Wednesday, 17th September 2008
Everlasting bond
Those who favour the introduction of divorce in Malta often put forward the argument that, since there are so many broken marriages around, there is hardly any point in opposing divorce. This manner of thinking holds no ground because robberies take place all the time and, yet, nobody would ever dream of legalising theft. Divorce is likewise a negative experience and this is something nobody can ever deny. The most important question to ask regarding this issue is whether divorce will contribute to the common good of Maltese society or not.
Another fallacious argument brought forward in favour of divorce is that in Malta many couples are obliged to cohabit because divorce is not legalised. In countries where divorce has been in force for decades, cohabitation is rampant and in certain countries almost equals legal matrimony.
Divorce is effectively killing the institution of marriage as there is really not much point in going through all the work involved in getting married when, if things do not work out, one has to go through the trouble of having the marriage dissolved. Many conclude that cohabitation is the best solution after all as, having no duties and responsibilities, the couple can simply wave each other goodbye when they feel that their relationship has deteriorated to a point of no return.
Another misconception where divorce is concerned is that it is a "progressive" product of our post-modern era. It is not, of course. Divorce has been around for thousands of years. The ancient Jews had it and it was widespread in the Roman Empire. It only received a setback with the advent of Christianity. Introducing it is a throwback to days gone by when women and children were less than nothing before the law and men would leave their wives to seek "pastures new" when they deemed fit and their respective wives and children would have nothing to fall back upon. Sadly today this is repeating itself in the sense that the great losers in divorce cases are almost always women and their children. The latter are in the majority of cases given in custody to their mothers and, while these end up having all the responsibilities and duties of bringing them up, the same cannot be said of men who are consequently freer to live their own lives as they wish. No wonder that in our Western society divorced women with children are more often in a much more precarious financial position than their male counterparts.
A contract that can be dissolved inevitably leads many not to commit themselves to its success as much as they would in contrast to a contract that is indissoluble. Divorce legislation always starts off by following strict limits but then gradually loosens up to lead to divorce being obtained for practically no reason at all and even after a few months of marriage.
Divorce in reality pulls the carpet away from under the feet of married couples, especially those who are passing through difficult times in their relationship. It is a weapon one carries around hopefully just for self-defence but often used, with tragic consequences, even if the situation just does not warrant it.
RSS
Comments
The local conservative Church authorities simply want to retain their monopoly on divorce, they call it annulment. As if someone who has been married for a number of years and with offspring to boot can ever pretend that the marriage never existed. It is indeed not only presumptous but also oppressive of the Church to cling to outdated privileges which have absolutely no place in a democratic society.
Archbishop Mercieca's recent speech should have raised the hackles of the politicians present. But it seems that it did not as much as ruffle their feathers and speaks volumes about their political integrity or lack thereof.
Contrary to what Ms Calleja claims, it is the absence of divorce which is effectively killing marriage. Couples are reluctunt to enter into something from which there is no realistic way out.
As for comparing divorce to robbery, we have a saying in Maltese which involves lettuce and wind.
Ever wondered why thousands of Maltese couples who were married decades ago in a Catholic church, but who haven't been inside one for decades, are still happily married in spite of living in a country where divorce is legal?
Conversely, why is it that in "no divorce" Malta, where the church has her tentacles in every layer and sublayer of society, practising Catholics separate, cohabit and/or "live in sin"?
The compulsive human/sexual forces binding or separating married couples are stronger than and transcend religion. Nowhere is this fact clearer than when priests are driven to sexually abuse innocents in spite of eternal damnation according to the unequivocal words of Jesus.
In a separate but related issue, the invention of a tiny pill added another natural option outside marriage for people to respond to these human/sexual forces.
Laws of the gods of other non-catholic, including Christian, religions make allowances for these forces by allowing divorce.
