Abela Baldacchino calls for divorce referendum

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

May 23rd 2009, 15:37

Other countries did not hold a referendum to get the vote for women, just because the Church did not approve votes for women when these were first introduced in beginning of the twenthieth century.

Human Rights and Civil Liberties should not be subjected to the whims of a Referendum.

They are inalienable.

Charles Grixti

May 23rd 2009, 04:43

A democracy can best be judged by how well it protects the rights of minorities. Therefore, a referendum is not the right medium, since by its very nature a referendum will have winners and losers.

When it comes to the right to divorce, the majority should not impose its will on the minority. If even only one citizen of Malta wants to divorce, then Parliament has the duty to protect this citizen’s rights by introducing Divorce legislation.

Charles Grixti

May 23rd 2009, 00:09

@ Sarah Jane Gatt

And this is precisely the trump card that the Church always plays.

You were obliged to marry in the Catholic Church for the sake of your daughter getting her Holy Communion.

Firstly, why bother getting your daughter Holy Communion in the RC church? Join another Christian religion. My point being, if you do not agree with Church doctrine, what are you doing there?

Secondly, why did your daughter have to suffer for your decision? Does not your priest know what the scriptures say about ‘the sins of the father"? If not getting married in the Catholic Church is your sin according to your priest, why did he pass this on to your daughter?

Until we learn to assert ourselves and not succumb to the pressure from society for a Church wedding with all the trimmings, then I am afraid the Church will be winning this game.

Kenneth Cassar

May 20th 2009, 10:32

@ V Battistino:

By the way, I would have spared you the long (3-part) quote had I told you that I do not spend a single day without reading, and my books are usually books on different world religions (including comparative religion, atheism and agnosticism), moral philosophy, history, current affairs and science.

So the lesson from all this is: Never assume anything (particularly immorality) of someone just because he holds a different view from yours on a particular mora/legal issue.

Good bye and thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain my point of view.

Kenneth Cassar

May 20th 2009, 10:08

@ V Battistino:

No problem, my friend. From your last long quotation, I take it that you understand that a moral code does not necessarily have to be religious, and that several religious denominations and secularist individuals share many of the same moral codes. The Golden Rule is one, from which probably all others stem.

My only problem was that you seemed to imply that because I support divorce legislation as a regrettable necessary "evil", I "have to get (my) morals right before indulging in such a delicate issue".

I hope you understand that most people who take the time (which could be spent in self-indulgent recreation) to promote divorce as a sometimes necessary "evil", do not do so out of self-interest. I am a living example of such a person (I am happily married and would not dream of ever leaving the wife I adore, but people change and when they do drastically, sometimes it is better to start afresh than live a lie).

I consider myself to be a very moral (albeit non-religious) person...in fact, I even include non-human animals for moral consideration - I would quite literally not even kill a fly).

Have a nice day.

V.Battistino

May 20th 2009, 08:59

@ Kenneth Cassar

and finally.........."..Examples of moral codes include the Golden Rule; the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism; the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at ;the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures; the ten Indian commandments; and the principle of the Dessek.

Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (e.g. Taoism, Moralism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive — part of human politics."

I think we've said enough......maybe its time for others to indulge in this..........thanks for your contribution !

V.Battistino

May 20th 2009, 08:55

@ Kenneth Cassar........continued from first comment.........

.........Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality." Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.

Moral codes are often complex definitions of right and wrong that are based upon well-defined value systems. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. ................

...to be continued....

V.Battistino

May 20th 2009, 08:51

@Kenneth Cassar

I find it amusing to say the least that we are discussing this issue alone it seems....the person who prompted all this seems to have taken the sideline........but lets end it here, and i take another quote from a common (easy to read) site about morals......

"...Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.

...to be continued.....

