No to divorce, thanks to the Yes campaign
My column in The Malta Independent on Thursday:
A public opinion survey commissioned by the newspaper Malta Today shows that the number of those who plan to vote Yes in the divorce referendum has decreased by 11 per cent since last month.
I wasn’t pleased about this, of course, but I was quite reassured to see that my antennae for gauging these things are in full working order. I had written some weeks ago that the Yes campaign, and more particularly the two widely disliked and irritating MPs who front it, would lead to a haemorrhage of support while the presence of respectable persons at the head of the No campaign would cause some people to doubt their choice in favour of divorce legislation and give others psychological ‘permission’ to be against it, or at least, not in favour of it.
Campaigners are effective only if people trust their judgement and think that their opinion is credible, whether they agree with them in other matters or not.
People think that Arthur Galea Salamone and Andre Camilleri are serious and credible, whether they agree with their views or not. This means they will listen to them, and once a campaigner has grabbed his audience’s attention, he has won half the battle. Dr Camilleri’s credibility is so strong that it wasn’t even dented by his illogical and nonsensical blooper about not allowing violent men to divorce because they could go on to do the same to another wife. Joyce Cassar also has a certain amount of gravitas about her, which helps.
The public faces of the No campaign are Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who is handicapped by a variety of issues, including the perception that he is doing this to sort out his own situation (people do not support those they think have a vested interest, even if they share that interest), distaste for the manner in which he compromised the prime minister, doubts about his personality, and general impatience with his behaviour since 2008.
Evarist Bartolo is unattractive in all sorts of other ways – and here I don’t mean physically (though that, too) because in a debate on divorce legislation, being physically attractive can actually work against you, though I have yet to work out why exactly. Mr Bartolo has an unpleasant way of speaking, with nasty asides that leave you wondering whether he’s fighting some barely-controlled general resentment. Like his counterpart Dr Pullicino Orlando, he gives vent to contemptuous verbal assaults on his interlocutors when this control snaps. This comes across really badly on television where, unlike with writing, the tone of voice and facial expression convey more than the words themselves.
Deborah Schembri, the nice, comfy woman who is wheeled out to counter the effects of the unpleasant duo, does her best but it is not enough. Her arguments are sensible and well-researched, she has commonsense on her side, but there is something about her which just doesn’t convince. I can’t work out what it is.
It is one of the unfortunate truisms of single-issue campaigning that the facts and arguments are secondary to the qualities of those who front the campaign. When people dislike the campaigners or find them generally unconvincing, even if they agree with their stance they will distance themselves from it as a way of distancing themselves from the campaigners.
It’s one of those strange, self-undermining paradoxes: if we don’t respect a person’s judgement, then we don’t want to share his or her opinion, because it makes us doubt our own judgement. Synthesised to its essence, it comes down to this: “If Jeffrey agrees with it, then it must be wrong. If I share Jeffrey’s opinion, then I must be like him, and I don’t want to be like him. So I will change my opinion.” People don’t actually think this out step by step and consciously, but that is pretty much the psychological process.
A couple of people to whom I have spoken have blamed the drop in support for divorce legislation on the renewed efforts of parish priests, the archbishop and other holy men. This is nonsense. The Roman Catholic Church has always been famously against divorce. This is known by every Catholic and also widely known even among non-Catholics. It is one of the defining characteristics of the religion.
It is not as though people were thinking that they would vote Yes because the Archbishop’s Curia was all right with it, but then changed their minds after a Sunday sermon about the evils of divorce. We grew up on that sort of Sunday sermon. It’s nothing new.
Besides, there are all sorts of things that Roman Catholicism tells us are terribly wrong, immoral and against God’s will, including the state of adultery that appears to be the alternative to divorce, the fornication that leads to 30 per cent of Maltese children being born out of wedlock, and the contraception that has led to the collapse of the birth rate and the vast majority of Maltese children born since 1990 growing up solo or with just one sibling. Three children are rare nowadays and four children constitute some kind of freak show, judging by the reaction to families of that size.
