The weakest of arguments for divorce: marriage
“Like everyone else, I’ve been doing a lot of soul-searching and I’ve been noticing the realities around me. I see people my age, and younger, whose marriages have failed, sometimes through no fault of their own. And I wonder: Why shouldn’t we give them the right to start a family afresh?”
– Nationalist MP Karl Gouder
Karl Gouder is not the first to use this argument, but only the latest one to do so. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has used it repeatedly. The new pro-divorce organisation seeks to build its entire campaign on it. And so the mantra is rapidly being taken up by the crowd, by which I mean the crowd on the internet.
Yet it is an entirely nonsensical, illogical argument. The right (and ability) to marry and the right (and ability) to form a family are entirely separate and distinct. They have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
Neither one is dependent on the other or grows out of it.
It is biologically possible and legally permissible to marry and not have children. It is biologically possible and legally permissible to have children without being married, or when you are married to somebody other than the one you are busy having children with.
That much should be obvious.
Why, then, is the divorce movement confusing the two issues, the two rights, and weakening its own campaign by saying that divorce will allow people to form a family?
Divorce will not allow people to form a family. It will allow people who have formed families already to marry each other, and then only if they want to. We have to assume that many of them won’t want to, because – let’s face it – if having children outside wedlock, or rather in wedlock to somebody else, really bothered them that much then they wouldn’t have done it in the first place.
Lots of people don’t, precisely because it would bother them. When their marriages break down and they find somebody else to live with, they don’t feel any great urge to spawn afresh, largely out of respect and love for the children they have had already, who would feel betrayed twice over. And no, children – even grown-up children who have made their own way in the world already – are not excited or pleased about the arrival of half-siblings. They only pretend to be, to keep the fragile peace.
If my insight into certain situations is accurate, then divorce legislation will actually cause the breakdown of many of these extramarital relationships rather than bringing about a rush to contract marriage. Again, that much should be obvious. People who are in extramarital relationships have never had to sit down and consider whether they really want to marry the person they are living with.
In the absence of the possibility, it remains a hypothetical question, and no number of protestations will change the fact that it can be considered only as a hypothesis. With divorce legislation, the scenario changes completely. Now the question becomes viable, and it has to be answered in the context of reality. When people are forced into that cold, hard dawn of reality, they often realise that what they want is not what they thought they wanted.
Divorce legislation is not going to put existing marriages under pressure. The pressure it will exert is going to be mainly on cohabiting couples, one or both married to somebody else, who have so far used the inability to divorce as an excuse to avoid the commitment of marriage.
I really think the divorce movement has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, as exemplified in this non sequitur of an argument up above. The people who will vote, in a referendum, for divorce legislation are not just those who are living in sin with 1.5 children and a marriage to somebody else.
You’re not going to win a referendum on the strength of those votes alone.
The bulk of the Yes vote will be made up of people who think exactly as I do. They hate all the scrabbling around, the mixing and matching, the tahwid, the children of this one living with the children of that one.
They disapprove of the sexual and emotional incontinence that leads grown men and women to shatter their children’s lives and security and deprive them of the one thing they want and need most of all: one fixed home with two fixed parents.
They consider ridiculous the belief that you can start again at 50 as though you were 25, because they understand that life is a straight line from birth to death, and not a circle or series of circles.
They know that what you miss out on at 20 you can’t experience at 40, and that there are no second chances or fresh starts, no matter how much we would like to think so, but only chapter after chapter in the same book, with just one beginning and just one end.
But yet they understand that people are free to make their own messes, create their own problems and break up their marriages, and if they want to remarry then the law shouldn’t stop them because they’re over 18.
A legal system that allows you to enter into a lifelong contract of marriage at 16 with your parents’ permission and at 18 with no permission at all – when you’re far too young and immature to know what in heaven’s name you’re doing – but then doesn’t allow you to dissolve that contract at 30, 40, 50 or 60 when you know exactly what you want, is more than a little bit odd. Of course it is odd; that’s why we’re on our own out here, out on a limb.
The majority of people who think Malta should have divorce legislation are not like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando or that couple called Penelope and Gordon on BondiPlus last Monday.
They are still living with their spouses and intend to stay that way, but they understand that other people might not want the same thing. They believe that those people have every right to call it a day in Malta once Malta accords them the right to call it a day in another jurisdiction.