Kenneth Cassar

May 19th 2009, 10:52

@ V Battistino:

Regarding the website you quote, the result of divorce is no different than the result of marriage separation. The only reason the website probably does not mention the effects of separation is that it takes for-granted the divorce option. Since no one is suggesting making separation illegal, the bad effects of separation/divorce are a regrettable but sometimes an unavoidable fact of life.

Regarding Catholic marriage being dissolved, what I meant (and what is relevant in this case) is that elsewhere in Europe, people who marry in the Catholic rite can still divorce and re-marry in the civil rite, but not in Malta.

Regarding civil laws not being necessarily based on religious morality, one proof is that sex outside of marriage is not illegal. The constitution says nothing about this.

Regarding morals you got from your parents, where did they get their morals from? And if they did not get them from the Bible, this proves that morality does not necessarily depend on Christian faith, which was my point, and which makes your slanderous implication that I "have to get (my) morals right before indulging in such a delicate issue", at best nonsense, and at worst, condescending prejudice.

V Battistino

May 18th 2009, 22:05

@ Kenneth Cassar

...just have a good look at this site....

http://www.childadvocate.net/divorce_effects_on_children.htm

...i paste only the conclusions .....

· Divorce and its ensuing ramifications can have a significant and life-altering impact on the well being and subsequent development of children and adolescents.
· The consequences of divorce impact almost all aspects of a child’s life, including the parent-child relationship, emotions and behavior, psychological development, and coping skills.

· There is a significant need for child mental health professionals, along with other child specialists, to be cognizant of the broad spectrum of possible fall-out from a divorce and then to provide sufficient support for children of divorced parents in all the necessary psychosocial aspects of the child’s life.

remember also that irrespective of what you say, a Catholic marriage can only be dissolved through an annulment and never through divorce........just in case, get your history going also and read the Henry VIII story and Thomas Moore etc etc........

on your "....civil laws are not necessarily based on religious morality........" go through a bit in the first articles of our Constitution....

and finally, I got my morals right from my parents, not from books and am proud of it !!

Kenneth Cassar

May 18th 2009, 08:01

@ V Battistino:

Cont...

That said, all things considered, children fare better with separated/divorced parents than living in a "battlefield" home.

And once again, please stop patronising me with your supposed higher morals. I've got my morals perfectly right, thank you. The only difference is that I don't get my morals from Deuteronomy or Leviticus (which is why I don't kill sinners as these two texts "command" me to).

Regarding "uncontested" divorces and the Catholic church, again you got your facts completely wrong. In every country in the world (except Malta, the Vatican and the Philippines), a marriage tied by the Catholic Church can and is freed by divorce. In any case, in Malta divorce is not even an option for civil marriages (which was my main point). This makes your comment that "if anyone wants better, don't get married by the catholic rites" irrelevant, since people who don't get married by Catholic rites still cannot obtain divorce in Malta.

And of course, people should try to work out their differences before resorting to divorce, but when all else fails, divorce should be an option in a democracy.

Kenneth Cassar

May 18th 2009, 07:54

@ V Battistino:

A civil separation is exactly as easy to get as a Church separation (both cannot be denied to those who request it. However, I was not speaking of separation. I was speaking of annulments. There is a huge difference. It is you who needs to get your facts right.

I also do not believe that separation and co-habitation should be the "norm to follow". It is not very "Christian" of you to accuse me of things I never said. That said, civil laws are not necessarily based on religious morality...otherwise co-habitation would be illegal.

Incidentally, I am very happily married (civil wedding) and have no intention of ever leaving my wife. However, if any of us finds him/herself living hell because of a drastic change in the partner (for instance), separation (and if possible, divorce) would be the reasonable way forward. Of course, people with an unthinking dogmatic mindset would not understand.

I also never said that offspring are to be thrown away when not needed, or that they are a mistake in a failed marriage. Please spare your "Christian" charity and stop implying things about me that I would never dream of even thinking.

Cont...

V Battistino

May 16th 2009, 19:05

@ Kenneth Cassar.......taken freely from Wikipeadia, this is what it has to say on the Uncontested divorce (which is the easiest from)........

