Guest post: Why I am voting Yes
The writer is a journalist who is unable to put his name to an article on this website, because of the nature of his job.
People tend to give up too easily nowadays. They do not work hard enough to make their marriage work and they get into their family commitments too lightly.
I don’t want to condone this behaviour or encourage it. I want people to make an effort because I’m sure they’ll discover life is better that way.
But this is not what we are voting upon on Saturday.
We are being asked to vote on the future of those whose marriages have broken down.
We should not do this in a vacuum. We should use this opportunity to strengthen families and create proper support structures to help people remain together – something we have ignored over the years because we deluded ourselves that the Maltese family is immune to problems.
Hopefully, divorce will shock us into real action.
But ultimately – no matter what – some relationships will fail. Because human beings are human beings: we make mistakes, we change, circumstances change us, we fall out of love, we make the wrong choices, we take immature and impulsive decisions, we make poor judgments about people we are attracted to…
Our legislation has recognised this, which is why we have separation law: so that the individuals from a broken marriage can separate within a legal framework. We did not leave them floating in legal limbo to protect the family.
We recognised that, no matter what, people are going to separate from their spouse, and so the law must cater for that.
We now find ourselves faced with a new reality. The marital breakdown rate continues to increase. Many young adults are victims of such breakdowns: these people are getting into new relationships and forming families.
The referendum is aimed at them. We are being asked whether we believe this state of affairs exists already and whether we should therefore approve legislation which would recognises this reality and creates the appropriate regulatory framework. We are also sending them a message: if your new relationships are based on true commitment – and you’re bringing children into the world – do the responsible thing and get married.
When people fail, we do not punish or reward them. We help them try again and hope they succeed. If we label them as failures who have to go through life suffering the consequences of their (or their partner’s) actions, they will live up to their that and end up living irresponsibly – a situation that has become all too common today.
Contrary to the well-intentioned fears and claims of the No lobby, statistics show that the introduction of divorce does not impact the rate of marital breakdown and that cohabitation and marriage rates go through global trends. Malta is experiencing those trends despite the lack of divorce legislation. So we should not be afraid that it will exacerbate the situation.
By saying no to divorce legislation, we are simply putting off the inevitable – to the detriment of thousands of Maltese people who are being told they don’t deserve another chance and that they are not worthy of the institution of marriage.
And all this for what?
To punish the irresponsible and selfish men and women who broke up their families lightly? The same people who would inevitably run a mile from another marriage?
Even if remarriage was a reward – which it is not – we should not withhold it from EVERYONE because of the few who may abuse it. We know some people ‘abuse’ of freedom of expression – which is why we regulate it. But we do not bar people from expressing themselves just on the offchance that somebody might incite hatred or violence.
The choice is clear. There is no other way of going about it. If there was an alternative, the No lobby would have surely proposed it and some other countries in the world would have come to the same conclusion.
But there is no alternative.
Malta has nothing to be proud of if family stability is false and enforced. Cause for pride comes if, despite divorce legislation (as with separation legislation), we manage to retain stability, while allowing people who had a bitter experience in their previous marriage to rejoin this stability.
Divorce legislation is not a choice. It is the only way.
35 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The problem is that while I am in favour of divorce, the referendum question is worded such that the abuser in a marriage may divorce the victim of a failed marriage, even against his/her will, thereby adding insult to injury. Therefore I must vote NO . The divorce bill must protect the victim and not reward the aggressor.
You’re thinking in terms of rewards and punishments. It doesn’t work that way. If a marriage has ended, it’s ended both ways.
The victim should be compensated in court (through separation proceedings). But ultimately, if both have the capacity for starting new relationships and families, both should be allowed to do that responsibly.
The same applies to separation and annulment. If you want to vote NO vote NO but at least be honest about it.
Yes of course, the same should apply for separation and annulment. The law should protect the victim first and foremost. Many cases of separation are initiated by the abuser unilaterally,
And why do you think the “victim” would wish that he/she remains married to the abuser?
Just what I was thinking
You are probably totally unaware that there is no change from the situation today. Any spouse may separate from the other, today, without consensuality.