Those who think as I do are not pro-divorce. I would say that most of us – myself, certainly – cannot stand tahwid and regard it with suspicion and irritation. But we are pro-divorce legislation.
And we are pro-secularisation. And above all, we know that we have no right to interfere with or control the way grown men and women choose to live unless it is criminal, in which case it is up to the police and certainly not up to us.
The divorce movement should stop all this nonsense about wanting to divorce so that you can remarry, and claiming that people are in favour of divorce because they are in favour of marriage. The primary aim of divorce is not to aid remarriage but to cut all ties with an existing spouse.
Everywhere in the world, the vast majority of people who divorce do so long before they have another relationship, still less an interest in marrying again.
Indeed, recent divorcees who have just come through the trauma of one marriage ending are likely to regard with horror the prospect of remarriage. Yes, the divorce movement should have the courage of its convictions and stop pleading special case status or attempting to justify its stance.
To seek to justify what you claim is a right is an admission of weakness at the outset. It reminds me of those women – gosh, how mad they make me – who demand promotion because women are as good as men and we have evidence of this. Really? You don’t say.
Above all, the divorce movement should recognise the fact that it is perfectly possible to view divorce and what I believe are called ‘blended families’ with utmost distaste and still be in favour of divorce legislation and happily friendly with any number of people who are divorced, separated, cohabiting and the rest.
I am one of them, and like me there are silent thousands.
We are distinct from the religious brigade because our distaste for marital chaos has nothing to do with religious instruction and everything to do with a perceived lack of consideration for the children involved. Where there are no children we see both marriage and divorce as a total irrelevance. And whether we like to admit it or not, we see the inability to sustain a marriage – and here I exclude abusive situations – as evidence of a weak, unsound character and shallow spirit.
I have always wondered at parents who claim they are prepared to die for their children, to donate their organs, to bear their pain instead of them, yet somehow can’t find it in themselves to do something far less taxing or final, which is to keep a secure home over those children’s heads, no matter how dull and tiresome it might be some days, or how very much more attractive the bright lights outdoors might seem.
How can your child believe you when you say that you would die for him if you had to, if you are not prepared even to live with his mother/father, or, in the case of fathers who leave, with him?
Most marriages don’t break up because of violence or ill-treatment or abuse or financial trouble. They break up because of our innate inability to deal with the tedium of quotidian life or the manifold and manifest irritations of living with another person’s quirks for decades.
Yes, it’s possible to disapprove of divorce but approve of divorce legislation. That is exactly my stance; it is the stance of many and would be the stance of even more, if they were to allow themselves to see that the two are quite separate and distinct. Both the pro- and the anti-divorce groups would do well to understand this.
And so does the Nationalist Party. The values of that political party,which I so admire, are embodied in the apparent tautology, which is not a tautology at all. Respect for the integrity of the family and awareness of its importance leads to a disapproval of situations which lead to divorce, but respect for the freedom, integrity and dignity of the individual – another core Nationalist Party value – can only lead to a decision in favour of divorce legislation. The role of the state is not to save people from themselves.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
28 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
A legal system that allows you to enter into a lifelong contract of marriage at 16 with your parents’ permission and at 18 with no permission at all, when you’re far too young and immature to know what in heaven’s name you’re doing – but then doesn’t allow you to dissolve that contract at 30, 40, 50 or 60 when you know exactly what you want, is more than a little bit odd. Of course it is odd; that’s why we’re on our own out here, out on a limb.
Bravo!I’m sure there are very rational and intelligent people in the PN, yet they bury their heads in the sand and hope this passes by faster than a September storm…
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205833&newsletter=300111&utm_source=Pulseem&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Jpost_Newsletter_30/01
When a missile is fired at a target (a fighter plane or a ship) the target tries to deviate the missile away from it or fires another missile to hit or deviate the enemy missile.
Nowadays these missiles send anti-missile signals against each other to reach their target. This technological anti-missile process goes up to about twenty times while the missiles are in flight. When a missile recognises its target ,it locks itself on the target , no matter how many anti-missile signals are sent.
I feel ‘locked’ on the divorce issue and have decided not because of religion or personal gain, but because of the originator of all this trouble, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. Jeffrey is pushing his agendas through a big party which saved him from drowning when he almost cost it the last election because of his shady Mistra development.
Daphne, your arguments are quite sound and maybe there are sound counter-arguments.
