In response to Mr Cachia’s comment on the brilliance and sainthood of peasants – get a life.

True…so let’s start making enemies of good friends, shall we?

[David Pace – By the way, null does not mean that the marriage never happened but it means that the it was not valid to start with].

If the marriage was not valid to start with, it never happened. The term “wedding” is not synonymous with “marriage”.

[David Pace – Divorce is seen as right or wrong depending on the perception of the individual].

So is religion.

@ Kenneth Cassar

I agree with you about the annulment part and that divorce does not aim at solving marital problems and that marriages will still fail no matter what systems we might employ.

The divorce question asks me whether I agree with divorce or not and I happen to not agree with it. This at the very least is an opinion for which the government is asking me and for which you still get the chance to cast your own vote.

As for the Stalinist argument… if there was a democratic referendum as to whether all Maltese citizens would be obliged by law to attend Sunday mass (this is an example) against a fine, my vote would be a definite NO, because such a law is immoral and wrong. The freedom of expressing Spirituality and Religion (as two different things) are a fundamental human right, which is why Stalinism was overthrown. A referendum here would not be justified.

Divorce is seen as right or wrong depending on the perception of the individual. Different numbers of people see it in different ways…If yes wins, I hope that divorce does come in because that is what a democratic process means. But I, David Pace cannot in my conscience vote yes, as the choice of a life-long commitment is a life-long commitment as contrasting with the case where a marriage is null. But I would not see that as an imposition from the yes side, we voted and they win.

By the way, null does not mean that the marriage never happened but it means that the it was not valid to start with. The reference to it “as if it has never happened” is a myth, used wrongly left right and centre.

Here I find it very sad, that divorce is being used by our political parties and politicians as a matter for clinging to power or trying to gain back power or favour from the voters. I hope that at least they do act on the result gathered from the referendum.

Sorry for taking long to reply… but I am studying for my final exams in the mean time and I wasn’t aware of your replies, a friend of mine told me to look at the comments again.

Your knowledge of the law is poor at best. The rights recognisedby the ECJ as enshrined in the Charter are a reflection of those contained in the convention. Thus under Article 9, the right to marry and form a family is regulated according to national legislation. there is no fundamental right to divorce in either the Charter, Convention or case-law of the ECHR.

Secondly, a citizen may sue before the ECJ for a breach of any of these rights or for the failure of the state to enforce an EU directive or to transpose a regulation. The ECHR is also not the proper forum, for divorce – perhaps a political or civil right i certain countries – is not a fundamental right.

You are correct of course. A two cent lawyer is worth double that of a one-cent one (wow!how’s that for wit?!). And you, kev, are neither one, nor the other.

Will they say sorry in 40 years’ time? All the arguments against divorce and what it brings are ALREADY here with separation. The children suffer, help from the state to separated women is there etc etc.

What about those politicians who talk about ‘valuri’? Malta is small and we all know what is going on: corruption and bribes go against valuri too. We are such hypocrites that it is unbelievable!

Iva. Referendum fuq l-abort huwa referendum fuq ligi civili. Dak li ma tistghux tifhmu int u hafna ohra bhalek huwa li l-ligijiet civili huma bazati fuq kodici morali. Mhijhiex ir-religjon Kattolika biss li tipprovdi moral compass. Il-ligi civili taghmilha wkoll.

Fil-kaz tad-divorzju, il-principju morali tal-legislazzjonijiet kollha li jippermettu r-rikors ghalih (i.e. kullhadd barra ahna u dawk il-weirdos tal-Filippini) huwa li dan huwa dritt individwali li ma jimponix ruhu fuq haddiehor. Ergo huwa gust.

Inti u dawk bhalek jirragunaw mod iehor: Id-dritt individwali taghkom li ma tirrikorrux ghad-divorzju minhabba l-appartenenza religjuza taghkom, tridu timponuh fuq kullhadd.