Secular law must, regardless, make its own allowances and provide divorce as an option to enable the natural continuation of life in the real world. Secularism also guarantees religious freedom. To Ms Calleja and her church this isn't sufficient!
wrong analogy. Separation is legal and accepted and the first step post breakdown. So if marriage breakdowns are a reality would we ever dream of legalising marriage breakdowns. Yes they are leagalised through formal legal seperation.
Similarly : Quote: Divorce in reality pulls the carpet away from under the feet of married couples, especially those passing through difficult times in their relationship. It is a weapon one carries around hopefully just for self-defence but often used, with tragic consequences, even if the situation just does not warrant it. unquote
Argument has no feet to stand on. Marriages who pass from a torrid time already have separation as a way out. Divorce will not alter decisions to separate and is a natural step leading to new productive marriages.
Anti-divorce is equal to anti-marriage
It's a bit like trying to stop the invention of the wheel because it might be unsafe and people will begin to rush around dangerously with carts and carriages and bycycles and God forbid, even motorcars and.... hey! Wait a minute, we've got all of those already, and sure, they do unfortunately kill off a number of people yearly. So what do we do, ban them?? Isn't it better to educate people to use them better? These campaigners may succeed in staving off divorce for a few more years, but it's a losing battle. People cannot be people their rights forever.
However, marriage is not only a religious bond but also a civil one. As Ms. Calleja said, divorce has been around for a very long time, long before Roman Catholicism which is THE Christian religion that so strongly objects to divorce. As a result (or is that the other way round?) marriage has also been around for just as long thus underlining the fact that marriage is not an exclusively Catholic bond as some would have us believe. Therefore if marriage is also a civil bond or contract, ergo it follows that this civil contract between two people should be dissolved should one or both parties involved wish to do so. The religious bond in the eyes of the faithful is one thing but the State should look at realities and not persist in the fantasy of a failed marriage that no longer exists.
the flip side to your argument is that people may actually work harder at marriage so as not to give their partner reason to leave.
Statistic taken in the U. K. it was discovered that it's not a remedy, as situations deteriorated with more complications. Published by “Institute for Families Policies”, they reported a fall in marriage rate of 33% since 1980. One expected more marriages, not less, when it gives a right to remarriage. Does this caused us more harm than good in society ?
Those married in years 1969 more than 90% are still living together. This study if taken up by all concerned, church and Authorities, could find what sort of cracks they endure and be saved from breakdowns. Neglecting services to a vehicle, this won't last you life-time, maybe 2/3 years, same to buildings as this too might suddenly break-up without a service.
With marriages, if one does not build it up-front a solid foundation, then when any sort of trouble comes along during their first quarrel they could end up with a separation. So Prevention is better than cure!
Divorce had indeed been around for ages before Christianity dragged Europe into the dark ages and women become the property of their husbands. Introducing divorce will bring Malta forward to the 18th century rather than the 14th where we are presently languishing. Did you ever wonder why, if the ancient Jews had it and still have it today, do the Jews have fewer divorces than Malta has broken marriages?
Until people like Jacqueline recognise that divorce is the recognition that a marriage has already ceased to exist, none of their arguments will hold much water.
Once again, I reiterate: with or without divorce, couples will continue to separate, and individuals will continue getting married, in church because they must, for various reasons, and will separate because they wouldn't want to live together any longer, and no State or Church should hinder them. Unfortunate, but this is reality.
I still fail to understand how 'Divorce effectively kills the institution of marriage' as Calleja states.
Unless in a marriage, there is the flame of love and that of respect still glowing, that marriage is over and irredeemable!
Whilst I do not agree with her totally - I think there are exceptions where divorce should be allowed, particularly in cases of sustained violence - I would not seek to launch into a vitrolic attack on what she has said. No doubt certain other regulars will soon fill the space above with references to the middle ages, comparisons with totally unrelated situations and so on.
As one regular correspondent, a confirmed secularist said recently, even he has no issue with somebody who puts forward a good case, even if he should disagree with what is said, and would not accuse such a person of being negative.
Athough i disagree with some of your justifications; it is not the women who loose out most....its the CHILDREN.