Guest post by Mark-Anthony Falzon
WHY I WILL BE VOTING YES ON SATURDAY
Dr. Mark-Anthony Falzon is a social anthropologist, Head of Department of Sociology at
the University of Malta, and “The Sunday Times” columnist.
The reasons that follow are based on and take into account the following premises.
1. It is true that society needs to regulate for long-term kinship. This is primarily because of three things. First, kinship is associated with strong emotional bonds of attachment and commitment; second, children’s interests are best served by structures of kinship that are as transparent, stable, and long-lived as possible; and third, because of issues of property and reproduction of the domestic unit.
2. Like all generalisations, the ‘common good’ argument has its risks. It is however mostly useful. It is true that voters should take into account the long-term consequences, for ‘society’ generally and not just for themselves, of their decisions.
3. A ‘realist’ approach – by which I mean not resignation or passive acceptance of undesirable things, but rather the balanced assessment of facts and the discarding of rhetoric.
4. Whether or not one agrees that this issue should have escalated into a referendum, and irrespective of one’s thoughts about the obsoleteness of the question, it is one’s responsibility to vote. Politics is not about what could/should be but rather about what is. Come Saturday, the real and current question will be whether or not one thinks that Malta should legislate for divorce.
5. A belief that a fair and forward-looking society should be based on laws and structures that seek as far as possible to include rather than exclude. Social inclusion produces emotional, economic, and many other dividends.
In view of the following premises I will be voting Yes on Saturday.
1. Couples whose relationships are over will split anyway, so it makes sense to have strong legal systems and other structures by which these splits are properly regulated.
2. The ‘common good’ dictates that (1) above is especially relevant when there are children, ie. that it is in the long-term interest of children whose parents’ marriages are over that their parents should split in a responsible and regulated way.
3. A realist approach tells me that some couples will be happy for the rest of their lives and others won’t. The idea that marital bliss can be extended to everyone, and that it is possible in principle for all marriages to work, is rhetorical nonsense.
4. I know that all the rhetoric and vague promises of ‘strengthening families’ that we have heard in these past months will be all but forgotten by Monday morning, and that couples whose marital lives are over will be left to struggle to pick up the pieces in the absence of structures and legal frameworks, as they have been condemned to do so far.
5. I believe that it is in the interests of society that people should not be forced to go through annulment proceedings using far-flung excuses and shifty arguments, as they have done so far. This humiliates the individual and makes a mockery of justice and institutions. Such institutionalised hypocrisy and cynicism invariably spill over into the social order broadly defined.
6. It is patent nonsense that divorce has ruined societies ‘everywhere’. The family is still very highly prized in countries where divorce is legal, and people go to enormous lengths and expense to sustain it. The notion of ‘ruined societies’ is simply another form of the little islander’s fear and incomprehension of the outside world.
7. The ‘stable traditional families of old’ are a myth. In fact there have always been couples, significant numbers of them, who did not fit the model. It was simply a case of ignoring or labelling them as deviants and misfits, and creating poverty and social exclusion as a direct consequence. It is absolutely essential to understand that we will not be voting to regulate for a ‘new reality’. Rather, it’s a case of a fairer approach to the age-old reality of marriage breakdown.
8. A truly pluralist society is not about privileging one model and letting everyone else do as they please, but rather about legislating sensitively to incorporate as many realities as possible. This, and not greener roundabouts and nicer roads, is the EU I and thousands of others voted for in 2003.
9. The notion of family and kinship should be based on responsibility and integrity. There is much more of these in owning up to a marital breakup and taking long-term responsibility for one’s failings. This is especially true when children are involved.
10. All around me I see people who, despite a failed marriage, go to enormous lengths to sustain and love their children. I also see ex-spouses who somehow find it in their hearts to accept new situations. These people, thousands of them, do not deserve a slap in the face but rather encouragement and the proper structures to sustain kinship and respect well beyond the duration of their failed marriage.
55 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The beauty of this piece is that Dr Falzon – whom I take pleasure in reading every week – never once referred to a misogynistic Church, led by a (supposedly) celibate priesthood who try to impose their belief system on others.