The problem for me is not divorce or no divorce. The problem is that a party is being led by the nose by a nobody. It’s time for the PN Executive to grab the bull by its horns, come what may.
Can we have more Austin Gatts, please?
Can the MPs express themselves publicly instead of meeting in private or phoning each other?
You lost me on the seventh ‘missile’.
John, when the government has only a one seat majority, the normal party discipline has to be put on hold. With a healthy majority, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando would have gone a long time ago and would have presented his Divorce Bill as an independent or as a Labour MP.
With a good majority he would have been joined by two or three others who come to mind.
One cannot be a member of a party and at the same time go against its principles. Only the electorate has the privilege of agreeing or not. If one stands for election with a particular party, it is assumed by the electorate that he or she fully embraces the principles of that party.
It is for this reason that Pullicino Orlando will pay dearly for his conduct. To add to his woes, he will be perceived as having a personal interest in seeing a divorce law passed. A case of the tail wagging the dog?
The bigger problem is not the bill itself but rather the way he preferred to go about it and the inopportune time to present it.
This country has embraced Christian principles for the last two thousand years and the Nationalist Party has adopted the same principles since its inception. It cannot arbitrarily change its course and declare its support for a divorce law. However, in order to separate moral and civil laws, it should let a free vote be taken in Parliament and let individual consciences decide the outcome.
While the NP has every right to do what it perceives to be right for the nation, it would be awfully unwise to try to twist the moral arms of the voters.
Those who are against a referendum argue that holding one is the result of our MPs not having what it takes to do what is right. On the other hand, some MPs boast that the position they are taking is what their constituents want. How can they prove it other than by holding a referendum? Democracy demands it.
You could have said all that without the missile.
I am against divorce and even against divorce legislation. In this piece, Daphne, you put forward a number of points which make a lot of sense and whilst I thought you were a fervent pro-divorce (legislation) supporter from this article I take it you are not so much in favour of divorce but rather are arguing for the right and free will of people to do whatever they want, even if it harms them and their families as long as it is not criminal.
In my opinion you are forgetting one thing, and that is that when you allow divorce you are not only allowing one to harm himself but many others as well, spouses, children and the new set of spouses and children and many others as long as the person continue to move from one marriage to another.
To my knowledge the probability of marriage breakdown increases exponentially at the second marriage ie the majority of those who divorce and re-marry end up divorcing again and re-marrying again.
People say that anyway these people are separating and starting up new families and that’s true, so why are we stopping them from re-marrying.
I think that this argument should in fact be used against divorce because if people are anyway finding another woman/man to live with and maybe having children then why would they need divorce?
Secondly, by saying yes to divorce you are legitimising something which is wrong. Daphne, even you seem to recognise that divorce is wrong in this piece.
[Daphne – No, Claude, I don’t say that divorce is wrong. I say that marital chaos is wrong – with or without divorce. Your argument that we shouldn’t have divorce legislation because divorce harms children is flawed, for the simple reason that it is marital breakdown which harms children and you can’t legislate against that. You can’t save people from themselves.]
This has the indirect effect of giving people who are already married an excuse to bail out and those who are soon to be married a lesser degree of responsibility when vowing to stay in the marriage for life.
Divorce will only bring about more of the ‘tahwid’ you mention. Someone who cannot make the necessary sacrifices needed to live with another person and keep a family together is very likely to have the same problems after divorce with a new relationship.
People who really want to sever all ties with their previous husband/wife don’t need divorce they need good legislation on separation.
Those who are in abusive marriage do not need divorce, but need protection and good annulment legislation. Divorce will only accentuate the problems we have in our marriages.
[Daphne – How is annulment different to divorce? Divorce is actually more moral, because it acknowledges that there was once a marriage, instead of jumping through hoops to seek to deny it.]
One last point. We speak about introducing divorce but I got married when divorce did not exist and when neither I nor my wife had that as a choice.
If you give us the right to divorce you are changing the conditions of a contract and a vow. Obviously if things go wrong in our marriage divorce or no divorce we will still have to face the difficulties of separation etc so that doesn’t change anything, but it does in principle shift the goalposts.
So, I married “for better and for worse till death do us part”, but suddenly someone inserted a sentence which I never agreed to – “or till one of us decides to bail out”.
[Daphne – That’s not actually in the marriage ceremony of any place that I know of.]
Maybe if I knew that divorce was an option I wouldn’t have gotten married.
