating. What the state can do is to regulate matters when it is obvious that things are not working as expected.