Look forward to reading his stuff every Sunday too, Chris. Also that he kept the so-called ‘Maltese Church’ out of his article. However, I also welcome your comment concerning these all-knowing, misguided, archaic, children-loving, ‘men in skirts’ who have attempted to derail any rational argument concerning this referendum.
Finally a breath of fresh air. Just out of curiosity is this blog supposed to cease all divorce comments/discussions on Thursday just like newspapers and TV?
Very well put. Thank you.
Magnificent article! Well done!
Point 5 is the one which has always concerned me most, and is why this referendum has consequences beyond the divorce issue.
I subscribe to “WHY I WILL BE VOTING YES ON SATURDAY” because it is based on reason, objective analysis and empathy with those who are in a separation situation. I suggest it be sent for publication in other newspapers before the referendum.
You should have saved this for Thursday, Daphne. What a breath of fresh air to read such a balanced and logical article. Should be compulsory reading for every single voter.
[Daphne – Save it for Thursday? Oh I see – the DEADLINE.]
Mark Anthony Falzon is in my opinion the most intelligent, most capable of logical reason, and most eloquent columnist who writes for The Times.
It is always a pleasure to read his articles. He is also as perceptive and analyzing and capable of putting into words present day situations as you are Daphne.
One of my (many) little hobbies involves WMDs – for so is the general public perception of guns. He, as a rank outsider to the sport, to my knowledge, is the only columnist to have understood the very basic tenet (a bit of a cliche, so often is this repeated – but true nonetheless) that guns don’t kill, but people do, or to put it another way, evil intention will find the means, whatever that may be, and removing one means will never remove the intention.
A current analogy, you can take away divorce, but you won’t stop marriages from breaking down, as the “Le” camp would like the gullible to believe.
By far the best article I have read!
Very good read indeed.
thanks
I find it hard to believe that there is actually ANYBODY out there who can disagree with Mark-Anthony’s sincere, intelligent and logical approach to the whole issue. Truly an excellent post.
Surely you have no idea what’s out there.
Thanks for the excellent post Daphne.
“…all children wish throughout their life is to have their parents reunite. Divorce will close the door to that hope” – Lawyer Bernard Grech from Zwieg Bla Divorzju.
The NO movement wants children to live their entire childhood with false hopes. That’s cruelty in itself.
With each new “brilliant” idea, the No movement further convinces me to vote YES.
What a bunch of amateurs.
An excellent and well thought out piece. It reinforces my belief that there is the need for a reasonable discussion on whether effective solutions can be found for those whose marriage has broken down. The shouting match that we had these past few weeks was not a debate.
Although it forced people to think about these issues and also, to some extent, about their own lives, there were far too may distractions and side shows for people to focus on the relevant considerations (as Dr. Falzon has done).
It does not, however, convince me to vote yes.
I will vote NO but my no is not a definitive rejection to any form of legislation regulating marital break-ups. It is NO to the solution being offered in the referendum because I am convinced that, notwithstanding what Dr. Falzon says, this solution will in the long run cause more harm than good.
I don’t know you but you come across as quite a smart person, and accept your concerns which are currently leading you to a “no” vote.
Because you don’t come across as an idiot and your opinion seems to be very honest, I will bother to engage you.
Your conclusion:
“…this solution will in the long run cause more harm than good.”
This, from what I have read so far, seems to be based on acceptance as gospel truth the vague concepts and totally meaningless rhetoric without any substance (of which Mr Galea Salomone supplies by the bushel) “backed” by pseudo-statistics which in many cases are subject to totally dishonest interpretation, but in other cases interpretation is based on a complete confusion between “causation” and “correlation”.
We are supplied with figures that we are encouraged to accept as a demonstration of causative effect of the introduction of divorce in other countries, on the increasing number of failed marriages and the like.
Unfortunately, there is nothing, zilch, nada, nyet, that actually shows any causation AT ALL. Correlation there certainly is, but this would only be a result of the inevitable changes in a society’s mores, which in reality would have been a prime mover for the introduction of divorce. It would therefore appear more logical to state that it was these societal changes that CAUSED the introduction of divorce, and not the other way round!