In any case, so, is your reasoning that if your wife wants to leave you, for whatever reason, you want the option to disallow it?
“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.”
You should not be separated against your will if you are the victim of violence or abuse. It should be up to you to decide whether you want to honour the contract or not. The abuser should be forced to forfeit his/her right to end the contract unilaterally.
[Lino Cert – You should not be separated against your will if you are the victim of violence or abuse].
In real life, victims of violence or abuse are forcibly separated by the police, even if the abused is too weak and helpless to seek help.
[Lino Cert – It should be up to you to decide whether you want to honour the contract or not. The abuser should be forced to forfeit his/her right to end the contract unilaterally].
So basically, what you are saying is that people should be forced to share beds if they are married. I can just imagine it – a police officer at the bedside, forcing the deserting spouse to get back in bed because the other wants to honour their marriage vows.
Get real, please.
Kenneth, divorce has other serious impiications, cohabitation is not one of them, FOr example the rights to inheritance, the rights to maintenance, the rights to custody, the rights to division of assets, the rights to the matrimonial home. The deserter may benefit from a divorce , and may therefore, besides deserting, also inflict divorce onto the innocent spouse, just out of spite. This happens over and over in Malta and will be much easier with divorce.
I have heard this reasoning time and time again and I cannot for the life of me understand it. Someone please help!
What does Lcert mean by the ‘abuser’? What does Lcert mean by the ‘victim’? And how does it help the ‘victim’ to remain within a marriage. How does one add ‘insult to injury’?
More importantly, we are NOT voting on a law, but the principle of a law which states that people can obtain divorce after four years separation.
Surely, if we can agree on the principle, then we can allow our 64 members of parliament to actually do something and come up with a fair and equitable law. Surely, having shirked off their responsibilities we can hope they can at least do that?!
Excuse me but why would an abused party in his/ her right mind want to remain in a failed marriage (and be divorced against his/ her will)?
Look at it like this: divorce as proposed gives the victim the right to break free from the shackles, even against the abuser’s will. It actually protects the victim from further abuse to be able to say ‘enough’, whereas alimony is protected.
Think about it.
You think about it. There are cases where the victim will lose out if divorced, especially if there are inheritance/prenuptial issues, social issues etc. In several instances it is the abuser who uses his power of divorce at will to inflict more abuse on the victim, who, out of fear of divorce, may remain silent and suffer the abuse in silence.
This is why the men in Muslim marriages have such power over their wives; they are able to divorce at will. Of course divorce should be freely available to the victim should he/she wish , I am not contesting this.
Are you serious L cert? So would you rather have the victim of a failed marriage continuously victimised?
Is that your idea of protecting the victim? Or would you rather have a structure whereby this victim is really and truly protected by definitely having his/her life segregated from that of the abuser?
Divorce in a case like this is a blessing – one which can be initiated by the abuser him/herself! Therefore, for the sake of all people out there, please re-think your reason for voting no!
There may be many reasons why the victim (eg of violence, adultery,abandonment) may want to remain married. For example there could be religious reasons, health reasons, social reasons, monetary reasons, or even reasons related to maintaining the matrimonial home or integrity of the family unit.
There are also cases when the abuser wants to inflict further punishment on the victim by divorcing them, for the same above reasons. Divorce should only be allowed by mutual consent or if initiated by the injured party. The divorce bill as proposed will open the door wide open to allow the abuser to inflict further pain onto the abused.
Oh and by the way the abuser cannot wake up one fine morning and decide to inflict your so called insult by taking a trip to the law courts and instituting divorce proceedings – a 4 year separation needs to be proven – further nullifying your argument.
I am understanding Lino Cert less and less.
Let’s look at the reasons:
1. Religious. Sorry, don’t get it. getting a divorce is not a sin. Getting remarried or having an affair is a sin. Otherwise it is the same as a separation.
2. Health reasons. I would have thought remaining in an unhappy marriage would be the cause of ill-health not the reason to stay in a marriage. If on the other hand the healthy partner is not happy to stick around, guess what, they won’t! Besides do you want to live with a partner who begrudges your illness?