[Daphne – I’m sorry, but I don’t follow your line of reasoning. Would you have been less attracted to your wife and less inclined to build your life with her, would you have loved her less, just because there is divorce legislation?]
Maybe if I knew divorce was an option I would have done things differently! Do you get my point?
[Daphne – No, not at all.]
It might be extreme but I think that imposing the option of divorce to those who never asked for it is wrong.
[Daphne – Claude, how can you impose an option? An option is by definition not imposed.]
I think that what we really need is to make marriages more difficult to contract, so that young men and women take marriage more seriously and responsibly, but then again I think that if you think too much about how difficult it could be to keep a relationship alive for 50 years or more and to raise kids and keep a family together I think few would take the plunge.
Eddie Fenech Adami showed again what a great man he is (Austin Gatt also surprised me with his strong staements) with his comments on the divorce issue.
He said that the issue should not go to a referendum and that the party should be against as this is against its values. I agree completely.
The Nationalist Party should be against divorce, its leader is against divorce, the party has no mandate on divorce, Pullicino Orlando was elected on the PN ticket and should toe the line.
I know the prime minister is being held to ransom by a couple of MPs on this issue, but values are values and if this means losing a vote or even the government then so be it.
If you are not guided by values or principles you lose your mission – vide MLP – if you stand by what you believe in people will look up to you and follow you.
Claude, I hope legislators do not pass laws for personal expediency but because the laws make governance fairer and more efficient for all. Likewise, feelings should be left out of the equation.
This issue is getting blown out of proportion. Marriage breakdowns and divorce are not related. Correlation does not equal causation. The root cause of the problems we see is a consumer society and increasing tolerance of society. These things are less hidden nowadays.
Witness the fact that suddenly the Catholic Church has found a lot of sexual predators in its midst and what does it do? The Pope comes out to blame secularism. The real story is that the Church has been hiding the issue before and now it got caught with its pants down.
I have read this article critically because divorce legislation is really the only issue under the sun about which I cannot make up my mind (and that other thorny issue – capital punishment).
The distinction you make, Daphne, between divorce legislation and divorce itself is indeed an important one. And perhaps this is what has been confusing me for a long time. I do not condone divorce, but I certainly do not judge whoever chooses to divorce or separate. It’s none of my business.
However, in principle, I am really for the stability of marriage and the promotion of same, even legislatively.
And still, I think we can no longer have a situation where divorce is not possible. I think we really are burying our heads in the sand, particularly in the wake of Brussels II Regulation.
I also fail to see the link between divorce and starting afresh to have a family. I think it is silly, really. If there is one argument which would make me vote against the introduction of divorce legislation, it is the fact that people who have made a mess of their first marriage – and probably also had children from that marriage – are now being given the “authority” almost to start afresh and, perhaps, to wreak havoc with other children’s lives.
I particularly liked your comment that life is a straight line, no circles. It is indeed an illusion to think otherwise. Yet, how many are clamouring for divorce just for this reason?
I am still puzzled but I hope to make up my mind very soon on the issue.
So marital chaos is wrong, but divorce does not solve it – it just increases marital chaos. Divorced persons who re-marry tend to divorce again.
I did not say that we should not have divorce legislation because it harms kids. I said that divorce does not only impact one person but the whole family. Even in your piece you say that re-marriage and having other kids from a second marriage continues to rub salt in the children’s wounds.
I said that annulment is needed where there are abusive relationships. I do not believe you find out that you like beating your wife after you get married, so there is always good grounds for an annulment.
Even if one of the couple was abusive before marriage there is grounds for annulment as the vows were not taken freely. If a marriage is not made properly then it should never have been and in that sense I was saying that there should be better legislation.
I agree with you that in certain cases it is true that annulment is being abused of and people are jumping through hoops to get the equivalent of divorce. I know of a couple of examples myself.
The actual words of the vows are: I (name) take you (name) to be my wife/husband. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honour you all the days of my life. Which is the equivalent if not stronger. To my knowledge for better or for worse is used popularly to state the spirit of the vows. Sorry if I was not precise but I think the spirit does not change.
Yes, I would have probably still loved my wife the same way, but I would have known then that divorce is an option and that my wife could at some point in time take this option. Maybe I would have taken more time to get to know her and hedge my risks.
I don’t know if it would make any difference because when you are in love nothing matters and sometimes even the most obvious signals are missed but at least you would know.