Joyce Cassar of the No campaign told an interviewer recently:
“Percentages of children born out of wedlock have not stabilised or reduced anywhere where divorce was legalised. A Council of Europe study reveals that in France it stands at around 50 per cent; Germany 30 per cent; Spain 28 per cent; and Norway as well as Sweden around 54 per cent. I’m not saying that divorce is necessarily the culprit for this state of affairs, but neither has it solved the problem. I would say that it is part of the contributing factors to such realities. Our percentages, on the other hand, are very different.”
Her interviewer was not well prepared, for otherwise he would have been able to put her straight on that one. The percentage of children who are born out of wedlock in Malta now ranks with that of Germany and Spain, at around 30 per cent.
Ms Cassar, who describes herself as a single parent and who is therefore hardly in a position to talk, should learn the benefits of using language precisely. Verbal imprecision is off-putting because it betrays undisciplined thinking and insufficient knowledge – and that’s damaging when your job is to convince others.
Divorce was not ‘legalised’, as she says – a surprising error, given that her co-leaders are very good lawyers. Something can only be legalised if it was previously illegal. Divorce was not illegal anywhere: it was merely not provided for in the law and was then provided for.
You would, for example, legalise marijuana use, which is currently a banned practice that leads to prosecution. You do not legalise divorce because it stands to reason that it is not a banned practice. Even if a state wished to ban divorce, exactly what would be the point of doing so when people cannot be divorced without a legal mechanism introduced by the state itself?
You can’t prevent people divorcing overseas, either, for reasons that are too long and complicated to go into here. And once they are divorced elsewhere, Malta has no choice but to register that divorce. If divorce were illegal in Malta, as so many people make the mistake of saying, then the Public Registry would not have a register of divorces, just as it has a register of births, deaths and marriages. But it does.
46 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Does this help the anti-divorce campaign, on the other hand?
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/pastoral-note-warns-of-‘irreparable-consequences’-for-catholics-who-vote-‘yes’
Will someone please help me here.
In Malta, when we decide to get married in a church we are actually getting married twice, once on the altar, in a Christian marriage and immediately after, behind the altar in a state marriage. Divorce will only effect the latter and has nothing to do with the first. As such it has absolutely nothing to do with the church because it will not effect Christian marriages.
[Daphne – That no longer happens. In 1993, the law was amended so that Catholic marriage are automatically recognised by the state – the only religion where this happens – without the need for a civil rite. This was part of the bargaining and negotiations between the church and the state about transfer of church-owned property to the joint office. ]
Whether a divorced Catholic chooses to remarry or not is entirely up to him or her and has nothing to do with the electorate who voted in favor of the legislation.
A voter could vote YES with a clear conscience by arguing that his vote is only meant to effect the non-Catholics. Catholics will never divorce, as those who do are obviously no longer Catholic by default.
@Daphne
Actually, other religious marriages may be recognized by the State of Malta, e.g., Anglican performed rites. The law allows for this, but not all religions are so privleged. Generally, yes, most of the religious marriages recognized by the State are Roman Catholic marriages performed in Malta.
And yes, the religious and civil status of marriages are separate issues. Divorce only pertains to the civil status of a former marriage.
But the State of Malta also recognizes the civil effects of Roman Catholic church annulments, as well as civil annulments, which determine validity or non-validity of the marriage based upon pre-existing conditions to the marriage.
The Church does not recognize civil annulments. But the State of Malta yields to the Church definitive determination for annulment if either party to a civil annulment procedure initiates a process for church annulment. So, in Malta, parties may be denied the option of the procedures for a civil annulment, whenever a church annulment process is initiated.
Divorce is a civil dissolution of the marriage, without regard for the validity or non-validity of that marriage, and with no effect regarding any potential religious status of that marriage (before God and the Church). The Church does not recognize divorce. But divorce may be the only resolution for the State to reclaim its civil jurisdiction regarding the civil status of marriage, after the State’s previous Church-agreed amendments to the Marriage Act.
