Dear Traveller

You flatter me with your compliments and I am particularly impressed with your remarkable deductive capabilities.
Andrew Farrugia.

This seems to be a potential “blind spot,” and/or a case of their being more “Catholic” than the Pope, especially if they directly widen their attack or implicitly include (or exclude) marriage tribunals.

Or, perhaps, this even may be a case of their being more orthodox than God, who frequently works with the sins and weaknesses of human beings in crooked lines.

Others (who are not God) nonetheless may insist on being judgmental about the lives of others. Coersion is violence if we inflict it on others. The decision for “divorce” should rest with the “married” couple, and the social consequences should be regulated by civil law. God is the ultimate judge; but civil society should not substitute themselves for God on matters of personal conscience.

Daphne, I believe that your analysis for the emotive basis for opposition to divorce (because of the underlying psychology related to remarriage) is likely quite correct.

It would seem that rational arguments (on either side) pertaining to the “divorce issue” will be eclipsed by emotive fears and defenses “against”, just as voting in elections oftentimes (and not only in Malta) is determined by the personal identity of one’s party affiliations and personal history.

Apart from being a very interesting psychology case study, I don’t see through to how the divorce issue will be concluded successfully (with the introduction of divorce) in Malta, although social justice, I believe, suggests that doing so is correct.

The battle, however, must be conducted, even if the chances of “winning” are now slim. Likewise, I do welcome rational debate from both sides of the issue: because open discussion in civil society is essential to any rational conclusion, if we arrive to it eventually.

Fair point, Daphne, though it does raise another question. Why are these people not fighting against annulments?

That says it all.

You are not enabling remarriage. You are diluting the marriage concept to mean nothing at all.

Sorry, what kind of argument is this? It is also possible to get separated against your will – so what’s the difference? If the divorce is justified, the court should decide in that sense. If not, ditto. That’s why there are the courts.

[Daphne – It’s not an argument. It’s a statement of fact. Part of reasoned debate is trying to see where others are coming from, and understanding their position and views. Yes, it is a fact that much opposition to divorce stems from FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF REMARRIAGE. That’s why it makes no sense at all to argue, to people who feel this way, that the effects of divorce and separation are exactly the same. Yes, but with one difference: status. Where there are injured parties, status counts. Even if you think this is odd, you have to at least acknowledge that it is normal human sentiment. If you have been dumped for somebody else, you still retain the status of official spouse while the other is the adulterous poggut/pogguta, and so officially ‘the guilty party’. But bring divorce and remarriage into the mix, and suddenly the dumped party is the ex-wife/husband and has been superseded by a new spouse. Please don’t bicker with me about this: these are not my sentiments but my observations. They are quite easy for anyone who has been married a long time to understand. It’s not about religion or conservatism, but about basic human nature.]

Forgive me, Daphne, I certainly mean no disrespect but have you changed your opinion about divorce lately? If I may ask: assuming you have changed your opinion, is it due to your political allegiance or for other reasons? You are obviously under no obligation to reply, but if you do I’d appreciate it.

[Daphne – I find this all so mysterious. No, I haven’t changed my position on divorce just because I welcomed the entry into the debate of people I respect, even if they hold the opposing view. I am also of the belief that stridency, on either side, doesn’t help in these matters and that Catholicism actually has very little to do with it. My belief is that the overriding fear that underpins the opposition to divorce legislation is of the consequences of remarriage. And that is precisely why opponents of divorce legislation cannot be convinced by arguments that actually, divorce is good because it allows remarriage. That is why they think it is BAD.]

What I can deduce with certainty from what you write is that either your IQ is low and your level of culture is correspondingly negligible or else you’re too young and immature.

Divorce will be introduced, tardare si’, scappare no, and all those opposing it are destined to be consigned to the dustbin of history. History will judge the anti-divorcists in the same way it judges inquisitors, as heartless despots ready to sacrifice others in honour of their intransigence, narrow-mindedness and totalitarian beliefs.

After the referendum this group of responsible citizens will bow out from the public scene.

People who write “Talibans with a diploma”, “Shame Malta Shame”, “I would rather not be born than be born in this place”, show that they are not good to put forward sound arguments in a discussion.

My main worry on the divorce debate is this: who shall we put first if someone wants divorce – society, the children, the breadwinner, the father, the mother, the husband, the wife?

My next worry is: who will pay and how much, for the consequences of divorce? The economics of divorce. Many marriage breakdowns have money problems as their root cause, and both sides will sink more in misery with more money problems.Many societies are paying lots of money to support people with problems caused by divorce.

The experience of this fifteen year old boy says a lot:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110103/local/court-considers-wishes-of-the-child-in-abduction-case