" It is estimated that upwards of 95% of divorces in the US are "uncontested," because the two parties are able to come to an agreement (either with or without lawyers/mediators/collaborative counsel) about the property, children and support issues. When the parties can agree and present the court with a fair and equitable agreement, approval of the divorce is almost guaranteed. If the two parties cannot come to an agreement, they may ask the court to decide how to split property and deal with the custody of their children.".......children become part of booty or wordse still, are left to join the other partner to make it easier to restart a new relationship........

a marriage tied by the catholic church cannot be freed by divorce......its the catholic rules...if anyone wants better, don't get married by the catholic rites......

having said all this, problems in married life arise and if true values (any religion) exist, it is always the best solution to seek the appropriate assistance......

V Battistino

May 16th 2009, 18:24

@ Kenneth Cassar

it is definately easier to get a civil separation than a Catholic marriage (its not a Christian marriage here since there is a big difference....get your facts right first...)

are you saying that separation and co-habitation are the norm to follow....or is it a question of convenience...living with someone until you've had enough and then be free to leave ? ...is this your idea of sharing a life with someone ?...they are not illegal and should not be but these forms are definately avoidable if possible.....

you have to include offsprings in such an issue since they are the direct product of a tie between loving partners...and yes, they have to be part of the equation since they are not a car ....throw away when not needed ! or are you saying that offsprings could also be a mistake in a failed marriage.....?

my friend....i'm afraid you have to get your morals right before indulging in such a delicate issue.....going into a human partnership for life .......IS for life....its the same with any serious commitment after all......certain football players stay on with a team until the end of their sporting career...and they are hailed as heroes!

Kenneth Cassar

May 16th 2009, 10:49

@ V Battistino:

Simply repeating an error does not make it true. Civil marriage can only be brought to an end by a civil annulment - the same applies to a Christian marriage. Both are not easy to obtain. If annulment was easy, there would be no issue on divorce - annulment would be divorce by another name.

As for the "evil" of divorce - do you propose making separation and co-habitation outside marriage illegal too? If not, what is the difference between that and divorce. Please don't use children as pawns in a Chess game.

V Battistino

May 15th 2009, 10:41

@ Kenneth Cassar

....civil marriage can be brought to an end the civil way, and we know that....

optaining divorce abroad and remarrying in Malta is not the right way either.....obtaining it the wrong way is not right anyway, but just because persons get this this wrong way will never justify making it legal here...justifying something wrong will never make it right......society is the final bearer of such wrong doings.....and i am referring here to offsprings forced to 'accept' new brothers and sisters from other parents, social security assistance, housing problems..etc etc .....and we have massive social security abuses without divorce....i just wouldn't like to think what the sistuation might be....

....and you think that the should divorce is allowed in malta, the costs will be reasonable....just have a look at all the LLD bloggers in favour of divorce..........ready to pounce on a new market......

Kenneth Cassar

May 15th 2009, 07:48

@ V Battistino:

Why do people like you keep repeating errors that have already been corrected. If someone wants to have the option of ending a marriage, not taking "the option of Catholic marriage" makes no difference. The only option is to save enough money to obtain divorce in another European country. The divorce option in Malta is only for the rich or fairly well-off.

You are also wrong in saying that divorce from Civil marriage is not accepted by the State in Malta. It is, as long as it is obtained elsewhere. People (even Maltese people) who obtain a divorce elsewhere, have the right and option of re-marrying in Malta. This nullifies the claim that there is no divorce law in Malta because of the consequences on society.

V Battistino

May 14th 2009, 18:20

Divorce from Catholic Marriage is not accepted by Catholic Church rules : who wants the facility to nullify his/her Catholic Marriage does so through the Catholic Church mechanism.