A word about the meaning of correlation, for the uninitiated:
Correlation: There is a statistical correlation between tie wearing and banking fraud. 99.9% of top ranking executives involved in banking fraud wore a tie on a daily basis. Hence, a person wearing a tie is statistically infinitely more likely to be involved in banking fraud than someone who never wears one.
Knowing this little snippet of information, can you ever again trust someone who wears a tie with your money?
This is typical correlation BS that the “Le” camp would like us to believe is causation, to further their aim, which in the main seems to be a failed attempt to justify their religious standpoint by the production of statistics, for logical reason there is none to be had – religion is in as always the antithesis of logical reason.
To conclude:
All I know is that thanks to a divorce obtained overseas, I personally know of three couples close to me who are now happily married, kids and all, and have been for years. But that’s not the reason why I will be voting yes.
I will be voting yes because clear and unhindered logical reason, uncorrupted by any bias, leads me to believe that divorce legislation is essential in any society, a truth which every other society in the world bar one, has accepted for donkey’s years, including societies that are considered far more conservative than ours, such as Islamic states – where the end-of-the-family scenarios that divorce will result in according to the antis, simply do not exist.
True that society changes with or without divorce. I also agree that statistics need to be treated with caution.
I am convinced, however, that divorce will result in more harm than good on the basis of a number of considerations;
1. I look at my own thought processes in my youth. There were two or three occasions when I was seriously considering taking a relationship to a more serious level. I had nagging doubts, because of which I eventually decided against. In hindsight I realise how right I was. It also happened, the other way round and thankfully the lady listened to her nagging doubts and chose to break up. If divorce were available, I would probably had ignored my nagging doubts and took the plunge into a more risky marriage. Eventually, I only took the plunge when I was convinced that the marriage will in fact be for life. Today I am happily married
During the divorce debate, I know of two people who are in a relationship and who said that with the availability of divorce they are now more willing to take the risk of marriage. Clearly, a recipe for disaster.
The young people of today need to approach building relationships and marriage with the determination that their eventual marriage partner has the willingness and the emotional intelligence to make a marriage work for life. Anything less is not good enough.
2. Marriage is a commitment you work at every minute of everyday of every year, for life. One must not take the approach of being a spectator in his/her own marriage. If you want it to work, you have to make it work. Both sides have to adapt , make sacrifices, make allowances, make compromises. With the introduction of divorce legislation, the norm will become a temporary commitment – “till it suits me”. Why should one work at his/her marriage, if it is perceived to be a temporary commitment anyway?
3. All married people meet with situations which, for want of a better word, I shall call ‘temptations’. People make a choice either to go with the flow or stop, think and move away. With a culture that ‘if things go wrong in my marriage, there is an alternative’, I think more people will allow themselves greater risks and in some instances, this could lead to their marital breakup.
This all sounds very rational but at the end of the day we are talking about emotions. One can rationalise and say that with or without divorce people enter marriage with the intention that it is for life. Many will have at the back of their mind the opt-out option of divorce. And that, human nature being what it is, increases the risks.
Coming back to statistics of other countries, and to your argument that it is societal changes that caused the introduction of divorce. That is true only to a point. It is also divorce which has brought about changes in society and the values that it upholds. Divorce was one of the factors which weakened families.
Then there are children to think of but I shall not enter into that discussion here.
Yes there are people who are suffering and yes these people need solutions. As a society we need to find a solution which addresses these sufferings while minimising the impacts on the rest of society. The divorce legislation as being proposed is not the solution.
Jae –
I see the problem. You are too smart ;-)
What I mean is that you seem to do things with great care and attention and actually enter into a commitment like marriage in the correct way. Doing your best to avoid making any mistakes.
But the mistake you are making now, is that you assume that you are the norm, whereas you most certainly are not. You (and so do all of us) wish that everyone did take everything as seriously and with as much commitment as you do, but the stark reality is that the few of us with that attitude are in the minority.
Therefore (see your very own example of the “I would marry if I was able to divorce” couple) people mess up.
