You continuously point at the women who are unable or unwilling to contribute to what’s left of the family. Men have the responsibility to contribute to the maintenace of the children even if the wife works and she should be paid for half the services rendered if she keeps the children.

Btw: scratch cards are no longer in use.

[Daphne – Unlike you, and because I believe that women should keep their dignity even in the most deleterious circumstances, I am against women being paid for their services in the home. This reduces them to the level of an employee in their own household – and worse, their husband’s employee if he does the paying. Beyond that, the husband will begin to expect this and that job done in return for the money he pays (several Maltese husbands I know of do this already by buying clothes and holidays for their wife “if she is good, and nice”), and will feel that he is not obliged to do anything around the house because he pays his wife to do it. Married women whose marital regime is the standard community of property/earnings would be badly advised to accept money which is already theirs as payment from their husband. If you mean that the state should pay housewives to be housewives, then you shock me – especially given your overstated concern that divorcees and their children will become a burden on the taxpayer. Aside from that, you misinterpret me. I do not ‘point at women’ while ignoring men’s responsibilities. I am merely of the opinion – one that is based on being a woman and at the receiving end of other women’s life experiences over 30 years of listening and observing – that when a man is an arsehole the last thing you want or need is to be financially dependent on him, whether he lives with you or not. There are few pleasures greater than being able to tell a man to f**k off because you don’t want or need his money. Many women reading this will know exactly what I mean, but I tend to find that men don’t understand it at all. You clearly don’t. You appear to think that women in general want money more than their pride and dignity. Only some women do, and there’s a word beginning with P to describe them: pathetic, not prostitute (though in some cases, that too). Most women I know would rather live on bread and water than be made to dance to the tune of a maintenance cheque sent by somebody for whom they have lost all respect.]

“I don’t think anyone is contemplating burdening the taxpayer.”

Well I heard Joseph Muscat talking in that sense, I’m not sure where, but I think it was in the divorce debate when he brought up his Enlightenment argument and the Guze’ Ellul Mercer crucifix which he holds dear.

He said something in the sense that helping divorced families carry the burden is another form of solidarity. “Ghala le?” he concluded… and I started worrying.

[Daphne – When he becomes prime minister, John, that’s going to be the least of our worries.]

If we’re going to increase the number of people on relief, wouldn’t we be burdening the welfare system and creating more people living on a shoestring budget with all the other consequences?

Don’t we all know that if a divorced person gets married again s/he can go abroad with the new partner and leave the first family penniless?

[Daphne – Nothing to stop a man going away now, John. There never was. Ask Charles Flores: he once wrote an article explaining how his merchant seaman father just disappeared in the 1950s, leaving his mother with a house full of children to raise and no money or way of contacting him. He next got in touch when he was dying and Charles was grown up. That sort of story was really common. You didn’t have to watch Tista Tkun Int to know this. People are more civilised now, and it’s almost impossible to disappear for good, even if you bestial enough to want to. And if you think leaving for another country puts you out of the reach of the law….]

Who will take care of the welfare of the victims? Will we have a mechanism to guarantee the victims’ sustenance to be paid by the responsible ex/co-breadwinner?

Your arguments on sustenance, made me recall the incident when the illegally interned Herbert Ganado started worrying on who will take care of his family and asked the prison commander about this; “Your father and family will take care of your wife and kids, they’re well off” was the immediate reply. Ganado was never compensated for this unfair treatment. Your answer is similar “tough life!”.

[Daphne – Yes, indeed it is. So women should make like a boy scout and Be Prepared.]

Daphne you are assuming a lot:

“most of them know already how divorce works.” Not those who voted YES because of Muscat!

“They also knew that laws exist already which oblige men and women to maintain their children financially regardless of whether they live with them or not.”

Guarantee is one step higher from being obliged. Guaranteeing the welfare of the rest of the family cannot be done by sending the guarantor who faulted, to prison like we are witnessing today.

We were told that new divorce legislation was going to guarantee maintenance, and that’s why the question was long and the bill was called responsible.
If people wanted any kind of divorce the question would have been a simple one “Do you want divorce legislation to be introduced in Malta?”

Instead we had a very detailed and specific question for which the majority voted yes.The proposed law should satisfy those specifications, without burdening the taxpayer please.

[Daphne – I don’t think anyone is contemplating burdening the taxpayer. Do you? That’s not how these things work. At most, a woman whose husband is unable – as opposed to unwilling, because the law can force him to pay – maintenance will be expected to register for work, look for a job, and get ‘relief’ if she can’t find one. I don’t see what’s wrong with this. It’s what happens already. There are thousands of married women in Malta working at menial jobs because their husbands don’t earn enough to keep the family, or because they spend their money on gambling and smoking.].

I think you are on your own reading the electoral tea leaves that way, John- certainly the media commentariat have not come up with that one.

From what I can see, Muscat’s hand has been decisively strengthened. PL supporters opposed to divorce did not vote against him unlike pro-divorce PN supporters who blew a loud raspberry at Gonzi in the polling booths.

Muscat only has two dissenters on his Parliamentary benches (one of whom is retiring as a result) despite not whipping whilst the PN Parliamentary is dissolving into a kalaidoscope of different positions exacerbated by the PM’s dithering.

I am no PL supporter and see Muscat as a potential disaster for Malta. But the PM has played this so incredibly badly that he has made a master strategist and statesman of Muscat.

I think the Speaker will know the difference between the voices of 6 and 35 MPs.

Which law Joe? There’s no law because it hasn’t been drafted yet.

I read the referendum question and voted NO because I did not believe it can be done without burdening our welfare state, and you just voted YES knowing fully well that it cannot be done without reading the last part :”…… whilst at the same time ensuring that adequate maintenance is guaranteed and the welfare of the children is safeguarded?”.

Are you saying that people who voted Yes for responsible divorce with guarantees were hoodwinked?

[Daphne – No, that they just didn’t care because guess what, most of them know already how divorce works. They also knew that laws exist already which oblige men and women to maintain their children financially regardless of whether they live with them or not. Divorce law will not supersede that. Divorce rulings merely LAY OUT THE AMOUNT of maintenance a parent is obliged to pay. I found the question childish.]

When I wrote divorcee I meant a divorced and re-married person . Sorry.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘getting it wrong’. The law will definitely pass and the sooner the better, so that this country can get on with its other business.

The Nationalist government will be judged on other parameters such as handling the economy. Saying that the government is finished because of this largely irrelevant law does not say much about us.

As if we are doing something that nobody else has done.

For the PL, the referendum message is even more alarming. Electors in its key districts have discovered they can vote decisively against Muscat’s wishes and that the sun still rises the next morning.