Divorce from Civil Marriage is still not accepted by the State in Malta for its own reasons, namely the consequences on society.....and it is a never ending argument....

the point is, if you want to be able to finish off your marriage, don't take the option of a Catholic marriage - otherwise, stick to the rules ! Nobody forces anyone to get married by Chatholic rite, however, if you want your yourself and your offspring to follow the catholic pattern in life (holy communion, confirmation etc) then accept the fact that you also have to follow the catholic rules......basically....don't use the catholic marriage as a convenience to make a nice wedding............and a catholic funeral later in life , all for the sake of living in maltese society with all its neighbourly pressures !

The problem with current situations is that these facts might not have been made clear or clearly understood before committing to a catholic marriage....and i pity these persons who include members of my family .........

Kenneth Cassar

May 14th 2009, 07:28

@ Oscar Cassar:

Here's an idea. She (together with any other MEPs of good will) could pressure the EU to demand that the government treats all Maltese citizens as equal to other European citizens.

Oscar Cassar

May 13th 2009, 20:39

@ Emmanuel Mangion
If Vince Farrugia and Edward Scicluna said so, they are totally right. As I have already stated I consider such an issue as a local political issue and therefore it needs to be discussed and approved within the local political spectrum and not at the European parliament. What will Ms Baldacchino do on the issue if elected as an MEP? Therefore such a move most probably was done only attract votes from those ‘unfortunately’ involved in certain misfortunes.

Charmaine Calleja

May 13th 2009, 20:18

Maybe Abela Baldacchino is convinced that the majority is in fact in favour of divorce being introduced in Malta. I am.

Emmanuel Mangion

May 13th 2009, 19:19

one thing is positive for sure.

at least this candidate has a very clear position. on net tv vince farrugia and edward scicluna declined to comment with the excuse that this is not an eu competence.

we need to know what our candidates stand for. well done.

Kenneth Cassar

May 13th 2009, 18:28

@ aquilinaN:

Very good points, except that one need not be in it to discuss divorce. All one needs is to have empathy and for people who do need divorce.

The problem is that, as happens in all totalitarian systems (and the Church is totalitarian), many times the individual is sacrificed in the service of dogma.

aquilinaN

May 13th 2009, 15:02

@All
I think that in order to discuss divorce you have to be in it. Why shouldn't a person have a second chance in life if the first marriage has failed. Why shouldn't a person try and find happiness with another partner, why should a person stay with his/her partner even if that partner is an abuser? All in the name of the church & religion? With regards to Religion why are priests allowed to desert their sacrament and get married and when it comes to a church marriage you have to go to hell and back to get an annulment? Isn't this hypocrisy! If Maltese people can just go to any other EU country to get a divorce then isn't this discrimination, what if that person is poor and he/she cannot afford to go abroad for a divorce? Think about it!

Oscar Cassar

May 13th 2009, 11:35

@ Dr. Keith Grech

I already imagine priests, members from the Museum society etc campaigning against a divorce bill during a possible ‘non-partisan’ referendum on the issue. But how can these really understand the difficulties of married persons going through certain trouble, psychological violence etc.

To some extent, this suggestion by Ms Baldacchino, only take us back to the 1960’s politic-religious scenario and therefore not at all progressive as the Labour EP candidate seem to make intend. It is the duty of the Government to govern the people and therefore divorce must be included in political manifestos and simply introduce.

C Calleja

May 13th 2009, 11:24

Its about time that a decision is taken. As Abela Baldacchino wrote we have been discussing for too long now

Oscar Cassar

May 13th 2009, 11:11

@ Ms Jane Mifsud

When stating that “marriage in Church is a sacrament” just take note that the Church made marriage a sacrament in one of it’s councils, to have a universal recognition of a unity, when civil courts where not so politically reliable due to frequent wars etc. Therefore for example, nowadays the Church can freely accept civil annulments (politically and religiously speaking), but it does no do so as it has an interest of traditional imposition within the process.