Not necessarily because they are stupid, or reckless. Love, animal attraction, can cover up a lot, “Love is blind” is no myth.
For these people and their families, a solution is necessary.
Now, I do not deny that a small percentage of couples may reason in the manner you are suggesting, resulting in a few “superficial” marriages. Not that that may necessarily be the end of the world, plenty to say about the matter, but let’s not sidestep too far.
But there is one overriding consideration here.
Rights and freedoms are not free. They may have a cost. Sometimes the cost is very great. BUT – their value is priceless. Also but – every right, every freedom we have, to make our own decisions, inevtiably has the “cost” of allowing us to make the WRONG decision.
We have the right to choose our own government. Sometimes, we screw up. But that right is considered inalienable, risks and all.
The “Le” camp very simply does not want us to have the right and freedom to choose, even if as a result of this choice there will be a few who make the wrong decisions.
Nevertheless, what never gets a mention is the fact that we all do have the right and freedom to ENTER into a faulty marriage, and hence, make all the wrong decisions all the same.
If you allow a bad decision to be made, you must allow it to be un-made.
Marriage without divorce is car park with only an entry sign.
El bandido guapo
You first describe me as ‘smart’, then ‘too smart’. So what will it be next?
Joking apart, I think you missed the point of what I wrote.
In short, marriage is a commitment for life. Divorce will change that. It will change people’s attitude to marriage resulting in more marriage breakdowns.
There needs to be a solution for people whose marriage has broken down but what is being proposed is not the right solution.
You speak of rights and freedoms. What about responsibility, responsibility towards each other and towards the children?
PS: You are talking rubbish when you state that “The “Le” camp very simply does not want us to have the right and freedom to choose”
I found this exchange very interesting. However, one point which Jae may be missing is that it is not because of a lack of divorce legislation that people do not try their best to make their marriage work. It is because they understand and foresee the trauma that separation invariably brings along, first and foremost to the couple and also to their children.
Let’s not forget that separation does and will always precede divorce. Separation is possible in Malta whether or not the next step, that is divorce, comes along. Once the period of separation (which is in any case compulsory in most states before one can get divorced) is over, then divorce is just the means by which to legally untie the final knot that still keeps together a union long broken and probably quite forgotten by then.
I live in Italy, where divorce is possible, and from what I see around me the toughest part both emotionally and financially is the separation. By the time most couples reach the divorce stage, they are so emotionally detached from their spouse that they go through the motions, if not on friendly terms, at least very courteously.
“In short, marriage is a commitment for life. Divorce will change that. It will change people’s attitude to marriage resulting in more marriage breakdowns.”
Re-read my posts.
“There needs to be a solution for people whose marriage has broken down but what is being proposed is not the right solution.”
Divorce as opposed to separation is simply the opportunity to remarry, and an acknowledgement of a reality. Nothing more, nothing less. To imply that it, or what we have now, is in any way shape or form a “solution” to anything else, is mistaken.
“You speak of rights and freedoms. What about responsibility, responsibility towards each other and towards the children?”
What if there is none, on the part of one or more of the spouses, which led to the separation, call it what you may? Are the currently available options engendering any? This has nothing to do with responsibility of the personal sort, how would the existence of divorce legislation or not have any bearing?
“PS: You are talking rubbish when you state that “The “Le” camp very simply does not want us to have the right and freedom to choose” ”
How else would one describe a “No” vote? A “Yes” vote, as far as I can tell, forces no happily married couple to divorce, but a “No” denies this option to all, including those who wish to.
Anyway, it seems that your decision and views are entrenched, this is not an open minded discussion, but an attempt to defend a standpoint.
I never gave divorce a second thought prior to this issue recently being brought up, and maybe I am lucky in that I did not have any religious background or similar to cloud my reasoning. I decided to vote Yes simply on the basis of logical reasoning and an evaluation of the realities of today’s society. But this was a reasoned decision, not a standpoint which I would then attempt to justify. I did not need to read anything from the “Yes” side, I was already on that side of the fence. Quite honestly the little I was exposed to the “Yes” movement, I was not very impressed.
