George Debono, Sliema
A second chance to those who deserve it
Ranier Fsadni gave us a well-argued piece on the emotionally charged question of divorce but it was too theoretical and detached from reality (Divorce: Beyond The Soundbites, June 25). A fundamental flaw is that he (like so many others) fails to distinguish, in the first place, between irrevocable marital breakdown and the subsequent divorce (or legal separation). These are not at all the same. Quite simply, marital breakdown (often long-drawn and distressing to all concerned) precedes divorce. Thus, much of what he has to say about linking divorce to liberty or freedom (positive, negative), or "empowered freedom from institutional interference", freedom to pursue happiness and so on, is all very well but it does not address the central issue that the forces at work in marital breakdown completely overshadow any such considerations.
His assertion that there is "clear tested evidence" that introduction of divorce laws "contributes to higher rates of marital breakdown" is also disputable. First of all, in what way can the evidence he quotes be "tested"? The numbers may indeed be verifiable but surely not the statistical significance of the correlation (if any) between the introduction of divorce and an increase in marital breakdown. Using this "evidence" as an argument against the introduction of divorce ignores the fact that, though two phenomena may occur in a parallel fashion or be temporally related, they need not necessarily be causally linked. In order to verify a causal, rather than a coincidental, link one needs, at the very least, to have a control group. Now, one can argue equally that Malta (no divorce) does provide exactly such a control group. In Malta's case marital breakdown and legal separations increased phenomenally, possibly at the same rate as those quoted in the article, in spite of the absence of divorce in this country. This would therefore suggest that the introduction of divorce laws would not necessarily contribute to higher rates of marital breakdown in a country where legal separation is readily available.
While there are admittedly many California-style divorces, usually among the wealthy, which are taken frivolously, the emotional toll of marital breakdowns in average human beings is almost invariably devastating to at least one partner - and no amount of theoretical consideration or statistics can address this.
Thus discussion of the differential effects on "partner dissolution" of a host of self-evident factors such as welfare set-up, risk of poverty, gain or loss of liberty or freedom, whether or not partner dissolution is socially or financially calamitous and so on - though perfectly valid in themselves - is quite beside the point because it ignores the stark truth that the majority of victims of marital breakdown do not have the luxury of asking themselves the question "Given the conditions in my country, does it pay me to divorce"? Such theoretical considerations are far away from the minds of the casualties of marital breakdown who are often heard to comment that they would sooner live in a pigsty than continue in the broken-down relationship - or words to that effect. It is as simple as that. The availability or otherwise of divorce and a host of other theoretical factors rarely enters into the equation for separating couples, and allowing divorce is merely a matter of not denying a second chance to those who deserve it.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
4 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Tabone-Adami
Jul 1st 2009, 15:46
The penultimate paragraph, at least, considers human feelings - beyond the attempts to deal with the very complex social question of marital breakdowns shown in the rest of the contribution.
The last sentence of the last paragraph, however, is definitely gratuitous and a 'non sequitur' - particularly with the qualifier "to those who deserve it".
It seems that Ranier Fsadni's contribution of June 25 has incurred the present writer's displeasure simply because it did not end with a call for the introduction of divorce!
Ranier Fsadni
Jul 1st 2009, 11:39
2/2
@George Debono
On statistics: I am well aware of the difference between correlation and causality. My column has sometimes made the same point about the use of divorce statistics.
However, for Europe, the link between divorce laws and divorce/separation rates can be tested quasi-experimentally because of the different timing of divorce-law reform across several national jurisdictions. Such testing, for 18 countries over a 54-year period, has been undertaken by two researchers, Libertad Gonzalez and Tarja Viitanen. Their study, ‘The effect of divorce laws on divorce rates in Europe’ was published last year in the European Economic Review. An earlier version (practically identical for our purposes) is available online: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2023.pdf. This peer-reviewed paper gives more detail on method, and more nuance on results, than I can give here.
It would be intellectually dishonest to suppress the results and knowledge of such studies. As it happens, however, they do not decide the divorce issue. In a column last year I argued, against the Maltese bishops’ declared position, that the fact that divorce laws make the marriage institution more unstable does not mean that divorce ought not be introduced. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080814/opinion/the-bishops-on-divorce
Ranier Fsadni
Jul 1st 2009, 11:37
1/2
@George Debono
I did distinguish between marital breakdown and the legal process that formalises it. My column did not express itself against the introduction of divorce. On other occasions, I have voiced my qualified agreement with the introduction of divorce.
My argument was not theoretical at all. It was about concrete steps that legislators ought to consider, given the concrete financial and social difficulties that follow marital disruption: whether changes to the marriage law ought to be accompanied by changes in the budget and policy for social affairs. The argument is neutral with respect to whether divorce ought to be introduced.
chris vidal
Jul 1st 2009, 10:16
I think that the whole argument goes around the question, is the absence of divorce preventing marriage breakdowns? We all know the answer to this....surely not. So as such divorce is not going to introduce something new....but it is going to be a legal solution for those that wish to start a new life and another family, within a legal framework. So it is something positive. Even thinking that after an unsuccessful marriage a person thinks to go into another marriage, it is already something that shows that person's strong will to have a family.
the system how it is without divorce is a whole mess, since people that whats to go on with their lives still start new relationships etc...and this is understandable...but these are not protected by law and so lots of problems can arise. Children are also suffering without divorce, since as such legal separation has the same end results on them.
Religion has to be separated from state. Introducing divorce does not impose on Christians to use it. It is entirely a personal decision to do so. Also there are other non-Christians among the population that are currently deprived of this fundamental right.