Dr. Keith Grech

May 13th 2009, 10:37

Well done Claudette. Thanks to your couragous stand this issue which has, as you rightly state, been on the backburner for so long, is back on the political agenda. I support your stand in favour of giving a voice to the people on such an important issue.

To all those claiming that this issue should not be the subject of a referendum arguing that divorce is a basic right which should be legislated for without delay, I would say that on paper they may be right. However, as the Italians say l'ottimo e l'nemico del bene. As things stand there is very little doubt that no divorce legislation is on the horizon. Moreover, I have serious doubts whether the present legislature would actually vote in favour of a divorce bill. There have already been a number of MPs publicly stating that they would be voting on the basis of their conscience.

So let us not miss the wood for the trees here. The status quo is clearly no longer acceptable. A decision needs to be taken, and Claudette's proposal may be the only realistic way forward in this respect.

Sarah-Jane Gatt

May 13th 2009, 10:10

Being separated, I would loved not to have married in the church, but at the time was told by the then Bishop of Senglea if I didn't my daughter would not have been able to do her Holy Communion, so feeling obligated I married in church, after the event I found that I needn’t have!!!!!

Kenneth Cassar

May 13th 2009, 10:03

@ Carmel Attard:

Jane Mifsud's is almost perfect only to the uninformed. The fuss is because people who get a civil marriage still cannot divorce in Malta.

Kenneth Cassar

May 13th 2009, 10:01

@ Jane Mifsud:

The people who married more than once through a civil marriage either obtained an annulment, or else obtained divorce abroad. Avoiding getting married in Church, contrary to what you believe, does not give you a divorce option - unless you can afford spending years abroad and obtaining a divorce there.

Mary Anne Zammit

May 13th 2009, 09:53

Well done Claudette. I admire women in politics who are direct and outspoken, and not hesitating because of losing votes like in the case of certain parties who claim to be liberal and the most progressive in the European Parliament.
Divorce should be a right and not manipulated by religion. There are those couples who will never need to resort to it but there are other s who are living in hell. Do they too have a right to start a new life with another partner?

Carmel Attard

May 13th 2009, 09:38

I have read all the preceeding blogs but I consider the one written by Jane Mifsud as almost perfect. Civil marriage has been introduced in Malta more than 30 years ago. What's the fuss now?

jane mifsud

May 13th 2009, 09:32

Mr Cassar, I know people who got married more than once through a civil marriage... Can you explain that to me? because i seem to be missing a point here (and i'm not being sarcastic at all).

Kenneth Cassar

May 13th 2009, 09:24

@ Jane Mifsud:

"those who would like to have a 'divorce' option should avoid getting married in Church"

Ah, but here's the problem...people who choose a civil marriage still cannot get a divorce in Malta. The rest of us would not complain if the Catholics simply minded their own business.

Kenneth Cassar

May 13th 2009, 09:20

@ Edric Micallef Figallo:

A civil marriage is just a contract. In any contract, the contracting partners have (or should have) the right to cancel out the contract if they mutually agree. If Catholics see their own kind of marriage as something more than a contract, they have every right to do that. However, it would do the rest of us a big favour if they mind their own business.

j camilleri

May 13th 2009, 09:09

Many people in Malta are seeking pastures new, away from the teaching of Christ. Will we be better?

jane mifsud

May 13th 2009, 08:52

don't know why all this fuss... those who would like to have a 'divorce' option should avoid getting married in Church. Period. Marriage in Church is a sacrament where the Lord is witnessing a bond between two people, and there are rules that have to be respected. On the other hand, the Church should make annulment an 'easier' process to go through, if the case is genuine.

d. borg

May 13th 2009, 08:45

Divorce should be introduced without any referendum. People whose marriage has failed have the right to start a new life with a new partner. Their choice must be respected. Church and state are two different entities. When we vote, we vote for a political party not for a party+Church.

laurence schembri

May 13th 2009, 08:23

In answer to Joe Grima (Brussels) on the original Tof M letter.
If like as you say Annulment differ to Divorce, why is it that if annulled by Court you cannot marry in the Catholic Church and if granted by the Curia you can. Doesn`t make sense.
Annulment is Divorce.