I don’t know if it has changed since I got married but I got married in 2003 (after the Curia property transfer) and I still had to go to the registry to get the papers done for the civil side of the marriage. I did not need to restate the vows after the church ceremony but you still get married twice once at the registry and once in church – to me at least they seemed separate.
@Claude
Yes, they are separate registrations (church & State), but one marriage ceremony.
I had the unusual circumstances that when my wife and I were married in the church in 2008, we did not have to register with the State, because my wife and I had been married civilly in 1996, when that registration first was made. Our civil marriage was recognized twelve years earlier than our marriage in the church could be formalized. There was no need for us to re-register with the State.
The State does not recognize the sacrament of marriage; the State only recognizes the civil state of marriage. And divorce only pertains to the civil status of a marriage.
On the other hand, the theological determination of the “sacrament” of marriage may be a fuzzier issue. Certainly, marriage in the church is assumed to be sacramental.
But the marriage may be shown later to have been invalid, if the marriage would be later annulled (because of its non-validity, and presumably non-sacramental chracter). And yet, marriages not performed in the church, as they also may be blessed and sacred before God, in some sense also must be sacramental.
One also could ask, in the eyes of God, in what sense is even a civil or non-church marriage sacramental? (The marriage sacrament is administered by each spouse to each other, while it is openly blessed by the church in a church marriage). Are not all valid marriages supported by God?
From a legalistic framework, the circumstances of marriages in the church provide the documented appearance of a probable sacramental marriage, until such marriages otherwise may be recognized by the church to be invalid through annulment.
It is no wonder that people may be confused on the distinctions between civil marriage and sacramental marriage in relationship to validity, non-validity, and divorce.
@Joethemaltaman
Ghadni ma nistax nifhem x’ jigri meta koppja mizzewwga fil-knisja, wiehed/wahda tiddecciedi li tiddivorzja u l-iehor ma jkunx irid minhabba r-religjon? Id-divorzju jsehh xorta?
Jekk iva:
Jinghad hafna li min hu kattolku m’ghandux jimponi r-religjon tieghu fuq haddiehor u m’ghandux jivvota kontra d-divorzju ghax din hi ligi civili. Imma allura meta wiehed mill-partijiet ma jkunx irid jiddivorzja minhabba r-religjon tieghu, l-iehor mhux jimponi d-divorzju fuqu jkun?
@ Fenech M
Le ma jkunx, ghax f’ghajnejn il-knisja, id-divorzju ma sehhx u il-koppja (divorzjata quddiem l-istat) ghadhom mizzewga. Il-parti li ma taqbilx mad-divorzju, ghaliha tkun qisha separata. Semplici le?
Le mhux semplici; qisha separata? Divorzjat/a mhux qisha separat/a!
U ma noqghodux nilghabu bil-kliem biex niggustifikaw id-divorzju. L-abjad nghidulu abjad u l-iswed nghidulu iswed.
Hope you have a relaxing Easter x
Happy Easter, dear Daphne.
Re:
I have yet to work out why exactly. Mr Bartolo has an unpleasant way of speaking
&
there is something about her which just doesn’t convince. I can’t work out what it is.
It would be most interesting to know your conclusions once you “work them out” :)
Most of your comments are correct however there is a plus for the IVA result … in my opinion a good number of voters will vote IVA if only to spite Gonzi and his party!
Someone’s got a “foot in mouth” disease.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_afk-Egip2qY/Sro3OUZauNI/AAAAAAAACW8/wJssnknGc90/s400/foot+in+mouth.gif
Daphne, I find this absolutely terrifying:
quote
I was quite reassured to see that my antennae for gauging these things are in full working order.
unquote
I find it terrifying because you have stated time and time again that you believe that the Labour Party will win the next election. I have been hoping against hope that you are in error on this issue, that there is still hope to avert this disaster. Come, do you truly believe that there is no hope?