I read all the ‘No” camp have to say, with a perfectly open mind, one which will readily understand and accept a logical argument, since that was the only way I could swing.
But I find none. Instead I find “No” reasons set in a religious standpoint needing justification, in fear, in misunderstanding, in rhetoric, and sadly and highly disturbingly, in downright deception.
In fact I would go as far as to say that almost the only valid role for the “Yes” movement is to counter the half and full untruths coming from the “No” camp.
Time to disengage.
Please post this article again on THURSDAY as Friday is a day of ‘reflection’.
…and this: http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/blogs/carmen-sammut/stop-insulting-women-and-men-0
Will someone translate this brilliant article into Maltese.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4387323/IVA.jpg
Dear Satan,
If Jesus says No to divorce no wonder that you and your whole wide world are going to say the contrary. However, you are not going to cheat men of God. We know your tricks perfectly well. That’s why we keep praying and recite the rosary as much as possible; they are our perfect weapons against you. No, men of God do not subscribe to “WHY I WILL BE VOTING YES ON SATURDAY”. God’s love for us is not based on human reason, rationalism and objective analysis. Love is irrational and it is the most important thing in the world. You know this perfectly well; you are the ruler of this world and you are making a good job. I am tempted to say: ”Good luck, Satan, for next Saturday.” But I sincerely believe you are in for a great dissapointment. Is-Sinjura took great care of you. Just wait and see.
Satan’s not listening. He’s too busy following the people who have made a complete mess of his rival’s church.
There’s a special place in hell for people with such barmy reasoning.
“God’s love for us is not based on human reason, rationalism and objective analysis.” …..and so is your letter.
dery
yes exactly
Why I will vote NO on Saturday:
I will vote NO because divorce as is being proposed will cause untold harm.
1) MOST Children (and by no means young children) go through a double trauma seeing a parent marrying a stranger. Of course there are some exceptions but the vast majority DON’T want to see their biological parents remarry. Please go ahead and check this out and interview affected children.
2) Divorce can only be a “responsible divorce” if there is consensus. Only consensual divorce guarantees some fairness, and that the children’s interests are safeguarded.
I would vote YES for consensual divorce, then yes I have no right from stopping the two parties from ending their marriage and remarrying if they both agree.
But divorce as proposed by Pullicino Orlando is a sham, and he is only pushing it hard for his own convenience.
May I remind one and all that not only was he against divorce when he was happily married, but what turned him into a “green politician” was when a well-known building contractor wanted to build a cement factory in Zebbug.
1) Children may certainly feel uncomfortable at first when one of their parents meets someone else. But – this happens today, irrespective of the availability of divorce. Marriage is a detail – it is only the fact that mum or dad is seeing someone other than dad or mum that causes this discomfort. This discomfort one must add, is more brought about by society and its mores than anything else – just like adults, children do care what others think about them and their parents. As in other societies further along the line than us, when the situation of remarried parents becomes more common, this consideration will cease to exist.
Another consideration is that if one of the spouses was abusive or otherwise not fit to be a parent, many children could certainly prefer the alternative – in any case they will evaluate the new “partner” critically and accept or otherwise, accordingly. Children are young adults, not fools, possibly too much emphasis is being made on what they think.
End of the day, mum cohabiting with someone else or mum married to someone else, logically I think that I would rather choose the latter.
2) Divorce and separation, in effect, differ only in one aspect – the right to remarry. You are in no way obliged to remarry after you are divorced, so call it what you will. The consensuality issue is not necessary or at all desirable. If, for you, your marriage is over, there is nothing to stop you walking out on it unilaterally even today. You can even be separated against your will.
Heaven forbid that your spouse would need to give you permission, that would open the door to vindictiveness and blackmail.
As far as “fairness” “children’s rights” etc these are just details that the legislation will take care of, there is no reason why a divorce should be any less fair than a separation.
Divorce cleans up the mess definitively, is a personal choice, and offers a family for those who choose to remarry.