Say you are in your 50s, have raised your family and the children have left the nest. You are now looking for a house for the last phase of your life. You find a house that is the right size and has all that you need. In your mind you are buying this house to live there till you die.
You make a contractual agreement and buy the house. Then someone comes along and writes into your contract that if either the buyer or the seller wants then they can break the contract and the house goes back to the seller and the buyer takes back the money.
The contract has changed completely you still have the option to buy something else but the situatio is now very different. “If I knew these were the conditions I would not have bought this house. I would have rented.”
The comparison is not perfect but I hope I get the point across. You cannot change the agreement once the agreement is made. We currently get married for life. So how do you change the agreement if the agreement is made? One would say yes, but if you separate you have the same situation. Not exactly but it is true that the vows and all have gone out of the window.
[Daphne – You, I and everyone else got married with the possibility of divorce, even if you didn’t know it. You say that when you married, you did so knowing that your wife couldn’t divorce you. I hate to break it to you, but she could, and now it’s even easier because she has an EU passport. All she has to do, if she is really determined, is get a job and a flat in another jurisdiction, register herself as a resident, and wait out the required period. Around 20 Maltese couples get divorced like that every year. Your thinking – the general thinking – is ‘bubble’ thinking. It’s like the proud statement that we have no abortion in Malta, which we think means the same thing as ‘Maltese women don’t have abortions’, when it clearly doesn’t. There are all sorts of people in Malta who are divorced, even prominent people, and you wouldn’t even know it. Why? Because it’s considered shameful in a weird way, so lots of them struggle to get an annulment over and above the divorce, and then they never mention the divorce but only the annulment.]
Ok, it sounds incorrect saying that an option is imposed – what I mean is that you are imposing an opt-out clause. Does that make more sense?
Well I agree that there will always be ways of getting around it, as is happening with abortion, but that doesn’t mean we should condone it. So if abortion is possible anyway – and we know that quite a few Maltese women take that option – should we legislate in favour? I don’t think so. I thought that even you were against abortion or are you in favour as well?
[Daphne – Of course I am not in favour of abortion. But then neither am I in favour of some of the hideous results of not having abortion available, hideous results that we have not had to deal with for a long time because Maltese women have long had access to abortion. We don’t have to contend with the thorny issue of legislating for abortion precisely because we don’t need to. If people here could pop on the catamaran to Sicily or a RyanAir flight to London and get a divorce as instantaneously as they could get an abortion, then believe me we wouldn’t be having this debate. We would be a country with no divorce with hundreds of people popping off and coming back divorced 24 hours later – just as with abortion. The only reason we are having this tortured and protracted business about divorce is because it takes so long and is so complicated to get one in another jurisdiction. End of story.]
Good point
I have been in two minds about divorce, because while I disapprove of divorce, I felt divorce legislation should be available for who opts for it.
Having read your statement “The primary aim of divorce is not to aid remarriage but to cut all ties with the existing spouse”, has convinced me that divorce would in most cases be a double tragedy for children from broken marriages.
I notice that in the vast majority of cases, children whose parents are separated still have regular and meaningful contact with both parents.
As you say, divorce will cut all ties with the existing spouse, and with the majority of children of separated parents, this is exactly what they don’t want .Notwithstanding the difficult circumstances of most separations, many children, especially younger ones, still treasure that little remaining “tie” that still exists without a complete and formal cut which divorce brings with it.
These children may perhaps be living a sort of “fantasy” but they cling to that informal “family bond”. Divorce will end this. Perhaps you should consider this aspect more deeply.
I believe that if divorce is introduced the end result would be many cohabitating couples re marrying, and their second marriage probably failing as well, (statiscally true worldwide), and probably ending up with children from multiple marriages.
To cap it all, in Malta, due to the smallness of our community, unlike other countries, it so often happens that couples end up with ex’s from the same circle of friends. Not to mention problems of half brothers and sisters, constantly brushing against each other.
The end result would not be less “tahwid”, as you so correctly term it, but more of it. The victims of more “tahwid” will undoubtedly be the children.
What cetainly needs to be reformed is the annulment process by the Catholic Church. In Scotland, the Roman Catholic diocesce gives a decision whether to annul a marriage within a maximum of 24 months from when the application is made. That could help minimise the “tahwid”.