Joyce Cassar? Was she not married too, and had her marriage annulled? (I think I remember reading it in one of the local magazines, where there were interviews with her and with a woman from the pro-divorce lobby.)
Maybe it’s easy for Ms Cassar to object to divorce, having found “another way out” herself. Not everyone may have the same option.
I see her as rather hypocritical.
Daphne, you say:
“A public opinion survey commissioned by the newspaper Malta Today shows that the number of those who plan to vote Yes in the divorce referendum has decreased by 11 per cent since last month.” And;
“Campaigners are effective only if people trust their judgement and think that their opinion is credible, whether they agree with them in other matters or not.”
What do you think does that tell about the people’s trust in Joseph Muscat, considering his role in all this?
I think he’s funny: he’s with the Church on the living wage, but against the Church on divorce…
These islands are moving towards the wants of the many overriding the NEEDS of the few .
One does not need to have one’s ‘antennae in full working order’ to say that the referendum will be lost (for the yes group) and the next election will be won (for the ‘progressives’).
[Daphne – That is not what I wrote, dery. I said that I had perceived a fall in support for the Yes vote over the last few weeks, and it turned out that this perception was correct. And yes, it is necessary to have antennae for that sort of thing if you don’t have polls. I have no doubt that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, for instance, was convinced that the Yes vote was holding up and perhaps even increasing.]
I think you’re on to something here:
[…] then changed their minds after a Sunday sermon about the evils of divorce. We grew up on that sort of Sunday sermon. It’s nothing new.
People have been leaving each other and setting up house with someone else since time immemorial, so this idea of being denied “a second chance” is nonsense.
I think that the vociferous “support” for divorce is another way of giving the finger to the Church, albeit misguided and ill-informed.
I think it’s a sort of teenage rebellion by society at large.
Daphne, if you wasn’t pleased, instead of blaming JPO & others about the possibility that the No vote will prevail, you should open your guns on the way the Government is manouvring by eliminating 2,800 votes of youngsters (probably most of them in favour) and the 50,000 undelivered votes.
I do agree with you on the credibility of the persons you mentioned, however, this issue is not about JPO or Evarist, it’s about Malta being up to date with the rest of the world.
Personally, I was not in favour of a referendum as I believe that this is a basic right that we should not be making all this fuss about in the first place, however, given the circumstances, we should be supporting the YES movement and should make our arguments in favour of the introduction of divorce, we will have other time to criticize JPO and the others.
“Non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis tempus eget . . . . . . . ”
[Daphne – These times require no such aid nor such defenders. Exactly.]
I’m having enough trouble as it is in deciding on whether to take part in this perverted exercise of democracy without taking these people (namely, JPO) into account. The very thought of him has come to make me sick to the stomach for some reason (but not hdura, as some may suggest), and I can’t help but dread seeing his self-satisfied face on TV if this blasted “Yes vote” wins come election time. I don’t think I’d manage to endure his whining if he doesn’t get his way, either.
I regret voting for this drama queen last elections. I really should have known better after watching him cry like that on national TV. I felt sorry for him then because I was too young and too concerned with other things to realize what exactly he is and what he was playing at.
I believe him to be one of those unstable middle-aged narcs that should by no means be in any position of power or even be glanced at by the public eye. While he may certainly have a vested interest in divorce and may certainly believe in it, I can’t shake the feeling that this whole divorce fiasco is mostly an exercise of his ego, a vessel to feel important again; his chance to be Malta’s shining knight of civil liberties.
[Daphne – It’s actually going to blow up in his face. When the No vote prevails and wipes divorce off the agenda for the next generation at least, he’ll be the scapegoat for forcing the issue. He has been out-smarted by the prime minister. He should never have agreed to that referendum. He should have said that if the prime minister is going to insist on a referendum on divorce, which is undemocratic rather than democratic, then he will withdraw his private member’s bill.]