I have been asking the same question for ages but I’m afraid no one has ever taken the trouble to answer it. I ask again: Out of every 100 divorced couples (abroad) how many divorce only once, how many divorce their second wife, their third wife, their fourth….
You tell us. We don’t have that statistic, and in any case, it has no relevance.
Dear Kenneth, if you have nothing to say, for your own sake, don’t say it because you make a fool of yourself. As in fact you have done!
@ Giov DeMartino:
Let me show you how absurd your question is, by asking you a similar question.
Tell me, Mr DeMartino, how many divorced people end up in happy and unhappy second marriages? Make sure that you give an exact number, and to cite your source.
What? You can’t answer that question? Are you going to make a fool of yourself?
Dear Giov DeMartino, if you have nothing to say, for your own sake, don’t say it because you make a fool of yourself. As in fact you have done!
Now back to your question. Do you have any statistics showing, out of every 100 divorced couples (abroad), how many divorce their second wife, their third wife, their fourth…?
It is a legitimate reply. After all, it was your question. Then again, if you have nothing sensible to say, for your own sake, say nothing.
You insist on making a fool of yourself. No wonder! What’s the time please? Well, answer that question yourself. How stupid a grown up man can be. Well, after all, he supports labour, doesn’t he? So what can you expect?
@ Giov DeMartino:
I already told you there is no answer to that question. The statistic does not exist.
Now, would you care to attempt an answer yourself, or did you put the question simply to make a fool of yourself?
And from where did you get that absurd idea that I support Labour?
I put that question to help YOU make a fool of yourself.
U biex naqtaghlek l-ghatx bil-perzut I will answer my own question. Judging from what we see around us and what we see abroad where divorce is readily available, very few couples find happiness in their second marriage.
[Daphne – Oh come on. That’s so untrue. And what sort of reasoning is that anyway: second marriages are unlikely to succeed, so we will allow no second marriages?]
In fact whenever we read about someone we are always told that he had been married four times, five times, six times……Of course there are statistics. They are all around us.I cannot speak for females, but as a male myself I do know what males feel at the sight of an attractive female…..divorce will give a chance to many – not to everybody – but to many young males to enjoy life. In fact whenever a couple is having problems with their life, they are always asked the same question by their realtives etc: Ghandu wicc iehor?
Dear Mr Demartino,
“In fact whenever we read about someone we are always told that he had been married four times, five times, six times…”
Hallina, get out a bit more.
Very close to me personally, I know of three couples who are now very happily in their second marriage thanks to a divorce obtained overseas, and have been for years, around 5, 15, and 25, respectively and very approximately.
In all cases were it not for divorce, who knows? What any reasonable person understands is that if the possibility to remarry is not available to a person, this person will locally have difficulty in finding a “serious” long term partner, hence the likelyhood that they will end up cohabiting or otherwise “…four times, five times, six times…”
Maybe you are so detached from current society of a marriageable age that you are completely unaware of these common realities.
This is a fair understanding, as surveys have showed that the largest “No” vote is coming from those of a pensionable age.
[GiovDeMartino – I put that question to help YOU make a fool of yourself].
And you didn’t succeed. Since I have nothing to lose by saying the truth, I told you that your question cannot be answered, since there are no such statistics. If you believe otherwise, prove me wrong. Give me the statistics.
[GiovDeMartino – U biex naqtaghlek l-ghatx bil-perzut I will answer my own question. Judging from what we see around us and what we see abroad where divorce is readily available, very few couples find happiness in their second marriage].
Apart from the fact that your claim is clearly untrue, that is no answer to your own question. You asked for statistics. Now please provide them, unless you wish to make a fool of yourself.
[GiovDeMartino – In fact whenever we read about someone we are always told that he had been married four times, five times, six times……]
I hope you are not referring to tabloids. I usually don’t read those. You’d be surprised to learn that the average person is no Liz Taylor.
[GiovDeMartino – Of course there are statistics].
So produce them. One link would be enough.
[GiovDeMartino – They are all around us].
I still can’t see them.
[GiovDeMartino – I cannot speak for females, but as a male myself I do know what males feel at the sight of an attractive female…..]