Nigel Lawrence

May 13th 2009, 05:04

The Maltese will not get divorce rights, while they are being controlled by a fundamentalist government

Oscar Cassar

May 12th 2009, 23:52

While I fully agree with Mr Joseph Camilleri, I must say to others like Mr John M. Grima that if the lawyers will achieve or not, with a divorce legislation, it will not make so much difference for them. This because certain lawyers together with the Church are presently gaining from a ‘status and influential position’ in connection with cases of marriage annulments. Then once a divorce legislation is approved, while lawyers will retain certain importance, socially the church will have a diminished role.

Mark Zerafa

May 12th 2009, 23:36

@John Grima

Not a bad suggestion, by any means. But when all fails? Why should I, poor infidel, be bound by a law that has been inspired by a religion to which I do not adhere? So much for democracy in Malta.

Franco Farrugia

May 12th 2009, 23:11

With all due respect to Ms Abela Baldacchino, who certainly is honest and means well: I believe this to be an election gimmick. It is counter-productive to have a referendum about a subject which should be a right and available in the country.
If, for some reason, and there is a good probability that the referendum will be a NO for Divorce, then, there will be no discussions about the subject for donkey's years! You cannot have a referendum about matters which should be a right. Where it concerns even minorities' rights, it is not a question of what the majority wants.
Whoever dreamt of this proposal is not very well-versed in the art of politics - albeit the good intentions!

John M. Grima

May 12th 2009, 23:03

Mr. Alex Spiteri, What has the church got to do with this issue?
Both you and Ms. Abela Baldacchino speak as if Malta is missing out on some really beneficial gift.
Believe me, the only gift here is to the Lawyers who will be the real winners.
What would be more beneficcial is, if not already available, mediation service, free of charge for any family. During separation, especially where there are issues of custody and and access, parents can be helped. If there are accusations of poor parenting, a court can order an assessment to recommend what parenting arrangements is in the best interest of the children.

Margaret Richards

May 12th 2009, 21:36

Well done Claudette. Finally someone who speaks out without bothering to garner votes or otherwise. As Mr. Alex Spiteri wisely said, this should not even be a referendum issue as to be happy again in a marriage is one of the Fundamental Freedoms. But if referendum will be - then I'll definitely i'm for it. I'll vote yes. And i really admire you for having the guts to bring up this topic. Separation of powers should be the order of the day.

I Grech

May 12th 2009, 21:33

I totally concur with Alex Spiteri.

Mark Zerafa

May 12th 2009, 21:17

I certainly agree with Alex Spiteri. Divorce is a personal matter. Why on earth should the ultra-religious, holier than though component of our society be given the chance to impose its views on the rest of us? Divorce should be available to those who need it and to those who choose to do their own thinking. This should not cause a problem to the religionists who would be free to stay put in a non functional relationship.

Kevin Zammit

May 12th 2009, 21:11

During an election issues become politicised and something as hot as this would not be handled by the political parties as they will tend to play it safe.

A referendum would be an opportunity to create an objective forum ideally mid term so as to make sure that the outcome does not affect any of the two main parties.

Oscar Cassar

May 12th 2009, 21:06

With all respect, I consider such a proposal by a prospective MEP as being only sensational, maybe only to attract votes of those ‘unfortunately’ involved in certain misfortunes. While I agree with divorce legislation, I consider such an issue as a local political issue and therefore it needs to be discussed and approved within the local political spectrum and not at the European parliament. What will Ms Baldacchino do on the issue if elected as an MEP? Perhaps she will only write articles in local newspapers proposing a non-partisan referendum? Unfortunately it may seem that our country lacks proper European politicians and some of those who are pretending to be MEP are mixing up local issues with others of a European political level.

