We expect better, Dr Gonzi
“The choice facing the people, he said, was between keeping something which had existed for thousands of years, or ditching it.”
– the prime minister, quoted on timesofmalta.com, speaking this morning about the divorce legislation referendum
1. Divorce has existed for thousands of years, and predates Christian marriage.
2. Christian marriage itself has changed drastically, in nature and rite, over the last thousand years alone. There is scant evidence available of what it was like in the first thousand years. It was certainly not what we know today.
3. The Christian marriages of the rich and the powerful up to just 150 years ago were primarily strategic and dynastic and rarely involved the consent of the spouses, who were often contracted to each other at birth. By today’s standards, they would be considered null and void.
4. The fact that something has existed for thousands of years does not mean that it is good and should be retained for another thousand years.
5. The fact that something has not existed for thousands of years does not mean that it is bad and should not be taken up. The Amish, Menonites and Osama Bin Laden think (thought) like that. It’s Luddite thinking. It sounds a bit strange coming from internet fan Dr Gonzi.
6. Marriage will not cease to exist with the introduction of divorce legislation. Divorce legislation does not cancel marriage legislation. You do not ‘ditch’ marriage by legislation for divorce.
13 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Well, Dr. Gonzi, the Christians were put in an arena to be eaten by lions and this was a tradition and a sport in Roman times. It had to stop.
Put Angelik in there and the lions would get coronary heart disease.
I find it unlikely that Lawrence Gonzi fails to understand this. It’s more of a question of having invested too much emotion when it comes to certain subjects and consequently becoming oblivious to reason.
Religious fundamentalists abdicate reason if it conflicts with their faith.
One must distinguish between marriage and the family. Marriage is juridical, family is natural. Whether one is married is a matter of law (even in the absence of legal ceremonial formalities) for it is the law which determines whether one is married or not.
The family is a state of fact and is, broadly speaking, determined by nature. Families have always existed, as far as we can know, and pre-dated law.
Not exactly. Family as strictly husband and wife with children exclusive to both husband and wife and no one else, while certainly a good idea, is a human construct.
While one finds monogamous couplings in a small number of other species (like, for instance, the seahorse), even in such examples, monogamous couplings are the general rule – not without exceptions.
1. The whole concept of marriage is that it excludes divorce. When a man marries he is excluding all the other women of the world. Divorce removes that and hence it dilutes the concept of marriage up to a point where in other countries people are not bothering to marry in the first place.
[Daphne – When A MAN marries? What does he marry – a dog? A cat?]
2. Divorce brings about frivolous marriages. Frivolous divorce brings about even more frivolous marriages. This won’t happen today but surely and slowly things will change. Divorce changes mentality and that is what makes it something to be avoided.
You can see that he is translating from Maltese. ‘Meta ragel jizzeweg’ in Maltese should be ‘When a man gets married’ in English. Otherwise you have to say :’When a man marries x’
“Marry” can be used both as a transitive and an intransitive verb.
Gonzi should get off his high horse and start to comprehend that he is running a multi cultural society.
His days at Azzjoni Kattolika are over and done with. If he is a puppet on a string controlled by the Maltese Catholic Church he should resign due to a conflict of interest .
Dr. Gonzi has lost the plot. Yesterday he was fuming in his typical fashion about politics influencing the people’s choice. “X’gharukaza.”
Why? Simply because Dr. Joseph Muscat and his wife declared themselves in favour of divorce. Was it not Gonzi PN who risked political suicide by declaring itself against divorce?
From a potentially budding statesman Lawrence Gonzi has become a bitter disappointment.
As of Sunday I’m sure we will experience the beginning of the end of the PN we know.
Although, I have no idea what will happen of the minority, yet very significant, liberal faction.
I have noted that the majority of commentators choose to remain anonymous. Is it because they often compare Malta to Iran….etc?