I think it’s about time that Malta starts catching up with civil liberties and what not (summarized nowadays as “I agree with divorce”), but, for reasons that shouldn’t really have to be explained in this day and age, I’m still totally opposed to the approaching referendum.
It puts me in a position of power that I have no right to be in; “I choose to grant or deny you a right to divorce”, and, no matter the outcome, sets a horrible precedent for similar issues in the future. Moreover, I know that my Yes vote will only serve to caress our Knight’s volatile ego. Queue win, queue vainglory, queue book and queue place in history. Yuck.
“[Daphne – It’s actually going to blow up in his face. When the No vote prevails and wipes divorce off the agenda for the next generation at least, he’ll be the scapegoat for forcing the issue. ”
Well, I may be wrong but I have a feeling that Joseph Muscat has something up his sleeve, well, not Joseph Muscat himself, but somebody a bit brighter.
These 2800 “lost” votes may actually be used to his advantage by giving him the excuse to have a trial run referendum pushed by JPO, take note of all the mistakes, and call another one with the excuse that 2800 were unfairly denied a vote, maybe even use that as a vote puller for the elections.
Therefore he will be able to call another referendum with somebody more suitable heading and pushing the campaign, and if passed will make JM look like he was the hero.
Like I said, this is just a nagging feeling but Muscat has kept too quiet on this, even though this could be because everybody begs him not to speak in public!
And you are right on the money about everybody being bored with this farce. I am certainly pro divorce legislation but I doubt I will bother voting, firstly because nobody but those bloody MPs should be voting, and secondly because it is such a cock up, question and all. At the end of the day I do not “want divorce at any cost” and from a purely selfish point of view I couldn’t be bothered whether it is legislated for or not.
However the ‘yes’ vote hasn’t translated itself into a ‘no’ vote either, and quite unlikely to. This survey seems to reveal that the percentage of Maltese that the Church still has hold over is not greater than 35%.
“If Jeffrey agrees with it, then it must be wrong. If I share Jeffrey’s opinion, then I must be like him, and I don’t want to be like him. So I will change my opinion.” People don’t actually think this out step by step and consciously, but that is pretty much the psychological process.
Daph, the above psychological process holds true indeed, but only for those whose intellectual capacity is inferior to that of a boiled potato. Come voting time, no one in a right state of mind – and, might I add, in good faith – should give a flying hoot about whether or not JPO is an A/hole or Andre Camilleri is a nice family man who saves cats from trees and helps old people cross the street.
It’s either you agree with the introduction of some sort of divorce legislation or you’re happy with the status quo. The rest is tosh. After all, it’s not that by voting YES or NO we’re electing or giving some sort of power to any of these people. A day after the referendum results come out they will all be forgotten like a one night stand.
“True” Catholics do not need Sunday sermons to convince them that divorce is totally bad – no redeeming feature. Catholics – true Catholics – follow the Church’s teachings because they are CONVINCED that the Church wishes society to improve and not regress as has happened in most of the countries that unfortunately have opted for divorce legislation.
I am not surprised that the ‘Yes’ vote is losing ground to the ‘No’ and the uncertain voters. The issue has been politicised so much that it is no more understood whether divorce is a right or not.
The cardinal mistake that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando made was to allow Evarist Bartolo and Joseph Muscat to run him over and take his initiative away from him. To further complicate the chances for a ‘Yes’ vote we were faced by a lunatic parliament motion by Joseph Muscat, forcing a referendum before a debate in parliament.
The facts are obvious to all and sundry, that whilst the PN gave its members a free vote, the Labour MPs all voted in favour, including those deputies who had earlier expressed themselves against divorce and even joined the No to Divorce camp.
Comments by certain Labour MPs, after the motion was carried, with the support of two Nationalists MPs, show crystal-clearly that Labour’s interpretation of a ‘Yes’ vote will be a victory for Joseph Muscat, which will strengthen his standing two years before the general election, and a defeat for Lawrence Gonzi now and in 2013.
