[Etienne Calleja – I never said I am not in agreement with divorce, and I am a strong proponent of empiricism].

I never said you are not, either. Two can play at that silly game.

It also happened last Sunday at a church at Tarxien. I was hearing mass and about a dozen people walked out.

When one divorces one can remarry. When one separates one can only cohabit.

I never said I am not in agreement with divorce, and I am a strong proponent of empiricism.

I was not after a definition. I meant what are the legal differences between one and the other.

Why not ?

Dudu, I agree that no one can guarantee that parliament will never change any law. That is why we should have had a straight question about whether we want divorce to be introduced or not.

After that we should have let parliament get on with the job of approving Pullicino Orlando’s bill or some other divorce law.

If Joseph Muscat (the question was his idea) wanted us to vote on a specific law then the referendum question should have said so.

Sperm ARE miniature humans. It’s been captured on film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djQ7WZlb140

What’s wrong with having ifs and buts when the referendum is based on a specific divorce law as proposed by Pullicino Orlando and Bartolo?

On the other hand, how on earth can anyone guarantee that down the line parliament will not change any given law?

Let me reverse the argument. How can the No lobby guarantee that if the proposed ‘conservative’ divorce bill is not enacted, then parliament will not in years to come legislate without a referendum?

Our social security ‘packet’ is what it is …the good things and the downright unfair things.

I tend to agree with you that the ‘stay at home’ spouse should not be entitled to a widow’s pension, but first we have to remove the injustices which are in our pension system.

Women live longer but reach pensionable age before men. Why shouldn’t men reach pensionable age at the same age of women?

Correct me if I’m wrong: women who worked for ten years and stopped working for fifteen years, lose the ten year contributions for pension purposes and their pension is calculated from when when they re-start working.

[Daphne – That was the case, but I believe changes have been made. I’m not sure how or what, though. It was certainly a grave injustice, and a real disincentive to women. It didn’t apply specifically to women, of course, because that would be discrimination – but it’s women who take a ‘child-rearing’ break of some years, not men.]

If two married people worked up to pensionable age, do they get separate pensions?

[Daphne – Yes, of course.]

If say the husband of a 55-year-old stay-at-home wife wants divorce, how would she support herself if she is not entitled to a pension (like you’re suggesting)? If she starts working at 55 for six years, would she survive on the pension she worked for, if she gets one?

[Daphne – She wouldn’t survive on half her husband’s pension, either, if they separate rather than divorce. Please don’t forget that we have long been facing these situations already. People in their 50s separate, and very few of the women work or have worked. In that case, the husband is either obliged to maintain her or make other provision for her. If she accepts a lump sum instead of maintenance, then she loses entitlement to his pension and also to a widow’s pension. Some separating couples find a way around this by agreeing on token maintenance of say EUR5 a week. That way, the husband doesn’t have to pay maintenance but the wife doesn’t lose entitlement to his pension. Bottom line: women should never put themselves at anyone’s mercy because you really never know what might go wrong. The mothers who raised their daughters to ‘find a man to live off’ have done them the greatest disservice possible. In exceptional cases, things work out fine, but it’s been my observation that these cases are really exceptional and with everyone else there is always some degree of dissatisfaction or unpleasantness, everything ranging from ordinary low-level boredom, lack of autonomy to being dumped and floundering or wanting to leave and not having the financial independence to do so.]

There are also spouses who would not care a hoot about dignity and WANT the other half to fork out the maintenance money periodically, and take pride that they are living off their ex-partner’s back.

As things stand we will be creating more poor people.

[Daphne – I very much doubt it, John. You overlook the fact that the financial arrangements for divorce are exactly the same as they are for separation. Divorce law does not permit husbands to cut loose without financial provision wives who are past the age where they can find work. Another point you miss is the one I go on about constantly: the fact that many, many Maltese women are kept in poverty in their own homes by their own husbands, but are too proud to disclose the fact. You will, however, notice lots of clues to this if you bother to look. Many have no access to the so-called ‘communal income’ and must account for every cent of the housekeeping money, which is literally just enough for the grocery bill. Then they are subjected to the humiliation of having to ask, like a child, for ‘pocketmoney to buy sweets’: can I have EUR10 to get my hair done; I need to buy some tights – that kind of thing. Awful. Lots of marriages break down precisely because of this sort of thing: the women work out that they’re better off with court-mandated maintenance than they are begging for cash and being refused. They look for work as soon as they are able to.]