Meta naqra certi kummenti, ninduna kemm ghad hawn tahwid fuq id-divorzju u li qatt u qatt mhu se tghaddi il ligi.
Dan kif tigi tghidli li, li kieku kien hawn id-divorzju qabel, ma konntx tizzewweg, per ezempju? Dan x`ragunament hu?
U x`taghmel jekk mhux int tkisser iz- zwieg u taghmel minn kollox possibli, imma ir-ragel jew il mara xorta jitilqu?
Tibqa lampa stampa le? U f`hafna kazi tiggieled kul santu xahar ghal-naqra manteniment, f`kaz ta` mara li tibqa bit-tfal maghha.
Nixtieq naghmel punt iehor importanti immens, Daphne. Hafna nies, specjalment min erbghin l-isfel, jirragunaw hekk ghax anqas idea ma ghandhom kif il maggioranza tan-nisa kienu tletin, erbghin sena ilu.
Tizzewweg tkun ghadek kwazi tfal, tiddependi fuq ir-ragel biss biex tghix u tghajjex lil uliedek, u TAGHLAQ HALQEK! Ma kellekx triq ohra. U allura, iva, iz-zwiegijiet ta’ dak iz-zmien kienu jkunu ghal-dejjem, ghax f`hafna kazi ir-ragel jaghmel li jrid u li joghgbu, u bi-dritt ukoll, u il-mara issofri id-dar b`corma tfal ma saqajha.
Jisker, jmur ma’ nisa ohra, kuljum il-kazin, etc, kien ikollok taghlaq ghajn wahda u tibqa hemm. U fil-fatt, hafna irgiel ta’ hamsin, sittin sena kontra id-divorzju, ghax daw jarawha haga altru kbira meta huma ghadhom mizzewgin (?), u ghaddew hajja jiddettaw u jaghmlu li jridu u il-mara qisha il-miskina.
Imma z-zmien inbidel. Il-mara hadet hafna drittijiet, harget tahdem u ghandha il-flus taghha, u m`ghadiex toqghod b`halqha maghluq, bhan-nisa taghhom, biex ma jitfarrakx iz-zwieg. U ma noqghoduz naghmluha tal-qaddisin u ninhbew wara ir-religjon.
Jien m`iniex xi wahda favur id-divorzju ghax nemmen hafna li darba tizzewweg fil-hajja u li it-tfal ghandhom jkunu minn ragel wiehed u daqshekk. Imma lanqas nikkundanna u ma naghtiex dritt lil min jahsibha mod iehor.
Din ghazla, xejn iktar. Imma l-ghazla ghandha tkun hemm, u hi dritt anki jekk ghall-minoranza zghira. Min jkun fit-tabxa jkun jaf u mhux noqghodu nghidu ” for better or for worse, till death us do part”.
Trid tara tkunx tista, f`hafna kazi. Forsi jien u int, u dak u dik konna iffortunati, haddiehor le.
Males over 50 years of age are against divorce, most Nationalists are against divorce…. The pro-divorce legislation circle is certainly being restricted.
I don’t agree with the holding of a referendum, because this shows lack of courage by our MPs. Every MP should have the guts to declare his or her position, wait for the next general election and then a free vote be taken in parliament.
A referendum is the fairest option we have. I for one would not be happy if the decision was taken by MPs, I think I am entitled to have direct participation in such a major issue.
Divorce should be there for everyone and than it’s up to the individual’s conscience whether to use it or reject it if his personal life comes to that. Having divorce legislation has nothing to do with religion. It is the question of whether to make use of it or not that is a religious matter and that lies purely with the individual.
What is being asked of the public in this referendum is whether they agree with divorce being legal in Malta or not, but apparently, many are understanding this question as “Do you agree with divorce?” or rather, “Do you think divorce is a morally good thing?”, and they are not to blame because once again, we see Maltese society confusing what is a personal moral decision with what is a legal or political debate.
Although this is a recurring theme in Maltese society, this is where MPs should take their stand and use their power to good use for the good of the state and not just that of their party.
People need to be shown that it is not a sin to think critically and open their eyes to the real world instead of living in a dream world where all is well, shiny and dandy.
It is obviously not a nice thing when a family breaks down, needless to say the hardship and pain parents go through is also shared by their children, but because something is painful and not “nice”, it does not make it morally bad.