We will be able to see this situation unfolding as the campaigns intensify up to voting day.
This situation will definitely force voters, who would have voted Yes under different circumstances, will now regretfully either vote No or abstain, hoping for another chance in the future when the divorce issue is treated in a more mature way.
Come off it, Daphne! How can you blame this changing tide onto the divorce lobby? How can you (conveniently?) exclude Eddie Fenech Adami, Lawrence Gonzi and the Church from your analysis as the prime suspects in what has become a full blown ‘fire and brimstone’ exercise and emotional blackmail rolled into one? How can you exclude the blantant anti-divorce reporting of TVM and Net?
[Daphne – Because I seem to have an ability to work these things out. The sort of people who are influenced by religious arguments (Fenech Adami, Gonzi, the bishops) would have been against divorce to begin with. They wouldn’t have swung round because those people spoke. Fenech Adami and Gonzi would have had influence if they spoke in favour of divorce, but they will not be influential by speaking against. In speaking against, they are reflecting the mindset of people who think as they do already. I would say that the fall in support is to be found mainly among people like me: who are in favour of divorce legislation but who cannot stand the idea of a referendum, Jeffrey and Evarist and all this posturing. We will hold our noses and do the necessary or we will not vote at all. I believe the fall in support is linked directly to 1. resentment against the referendum, 2. resentment against the detailed question, 3. resentment against the promoter. Again, I have no surveys to go on but my feeling for these things tends to be pretty good – not always, but usually.]
This is one of the most undemocratic exercises we have witnessed in the past decade or so and yet you blame it on Jeffrey. Now Jeffrey has really made a mess of things since being elected but to say I might vote NO because Jeffrey puts me off rather than because I hear all the government ministers and our Prime Minister whining is really rich.
[Daphne – Unfortunately, you may not like it, but it’s true. It now transpires that one of the messes Jeffrey has made is forcing the issue of divorce, which is going to wipe it right off the agenda for a generation at least – or perhaps half a generation.]
Daphne is right: the referendum was a bad idea, and the literate voters in favour of divorce legislation will stay away from this charade and lose the vote for the Yes camp. Including yours truly, who wants divorce NOW and not in four years’ time. There’s only so much institutionalised idiocy that a citizen can take. Sooner or later he’ll give up on Maltese democracy.
Nixtieq nigbed l-attenzjoni ta Daphne li dawk ta kontra id-divorzju qedin jizdiedu fil-percentaggi ghax l-argumenti ta favur id-divorzju ma jreggi xejn. lanqas wiehed mill-argumenti li gabu ma jreggi
Lista shiha ta argumenti fallaci li gabu ta favur id-divorzju.
1) Id-divorzju huwa ghal ftit.
Zball. Meta dahal id-divorzju iz-zwiegijiet naqsu u il-koabitazzjonijiet zdiedu. In-nies ma baqghux jippreferu iz-zwieg izda marru ghal koabitazzjoni. Mela bidlet il-mentalita mhux ta dawk biss li qedin tghidu li ghandhom bzonn id-divorzju imma ghanke ta dawk li ser jiddecidu jizzewgux jew le.
Jekk tifel jkun gej minn familja divorzjata u jizzewweg go familja mhux divorzjata jew separata il-probabilita li jiddivorzja hija akbar. Mela mhux biss ghal dawk li ghandhom bzonn.
2) Il-Kuncett tal-Common Good.
Il-Moviment kontra id-divorzju qieghed jghati definizzjoni tal-common good completament zbaljat u kif jaqbillu. Il-Common good huwa il-gid ta kullhadd. M ahemm l-ebda maggoranza u lanqas minoranza. Jien ghalija il-common good huwa il gid ta kullhadd li gej minn societa bsahhitha li gejja minn familja bsahhitha. Id-domanda hija id-divorzju jsahhah jew jdajjef il-familja? Jien nahseb li jdajjef il-familja. Jekk il-familja tkun bsahhitha niffrankaw hafna problemi sociali u kumplikazzjonijiet. Anke f’termini ta flus ghax barra minn malta halsu qares ghal introduzzjoni tad-divorzju.