Joseph Camilleri

May 12th 2009, 20:42

Dear Ms Abela Baldacchino

This is clearly a pre-election publicity stunt which only serves to harm the pro-divorce argument. Why should divorce be subject to a referendum? A referendum should only be used when the impact of what is being suggested has an effect on the country as a whole. For example, a referendum was necessary prior to EU membership because the result of membership would leave it's impact on the lives of every citizen whether in favour or against .

On the other hand if divorce is introduced in Malta it will only affect those people who opt to make use of the right to divorce. It would not affect those people who do not have marital problems.

If divorce had to be decided by the people in a referendum, then you would be allowing those people who have no use for it to decide for those people who do.

Divorce should be introduced in Malta not because the majority of people agree but because the government agrees that it is a civil right which a person residing in Malta is entitled to.

Please do not resort to publicity stunts which only serve to damage the cause.

D. Buhagiar

May 12th 2009, 20:39

while agreeing with the need of introducing divorce in Malta I do not agree that the rule of the majority should determine such a delicate issue...fundamental human rights are to be respected with no need of a referendum

Veronique Mizzi

May 12th 2009, 20:18

A referendum is not what we need. The absence of divorce legislation in Malta has now reached the stage where it is plain ridiculous and hypocritical. Maltese morality has normalised a situation in which thousands of people live together without being married, and also have children without getting married. The state doesn’t allow them to marry because it hasn’t allowed them to divorce their spouse, even if that spouse has children with somebody else. Those who are against divorce need not worry since nobody will be forcing them to divorce. But it should be there for those who want it.

philip pace

May 12th 2009, 20:17

Mr.Spiteri, I agree with you as the gospel trashers, the self imposed moralists, the 'refined' self made intellectuals' and other stubborn defenders of separations would come out blazing against divorce.
Yes it should be in the political party manifesto. I would say that it would be on the Labour one but never in the Nationalist side of things as through the years one has to see who made more significant social changes that has been time tested and never removed.
But at the same time I agree with what Ms.Abela Baldacchino stated.
In a referendum a vote carries more weight than a general election vote. Why, check on how many people were totally hoodwinked with the EU referendum and if by a miracle the first one didn't pass through, Mount Olympus (EU in Brussels) would have quickly forced the Govt of the day to hold another one in the next three months WITH THE CHURCH BEHIND IT.
There was this kind of plan in Poland if I recall correctly.
With a general Election here in Malta, it won't have much clout as it would mix itself with other manifesto points. It would be a high gamble to take!

Edric Micallef Figallo

May 12th 2009, 19:33

“I believe there should be no doubt that the traditional family unit on which Maltese society is largely built should be the recipient of the utmost respect and support...I also believe that we have a moral obligation to respect and support those who live in non-traditional family units. This is a question fundamentally based on the notion of the respect of the individual person and one's fundamental human rights.”

If divorce is included in the second part, the paroli of the first part contrast with the political programme of the second. I prefer to consider someone's political programme rather than her paroli.

Divorce, definitely not a question of "respect of the individual person" and not a part of those rights falling under the classification of "fundamental human rights". Typical leftist psychological tactics, making a situation sound tragic and abominant to beguile those that wouldn't want to be "bad" to anyone. I prefer a society where people keep their word. Divorce legitimises the contrary. If that isn't done with marriage I doubt it can be done in anything else given the vaunted cultural importance of the family.

Plus, this is not a question for the European Parliament elections.

Alex Spiteri

May 12th 2009, 18:34

why do we need a referendum on this and that? the party in government should include divorce as any another point in its manifest and once in power just go for it!
By holding a referendum you will give the Church the opportunity to manipulate people's choice through their vast channels!
Beside the Vatican, we’re the only state in the world still without a basic civil right exercise like divorce and local politicians don't have the guts to simply work for its introduction. they go around in their usual hypocritical tongue in pressuring for ‘discussion’ or ‘referendum’ on divorce.
Just get it done!