Ramblings of an insomniac

I was up again at 2.30 a.m. the other night. It's becoming a regular occurrence: waking-up at-two-in-the-morning wide eyed and alert, then falling back to sleep at 5, willing sleep to descend on me the whole time. There are fewer nicer feelings than 'falling asleep'. I am referring to that time right before you sleep where you literally feel like you are falling.

It's a gradual fall, the way leaves fall off trees in the autumn. They don't instantly hit the ground - they float around a while first. It's the same with sleep.

And instead of counting sheep, which I never found the slightest bit hypnotic, I thought about how the 'falling' is actually so much better than the sleeping. And I wondered whether it was purely coincidental that in the English language, both 'sleep' and 'love' admit of falling. You fall asleep, you fall in love and maybe there's more to it than just a verb because in both instances it's the falling that is so much sweeter.

I won't be getting any prizes for my insights. Everyone knows that the most wonderful part of a relationship is the period just before it becomes one. In 1822, the French writer Stendhal had already come up with his theory on the 'birth of love' and called it 'crystallisation' .

Stendhal claimed that love was largely self-generated - the beloved, not so much a person one meets, but rather one he creates. The process of falling in love made people see the object of their affection in the way they wanted to see them, and not as they really were.

Since 1822, Stendhal's theory has assumed different, less glamorous names. Some people refer to it as the honeymoon period, others talk about 'the beginning', infatuation, the chase.

So I got round to thinking about relationships, especially marriages, which I suppose represent the apex of relationships, and it struck me that a lot of the time, people fall in love with people they don't really know - the initial convulsion is to a large extent founded on ignorance. Possibly a jaded and cynical way of looking at it, but not entirely unfounded, let's face it.

Because once the chase becomes the catch, people usually revert to type. Complacency sets in, pretence is replaced by reality and everyone breathes a sigh of relief and goes back to being themselves.

But often, when that happens, the marriage has already taken place, or if not, there's a wedding date and no turning back anyway. Few people are bold enough to U-turn and call off a wedding.

It's so easy to get sucked into the whole wedding web. You're in love, the honeymoon period lasts a year or more. The future looks bright and hopeful, wedding plans take over, which are so stressful anyway that even if you detect cracks in the relationship you convince yourself that it must be pre-wedding nerves.

You've stuck your big toe in that ocean of commitment and although your foot (or feet) may be getting cold you put it down to all the hype.

You then fill your lives up with children, hoping they'll iron out the creases, and one fine day you wake up to the realisation that you are not living happily ever after and your marriage is over.

I have been to so many weddings which seemed to last longer than the marriage that it is indeed very sad. I read almost everything written on divorce, and unlike many who claim that the introduction of divorce will increase break-ups, I think divorce has little to do with marital breakdown. It's people, not divorce, that kill marriages.

To my mind, marriage is much bigger than divorce. If marriage isn't big enough to keep two people together, then that alone is glaringly significant. If a couple actually find themselves able to break their vows and leave something as permanent and sacred as a marriage with all the repercussions this will have, not only on themselves but on their families and especially on their children, that is enough to convince me that with or without divorce, these people would not have made it.

Serious people with serious intentions don't leave marriages just because - for no good reason. They soldier on. And if they still can't make it, they eventually do leave, but that doesn't make them less serious. It just makes them unfortunate.

I believe that more people stay in marriages than don't stay - even marriages which may be missing the passion and sexual alertness - marriages that may well have fallen asleep. And I also know that these same people would definitely not stay if there wasn't a marriage or children to speak of. And that corroborates my theory that marriage is more cohesive than divorce is divisive.

There are always going to be marriages that fail and people who leave them. Many instances will warrant the parting. Others less so and, yes, some may most definitely appear whimsical and capricious - people who married recklessly who should never have married to begin with, who may have got sucked into that web.

It would seem that the only legitimate reason for government to hold out on divorce is the fear that it will encourage people to leave marriages flippantly. This would spell marriage mayhem, with ceremonies taking place for all the wrong reasons, with little aforethought - the parties safe in the knowledge that they will have a way out.

But that is so unfair to everyone else who ought not to be punished for the sins of the few. I believe the majority would fight tooth and nail for their marriages before resorting to divorce.

I disagree with the claim that separation is kinder on children than is divorce. That's baloney. A child can't comprehend the difference. Because the difference is purely religious - a biblical terminological quibbling.

And if there is any hope of reconciliation for separated couples, there is the exact same hope for divorced couples. There is no law which prevents previously married divorced couples from marrying again. Divorce should not be perceived as a bête noire. It should not be looked upon as part of the problem - possibly though, as part of the solution.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com