It-tfal jghaddu minn dippressjoni u inkwiet iehor u il-faqar jizdied. Il-gvern jkollu johrog aktar flus ghal social housing.
3) Dawk li ha jiddivorzjaw ha jsibu hajja ahjar. Ha jsibu relazzjoni ahjar u jizzewgu u jghixu happily ever after.
Qieghed TOHLOM. Ma jigriex hekk fil -maggoranza tal-kazijiet. L-istatistika turina li dawk li izzewgu u iddivorzjaw reghu izzewgu u regghu iddivorzjaw.
Il-Vera soluzzjoni hija li naraw x’inhuma il-kawzi tat-tkissir tal-familji u problemi ohrajn relatati mal-familja fosthom single mothers unknown fathers, tfal barra iz-zwieg u affarijiet ohra u insolvu dawn il-problemi. Prattikament jrid jsir aktar qabel iz-zwieg.
Konkluzjoni. Dawk ta kontra id-divorzju l-argumenti taghhom ma jreggux.
No to divorce thanks to the Yes campaign huwa ovvja ghax l-argumenti ta dawk favur id-divorzju ma jreggux u MHUX ghax il-persuni ghandhom xi haga hazina.
Quote : A new study in Australia estimates that family breakdown there cost $6 billion annually, he said. Australia has around 18 million people, “so extrapolate that” to America, with 278 million people, and the costs are exorbitant.
I have made an estimate of the Maltese costs which should amount to around 92 million euros per year. Mhux hazin ukoll. Nahseb li huma hafna. Nistghu niffrankaw dawn ic-cifri jekk naghmlu l-affarijiet sew.
Quote : We find that the reforms that “made divorce easier” (by introducing no fault and/or
unilateral grounds for divorce) were followed by significant increases in divorce rates.
Moreover, the effect seemed permanent (allowing for the time scale of the panel) with
strong, significant long-term effects
Source: The Effect of Divorce Laws on Divorce Rates in Europe*
Jiena bniedem li naccetta kwalunkwe tip ta opinjoni differenti imma hawn xi haga li hija il-fuq mill kwistjoni li kulhadd jaghmel li jrid u kif jaqbillu. Il-common good. Int tista tghix kif trid u kif jaqbillek izda hemm mod wiehed biss kif tghix kuntent li huwa il common good. Il-Verita hija wahda. Jien lest li nissagrifika il-libertinagg ghal haga superjuri li hija dik li taghmel dik il-haga gusta.
Freedom to do everthing you like VERSUS doing the right thing.
Daphne, look at what the crazies from Borg In-Nadur are up to.
Apparently the Madonna is in the No campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTqeOCC6r1Y
@Robert Galea
Insejt issemmi l-ahhar parti tal-mistoqsija tar-Referendum, fejn jissemma li l-manteniment hu garantit.
Meta Dr Schembri giet mistoqsija fuq Bondi+ fuq din il-bicca, rrispondiet li dak/dik li jkun ordnat ihallas il-manteniment mill-qorti (f’separazzjoni), irid jibqa’ jhallas il-manteniment wara li jiddivorzja u jizzewweg! Jigifieri jekk jiffornma familja ohra, irid bilfors ihallas l-ex il-manteniment.
Tal-biki!
Il-ligi tad-divorzju ma tipprovdix soluzzjonijiet ghall-mugughin. Il-qalb tal-bniedem trid tinbidel. ”Jekk temmnu fija ccaqalqu l-muntanji.” Il-muntanja hija l-qalb tal-bniedem. It-talb jibdel il-qalb tal-bniedem. Ghalhekk il-Madonna minn Borg in-Nadur tridna nghidu t-talba semplici tar-Ruzarju biex il-pjaga tad-divorzju ma tissuktax tkattar l-ugigh tal-mugughin.