Please explain. I feel no urge to betray my wife at the sight of any female, but maybe you feel differently. Perhaps that’s why you fear divorce. Perhaps you feel you wouldn’t be able to control yourself given half the chance.
[GiovDeMartino – divorce will give a chance to many – not to everybody – but to many young males to enjoy life].
That’s the whole point. And to women as well.
[GiovDeMartino – In fact whenever a couple is having problems with their life, they are always asked the same question by their realtives etc: Ghandu wicc iehor?]
So? What does that prove? What’s your point? My ex didn’t wait for divorce to have an affair with another man (yes, Giov, women do have affairs outside their marriage, too). And just in case you think that I’m for divorce because I need it, my marriage got annulled, and I am now a happily married man – 11 years of marriage and our love is getting stronger.
Daphne’s half hearted reply is more than enough to prove my point.
[Daphne – It wasn’t a half-hearted one but a succinct one. Your reasoning is irrational and illogical: some second marriages fail so all second marriages should be banned. I trust you realise that with your reasoning, this follows: some first marriages fail, so all first marriages should be banned (and that means, no marriage at all).]
She knows perfectly well that when the first marriage fails, there is very little chance for the second marriage to succeed.
[Daphne – Rubbish. I know nothing of the sort. And nor do you. More to the point, it is irrelevant. You don’t ban marriage – first, second, third or fourth – because some fail. What next – ban driving because some people crash?]
And less chance for the third….”so shall we allow no second marriages?” Exactly…NO to divorce. If your first marriage fails, there is very little chance, if any, of having a successful second marriage. I am not relying on statistics, but on facts.
[Daphne – Statistics are facts. You are relying on decades of brainwashing, misinformation and lack of exposure to real life.]
@ GiovDeMartino:
Daphne’s reply is good enough for me. I won’t waste any time repeating the obvious.
I am relying of facts and not on brainwashing.
No, we don’t ban driving because some people crash, but we ban the drivers who cannot drive properly. We do not ban marriage, ban those who make a mess of their marriage. If you cannot drive, don’t drive. If you cannot bring up a decent family, do not get married or, at least, do not try to get children.
[Daphne – How do you work out who made a mess of his or her marriage?]
Mr Cassar I’m pleased to learn that you have been happily married for 11 years. I am sincerely pleased. I have just celebrated my 54th marriage anniversary! We could manage this because we really love one another. But if Mr Cassar is a normal male, he knows what I meant when I wrote what I wrote.
It is a well known fact, statistics or no statistics, that when a man decides to leave his first wife, nothing will stop him to leave the second, the third.
Who makes a mess of the marriage? Most probably both of them. So they do not deserve another chance to get more chn and then dump hem.
[GiovDeMartino – Mr Cassar I’m pleased to learn that you have been happily married for 11 years. I am sincerely pleased].
My first marriage lasted six months before I got an annulment. Make your own conclusion on that.
[GiovDeMartino – I have just celebrated my 54th marriage anniversary! We could manage this because we really love one another].
Yes, because you BOTH love one another.
[GiovDeMartino – But if Mr Cassar is a normal male, he knows what I meant when I wrote what I wrote].
Yes I do. That is why I strongly disagree.
[GiovDeMartino – It is a well known fact, statistics or no statistics, that when a man decides to leave his first wife, nothing will stop him to leave the second, the third].
Nothing stops anyone from leaving his first wife, too (or the wife from leaving her husband). Whether its the first, second, etc makes no difference in itself. It always depends on the individuals involved. So your interpretation of facts is grossly mistaken.
[GiovDeMartino – Who makes a mess of the marriage? Most probably both of them].
What makes you so sure. Each case is different. Multiple factors contribute to marriage failure. Trying to apportion blame solves nothing. Although attempts should be made to save a marriage, in many cases the rift is irreversible. Preventing people to move on only makes matters worse.
[GiovDeMartino – So they do not deserve another chance to get more chn and then dump hem].
You’ll have to retype that.
[GiovDeMartino – So they do not deserve another chance to get more chn and then dump hem].
Ah, you meant “So they do not deserve another chance to get more children and then dump them”.