3. Social reasons. Well frankly social reasons be damned! In any case society soon gets used to the idea, just as it did to the idea of separation and having different partners.
4. Monetary reasons. There Cert may have a point. However in this case it may also be the ‘abuser’ who wants to have his (her) cake and eat it. The abuser may want the affairs on the side AND the beautiful home!
5. The integrity of the family unit. Integrity? What integrity? The law being put forward calls for four years of separation first. How is that integrity?
The victim is never protected by being kept chained to the aggressor.
Believe me , the victim sometimes is. In any case, that is for the victim to decide. I am in favour of divorce, but only if consensual or if instigated by the victim. The abuser should not have the same rights as the abused, as proposed in this referendum.
Are there any rules on what kind of marks should be done on the ballot paper (vote) like X of v? If not marking X would it be null?
The Referenda Act answers Luigi’s question: “Each voter … shall indicate his choice by placing on the ballot paper an “X” or other mark either over the the box indicating an affirmative vote or over the box indicating a negative vote: Provided that a vote shall not be invalid if the mark is not over the box but is placed in such a manner that… it clearly indicates the choice of the voter.”
Why would a ‘victim’ not want to divorce an ‘abuser’ ? Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage. I fail to see how that may be considered as a ‘reward’.
Believe me, there are also cases when a ruthless abuser wants to inflict further punishment on the victim by divorcing them, some victims of an abusive marriage may want to remain married for financial or socio-religious reasons.
Sometimes they may fear losing custody. Divorce is a powerful tool that may be used as a blackmailing tool by a cruel abuser in a dysfunctional marriage unless the divorce bill protects the victim of such relationshiops, which are rampant in Maltese society, typically by the husband versus the wife.
Remember an abusive 40 year old husband may still be able to start a new family, transferring his maintenance and inheritance rights to a new family while inflicting further hardship on his innocent wife and children from the first marriage.
An honest, clear and rational article. Shame we live in a country where one’s job dictates one’s freedom to express one’s opinion.
The proper way to vote is either an x in the left box or a o in the right box. Make sure you don’t write the symbols upside down.
[Daphne – Somebody might take you seriously. The proper way to vote is to TICK THE BOX. Jew kif nghidu bil-Malti, taghmel verigut fil-kaxxa.]
VERIGUT fil-kaxxa! Le, ta. Tal-billboards jimmarkaw bis-salib.
Fron The Referenda Act.
“Provided that a vote shall not be invalid if the mark is not over the box but is placed in such manner that in the opinion of the Commission it clearly indicates the choice of the voter.
(2) A ballot paper shall be invalid in which:
(a) an “X” or other mark indicating the choice of the voter is not placed; or
(b) an “X” or other mark indicating the choice of the voter is placed over both boxes; or
(c) it cannot be determined with certainty over which box the “X” or other mark is placed; or
(d) any writing or mark is placed by which the voter can be identified; or
(e) the official mark of the Commission is not made.”;
PS to above.
John Mifsud, the psychiatrist, was on Simone Cini’s panel a couple of days ago discussing the obvious. Amongst all the screaming and interruptions especially by Joyce Cassar, who should know better, he made one simple statement.
”I am not in favour of divorce, I am happily married but..what right do I have to deny anyone else with a problem the right of choice, the right to start a new life ? I am voting yes to give others that choice”.
And so say many of us, sadly methinks, not enough of us.
It’s an X not a verigut!
If in doubt, ask the assistant commissioner on the IVA side.
All the claims of the ‘No’ group do make sense when you compare divorce with a stable marriage but shouldn’t the comparison be between divorce and separation?
I mean, if in the UK someone says children suffer when their parents divorce, I quite agree. But to say the same thing in Malta is different. The children will already have gone through the trauma when the parents separated and if they divorce later on it wouldn’t make much difference to them.
Let’s have a referendum on separation then. No to no-fault separation.
“There is no other way of going about it. If there was an alternative, the No lobby would have surely proposed it …”
The No lobby is just a screen for the Catholic Church. Of course they wouldn’t propose anything which goes against the Church’s outdated teachings!
Most atheists are voting No, and most Muslim are voting Yes, so this negates your theory.
What makes you think that?