Divorce legislation and marital breakdown

I owe an apology to Ranier Fsadni for misconstruing the attitude of his article (Divorce: Beyond The Soundbites, June 25; Effect Of Divorce Law On Marriages, July 8) as being anti-divorce.

With such a controversial topic as divorce, it is inevitable that people might occasionally end up talking at cross-purposes when debating the subject. In this case we were at odds over the distinction between irreparable marital breakdown per se (or Mr Fsadni's "partnership dissolution" and "marital disruption") and the ultimate ensuing "divorce" or "(legal) separation". The issue was whether introduction of divorce laws contributes to higher rates of marital breakdown. Assuming that the statistics quoted in the article do indeed withstand scrutiny, the question that still remains is this: Does this "tested evidence" on divorce rates apply equally to rates of marital breakdown?

There are, of course, other influences unrelated to marital breakdown, which might affect divorce rates and confound the statistics. An interesting example was the effect of the recent financial crisis on divorce rates. Lawyers in the UK observed a decrease in divorce applications which they blamed on the decrease in available cash. By the same token, surely, it can be said that the availability (or, in this case, affordability) of divorce may simply encourage more of those whose marriage has irretrievably broken down - or are already separated, legally or otherwise - to avail themselves of divorce, which they might otherwise not have been able to do.

The bottom line remains this: irrespective of availability or otherwise of divorce, we cannot be saints, but ourselves. Most people marry with the best and purest of intentions and think that the statistical odds of marital breakdown apply only to others - sadly this is not always the case, irrespective of the availability or otherwise of divorce. It was with this in mind that I had also commented that Mr Fsadni's approach was too detached from the realities of marital breakdown; he rightly pointed out that he had addressed a completely different issue, namely, what legislators ought to consider - apologies are due here again. On this point there is no dispute; legal deficiencies badly need to be addressed in this context, in the interests of both parties.

Mr Fsadni and I are, after all, travelling along roughly parallel paths and only seemingly in disagreement because we regarded the problem from different viewpoints. I fully agree with him that cant and superficiality have no place in the debate.