Naqbel perfettament. L-ugigh tal-qalb u l-ghatx spiritwali ma jitfejjaqx b’bicca legislazzjoni, imma b’relazzjonijiet umani u l-imhabba ta’ mara/ragel (ghax il-bniedem huwa mahluq biex ikun f’koppja). Il-legislazzjoni ssolvi xi ftit mill-problemi prattici ghal min jixtieq jifformalizza stat ta’ fatt.
Experts Concerned About Social Cost of Family Collapse
Cherly Weitzstein
The Washington Times
December 29, 1998
January 7, 1999
Features Popenoe, Sollee, Barlow, Leavitt, Hawkins, & Whitehead
“I think that what’s going to happen in the [next] millennium is a marriage renaissance,” she said.
Marriage promises to be a top social issue in 1999 as worries deepen about the social costs of family breakdown, a panel of social policy leaders says.
” I think the institution of marriage is in serious trouble,” said David Popence, social scientist and leader of the newly formed National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.
Costs of Divorce
These costs are due to increased taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal justice
and school nutrition programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals
whose adult productivity has been negatively influenced by growing up in
poverty caused by family fragmentation.
This figure represents a minimum or “lower-bound” estimate.
Quote 1: High rates of family fragmentation impose extraordinary
costs on taxpayers
Quote 2 : even very small increases in stable marriage rates would result in very large
returns to taxpayers
Source: The Taxpayer Costs of
Divorce and Unwed Childbearing
Fejn huma l-ahhar messaggi li baghat jmissek tippublikhom
Daphne, these anti-divorce people messed it up when they convinced all that a referendum was the way to handle this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTqeOCC6r1Y
I always follow Daphne’s perception columns and she was always right.
Daphne jimporta tghaddi il-kummenti tieghek fuq dak li ghedt jien
I think you really hit the nail on the head here.
Firstly, I was one of those undecided voters at the early stages of the campaign. I am a married practising Catholic but I was feeling that not legislating for divorce was like trying to stem the tide. However, on the other hand, I could not take Christ’s teachings out of my head because, I reason, if Christ declared himself to be against divorce, it clearly shows that divorce does not benefit society. On the other hand, I used to feel that we cannot keep on burying our heads in the sand.
So, for the first time ever, I was being presented with the opportunity to vote without knowing how to vote.
However, I have to say that as the campaign progressed, I felt – and I still do – that I simply cannot vote “yes” not because of what Christ says but because of two main reasons:
1. I cannot stand the “yes” campaigners. I cannot stand Pullicino Orlando, Evarist Bartolo and Deborah Schembri. The three of them seem to have a particularly strong interest for the introduction of divorce which goes beyond mere altruism. Hence, as you rightly said, when somebody has a vested interest in something he’s campaigning for, he loses credibility.
2. Their bickering, their behaving like kids is putting me off completely. I really cannot stand them.
3. I cannot bear the thought – and would not be able to live with myself – if Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando carried the day and won the vote. He would treat this as a feather in his cap and I strongly believe it would undermine Gonzi’s authority. And I’m a Nationalist who cannot for the life of me see Gonzi’s authority undermined.
4. Frankly, I’m seeing that the divorce debate is becoming a springboard for all those who, for reasons best known to them, want to attack the Church, vent frustration at the Church, attack and insult practising Catholics – suffice it to say that somebody on Facebook described Christ as “the Jewish zombie”. I was offended both as a Catholic but also as a Maltese who has a right to worship whoever she likes in a supposedly democratic country. Frankly, I am feeling that whoever has some sort of faith has the duty to bear derision by non-believers who feel they have the supreme right to deride believers.
I might be irresponsible in my vote but on a national scale, I perceive the consequences of the “yes” vote winning the day much more serious (and not in terms of marriage breakdown) than the “no” vote winning the day.
Hence, I am voting “no”.
As I wrote I realised there were four reasons – Insomnia is interfering with my thought processes.
mille e piu LIKE