No one has the right to dump children. However, you musn’t assume that people whose marriage fails dump their children. That is a highly offensive, prejudiced, and a very “unChristian” thing to say.
This is the best piece I’ve read so far for voting ‘yes’.
I am an undecided and probably will be till I reach that fateful cubicle, more inclined to the No though.
Incidentally, this evening I had dinner with a couple of English friends who are very liberal, travelled the world, (in their fifties), very well-off and totally down-to-earth. No reference to God or religion – but they said divorce does reduce the commitment with which one enters into marriage.
They were very hopeful that Malta would not legislate for divorce because divorce, according to them, has really wreaked havoc in the UK. Go figure.
[Lomax – but they said divorce does reduce the commitment with which one enters into marriage].
How would that work out? Do you think that couples in love and getting married will think “No big deal. I won’t fully commit to my marriage. There’s always divorce”.
I would think that people with such attitudes have a very good chance of a failed marriage, with or without divorce. And nothing will keep them together if the marriage fails. Not even the absence of divorce legislation.
So basically, the idea is to ban divorce for the sake of the mentally immature. That argument is no argument against divorce – it is an argument for the prohibition of marriage for the mentally immature. But of course, and for good reason, I have yet to hear someone suggest a pshchological examination and a means test prior to marriage.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110524/local/jpo-victory-for-no-camp-would-be-success-of-spiritual-terrorism.367037
this man is going to give the NO to divorce a victory next Saturday.
I’m anticlerical … past posts of mine in this blog prove this.
But if saying No this Saturday means giving a reply to dickheads here and The Times’ morons then I will definitely vote NO. Hopefully they would shut up.
Why? Simple .. I’m only interested in politics and winning elections. Look at Berlusconi and; learn from him. He is divorced and has reckless lifestyle. Yet the centre-right in Italy keeps winning and winning because he alienated Catholics by pretending to be more Catholic than the Pope. That formula is successful. PERIOD.
Mark Anthony Falzon (and perhaps his admirers here) may be brilliant in anthropology but he would be an awful political strategist.
@ el bandido guapo …fine , “clear up the mess” of broken marriages, BUT conditional that there is consensus from both parties for divorce.
If both agree let them divorce. If they do not agree, clearly there is something holding it up, and both parties will be a lot more accomodating to try to obtain consensus.
I repeat, ask the majority of children from separated families whether they are happy to see one of their parents remarry, and perhaps you are in for a surprise.
[Daphne – Nobody wants to see their parents marry again, David. Nobody. Whatever they might say to keep face or not to upset those parents. The new spouse is always a cuckoo in the nest and disturbs equilibrium that has been built up over a lifetime. But you have to admit that this applies equally to live-in consorts and companions who are a permanent fixture. It is not the marriage which is bothersome, but the presence. Parental remarriage is more bothersome to offspring – grown-up offspring, that is – because of the property rights and usufruct that the spouse acquires, to the detriment of the children. ]
No.1 idiotic post:
“Mr M Borg
Today, 12:26
And what about people who are on minimum pay and who will divorce? Who is going to provide for their former children ? . Do you think we should let them die of hunger ?
Do you think that a person on minimum pay can support 2, or 3 , or more families ?
Don’t you realise that the very persons who want to vote for divorce so that they can copy the rich , will be the very ones to suffer.?
It will be their wives who have to go to court every day to fight for the right to live. A rich wife does not need her husband’s maintenance, she would have income of her own.
Do not believe IVA , many will suffer because of divorce,”.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110526/local/the-church-identity-according-to-christ-s-teaching-comes-before-numbers.367396
The match will soon be over and it doesn’t make sense to repeat the same arguments over and over again. I do hope that I’ve done my part to convince at least one single person to vote NO.
Sooner or later divorce legislation will certainly be introduced because society has been doing everything possible to destroy the traditional Maltese family. Pity. But then it would be too late.
[Daphne – So you see it as a ‘match’.]
Oh sure, there is actually a worldwide conspiracy to destroy the traditional Maltese family. As if it is not the people themselves who make or break traditions.