Sometimes divorce is the only way out for many people in different circumstances. What usually happens with Maltese people is that when asked about divorce they make a very bold statement saying, “No, it is morally wrong”, but then, when you talk to them about extreme situations which may appeal to their emotions, with realistic cases like those of domestic violence, you suddenly see a completely different person in front of you.
This shows the lack of reality in perception, experienced by many people who might know of what really happens in Maltese society but sadly choose to cower away from it, not because they are evil people with malicious intent, but because sticking out from a crowd is never desirable, apparently.
In the referendum, what is being asked of the people is a question of an abstract moral standard. I am pretty sure that no one thinks that divorce is morally good as separate from a context or particular situation (which is what makes the term “pro-divorce” completely counter productive).
When you chose to see divorce as a concept outside of a context, as a question of personal morality, then obviously, the Maltese population is made to think in the only way it knows how, that is, everything is a matter of good and bad, holy and evil, heavenly and hellish.
What needs to be discussed in Malta, and what needs to happen soon, is a proper political debate about introducing divorce into this country. What I have seen in the past couple of months is people, mostly MPs and lawyers, trying to justify the concept of divorce in broad terms.
Once again, this is something purely Maltese, where before something is made legal, it has to pass the test of moral justification, where for once in their life, Maltese people want to scrutinize a purely political topic, but not philosophically, legally or politically, but religiously; the only way they know how.
I do not want to come across as a pretentious person who demeans Maltese society, but it has to be accepted that Maltese society is very far behind when it comes to the general mentality and education in terms of critical thinking.
In a country infatuated by ideals, we are constantly striving to portray ourselves as the ideal moral individual, not to ourselves, but to each other. The whole debate about divorce in Malta is a testament to this.
If you truly believe that divorce goes against your ideas or morals, then don’t do it. If this case was really and truly about one’s personal morality, it would be as simple as that.
However, when the majority of a country specifically chooses to go against this purely personal decision, one can safely conclude that there are ulterior motives at play.
In other words, it is not a matter of following your ideals and morality, but rather, wanting others to accept your morality as their own, making a completely personal issue a political debate. Ideally, families do not break apart and ideally love is till death do us part; but the ideal is scarcely real.
In Malta, as other Mediterranean countries, the family is considered to be one of the most important sectors of a person’s life, and that in itself is a beautiful thing. Nothing beats coming home after a long day at work or school, gathering round the table for dinner, talking about your day and just relaxing with the people you love the most. That is what a family is thought to be.
Imagine, however a situation where every day you come home from school and experience emotional, psychological and sometimes even physical distress and pain between your parents, and these emotions then find their way in your life and your siblings’. Imagine a situations where your parents are constantly fighting, arguing and just simply offending each other because they are not happy in the situation they are in. Would you call that a marriage (or a family)?
Those who disagree with divorce wouldn’t because morally and ideally, it isn’t, but legally it still is. The trouble in this is that a country is fighting for the preservation of the ideals of marriage, when sometimes, there are no ideals to preserve. What happens in a household is the business of the people in that household because no one knows exactly what is going on except them, and no one should intrude in other people’s personal lives when they are themselves outside of it and completely irrelevant to it.
This infatuation of ideals has left many people blinded to reality – that marriage does not always necessarily imply a family. The family is a beautiful thing, and so is love, but family and love are not independent of the human mind. Love is not a beautiful thing in itself as romanticized in novels; it has the potential to be if it is cultivated well, but it can also be disastrous, painful and a complete atrocity; so too the family and marriage.
When speaking about concepts like love and the family, we first have to think about what these concepts really mean to us, and then start talking about what we believe in, because if we don’t we’re just using buzzwords with no clear definition and this leads to problems. From what I understand in debates and arguments on Maltese TV programmes and other sources about divorce is that what is understood by the “family” in most people’s minds is the ideal, well-functioning union between two people which is based on love, which leads to having children and living in a comfortable, loving and happy atmosphere in one household.
Also, what is understood by “marriage” is the happy union between two heterosexual people in love, willingly coming together to spend their lives in this self perpetuating state of happiness and love. What is essential to understand here is that “marriage” is not always a nice thing, and neither is the “family” because apart from being a concept and ideal, marriage also involves legally bound individuals within a contract.
This two-sidedness is what confuses most people; but to put it simply, love can change, changing with it the very idea of the concept of marriage and the family; the legal contract doesn’t. What is nice is not always necessarily what is good, and what is not nice is not necessarily with is bad.
Life is a mixture of both nice and not so nice experiences, so too are love and the family. We can’t live in a world view where what is nice is always good, because reality isn’t that simple and we all know it.
Introducing divorce in Malta, like almost every other country in the world already has, is purely a political debate, and not a matter of personal choice or morality.
Personal choice and personal morality should only come in when the individual is personally choosing whether he or she would like to get a divorce for themselves.
If an individual feels that divorce is out of the question, then all well and good, do not do it yourself, but do not restrict your entire country to a state of retarded politics by imposing your personal morality on the matter at hand.
This is just my opinion, and I am not saying it so that people respect it, as they expect me to respect theirs. There is such a thing as a stupid opinion which does not deserve respect or consideration however.
Bravo Mr. Briffa. The epitome of clear and logical thinking.
Thank you. It’s nice to see someone appreciating logical arguments. Makes a philosophy student feel a bit more useful.
@ David s
I don’t agree with even one point you made.
1 “Divorce cuts all ties with the existing spouse”? Doesn’t separation or annulment do the same thing? Why, some separated spouses cannot even bear to see each other’s face, let alone agree on anything.
2 “Children whose parents are separated still have regular and meaningful contact with both parents”. Most do, but not all, believe me. And divorce won`t change any of that.
3. “Many children, especially younger ones, still treasure that little remaining “tie” that still exists without a complete and formal cut which divorce brings with it.” What do you mean by a “formal cut”? Or a “remaining tie”? If a man or woman has formed a new relationship, for me it is a formal cut and all ties severed. The marriage is over and unfortunately the poor children have to go through the grieving process, whether or not the parents are divorced.
4. “These children may perhaps be living a sort of “fantasy” but they cling to that informal “family bond”. Do we really want our children to live in fantasy land, instead of trying to make the situation as easy as possible but explaining that although mama loves them, and so does papa, they cannot live together under one roof any more?
5. “The end result would not be less “tahwid”, as you so correctly term it, but more of it” More tahwid? Impossible! There is so much on such a small island, I find it impossible to believe that divorce could make any difference. People separate, cohabit, and have more children out of wedlock, regardless.
I get the feeling you must be very young to believe that if the Church amends the annulment process, there will be less “tahwid”. People will still go ahead and do as they please.
The only point I agree with is that, ultimately the children are always the victims, unfortunately.
Adults find a way to move on, the children will have to endure the tragedy in silence. So, so sad.
Excellent, Josh Briffa. I truly respect your opinion, as it mimics mine exactly.
Excellent article Daphne – thank you.
I am divorced. I would not wish my enemies to go through it, nor even separation at that, because when two married people go their separate ways it is much worse than when the actual divorce decree comes through. The pain is nearly over by then.
We live in a free country and not a country of mullahs deciding what is best for us. People should be free to decide what is best for them. One thing we must be sure of with divorce legislation: children should come first AND they should be maintained by their parents and not by the state/taxpayer. Maintenance should be enforced by law and redress should be quick and efficient..
Daphne, am afraid what the Nationalist Party should realise is that if they do not legislate pro divorce during this legislature, they will lose all the votes of those who need divorce and those who are pro divorce, to Labour in the forthcoming elections.
[Daphne – And if the government legislates for divorce before 2013, it will break faith wth the electorate because divorce wasn’t included in the 2008 electoral programme, and will lose the votes of all those who are against divorce and will feel cheated. The only way in which the government can achieve legitimacy for a decision to legislate for divorce before 2013 is if there is a Yes vote in a referendum. But there is not going to be a Yes vote in the referendum, because my little antennae tell me that opinion is about to harden against divorce legislation, and that the person who is mainly to blame for this is Pullicino Orlando who is making the cardinal error of trying to force the issue, and who is the worst possible frontman for the Yes vote. It’s enough to put even me off, and that’s saying something.]
Pullicino Orlando lost ALL credibility with his Mistra debacle, and the way he seems to try to pull a fast one on the prime minister. He has hardened my views against divorce legislation.
Another ‘locked’ missile.
You’re all out against Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando now because he has effectively torn the party apart with his surprise bill, but you weren’t before 2008 because you all rushed to vote for him. I’m a PN voter. Pullicino Orlando was not a candidate in my district, but I’m sorry to say that our next massive defeat at the polls (especially if we say we are an anti-divorce party) will partly be his fault.