The first real debate on divorce took place in the House of Representatives yesterday, with arguments for and against being made in the Social Affairs Committee between committee chairman Edwin Vassallo and Martin Scicluna, who started a presentation calling for divorce legislation on the basis of a report prepared by the Today Public Policy Institute.

In his introduction, Mr Scicluna said he was encouraged that the committee was taking interest in this subject. It was up to the legislators to decide on divorce in the best interests of society. MPs had a duty and responsibility to ease the suffering caused by marital breakdown and give citizens the freedoms given to others.

This, he said, was not an argument about divorce but about the right to re-marry after legal separation. The state, he pointed out, currently banned divorce but allowed legal separation. Remarriage was currently only allowed if divorce was obtained abroad. Thus, half of the issue had already been decided.

Mr Scicluna said that in 1995 there had been 5,095 people whose marriage had been annulled or who were divorced or legally separated. By 2005 that figure had reached 13,354 and the estimated figure for 2015 was 35,000 individuals - that projection having been made by the Institute of Research of the Times (Discern) which reports to the Archbishop.

All these marriages had collapsed even though there was no divorce in Malta, Mr Scicluna said.

Interjecting, committee chairman Edwin Vassallo (PN) said that if the Discern projections were to be given weight, then its other arguments on the value of marriage should be similarly treated. He was not so sure about how the figures had been compiled, and there could be double counting.

Michael Farrugia (PL) said that one could agree with statistics but not opinion.

Continuing, Mr Scicluna said broken marriages were personal, human tragedies which should matter to the state and deserved to be tackled with new legal remedies. The state allowed annulment or legal separation, and the only missing element was the right to remarry. It was right that the state supported marriage, and more measures should be taken to support marriage, as the think-tank report had suggested.

But, he said, the state also had to cater for the reality that marriages would still continue to break down, and legislation should recognise this by encouraging the institution of marriage as the form of relationship that could follow a collapsed marriage, rather than cohabitation as the relationship of last resort. Cohabitation did not equate with the stability and status of marriage.

Mr Scicluna insisted that it was important that people had the right to a distinction between the right to follow the rules of religion and the right not to have the rules of religion imposed on those who opted otherwise. A secular democracy should respect the passions of religious faiths but should not have its laws dictated by them. Legislating for divorce would not force anyone to revoke his religious convictions.

Mr Scicluna argued that divorce was not the cause of marriage breakdown but a way to reduce the impact of a collapsed marriage on individuals and society. Divorce was a remedy to a marriage breakdown, not its cause.

Interjecting, Mr Vassallo said that in European countries which had introduced divorce, the value of marriage had been diluted, to the extent that many couples were preferring to cohabit rather than marry in the first place.

Mr Scicluna said there was no causal link between divorce rates and cohabitation rates. While the laws on cohabitation did need to be tightened up, one should not stop there and one should look for the stability which came from remarriage.

Anthony Zammit (PL) said there were stable and unstable marriages. In the case of the latter, could one deny such people the opportunity to a stable marriage? He agreed that marriage was far more stable than cohabitation.

Mr Vassallo said that where there was divorce, such as in the US, the rate of failure in a remarriage was greater than in the first marriage. Statistics abroad did not lend weight to the divorce argument.

Mr Scicluna said one had to see the culture of the country. Malta, he felt, was closest to the Irish culture. Maltese society favoured steady marriage, and divorce gave the opportunity for a remarriage for those who so chose.

No one entered into a marriage with the intent of divorce, Mr Scicluna said, and he therefore disagreed that divorce led to a lack of commitment to the marriage contract.

Mr Vassallo said statistics abroad showed that divorce transformed marriage into a temporary contract. Did Mr Scicluna have statistics to back his arguments?

Mr Scicluna said he was arguing on grounds of rationality, not statistics. People did not marry because they intended to divorce.

Mr Vassallo said that the idea that one could divorce led people not to resist marriage breakdown.

Mr Scicluna said that was a cynical argument.

Mr Vassallo said that was what crude statistics showed. People had no intention to divorce, but they did.

Mr Scicluna said one had to see what nature of divorce legislation existed.

Continuing his presentation, he said marriage collapses were already taking place in considerable numbers in Malta. The absence of divorce had not spared people the pain of marriage breakdowns, but marginalised legally-separated couples. Changing the law would therefore not destabilise society, but enhance it.

Intervening again, Mr Vassallo said that in other countries which had divorce, people did not tend to remarry or even to marry, but to cohabit. The Maltese too were increasingly cohabiting. There was therefore a divorce mentality in practice. So what would be the consequences on society of formally introducing divorce? Would the situation make matters worse? Would a door that was ajar be opened wide?

Mr Scicluna said divorce would not make the situation worse, but give an opportunity for remarriage.

Mr Vassallo said figures abroad showed otherwise and the accent now was on strengthening families, which should be what concerned society most.

Justyne Caruana (PL) said opposition to divorce did not stem only from religion but also from the very consequences of divorce.

Mr Scicluna said there was also pain suffered by people whose first marriage collapsed and they moved into a new, stable relationship but could not remarry.

Dr Caruana said that in many cases, the least thing people thought about when their marriage collapsed was remarriage. The country should first address the issues created by marriage breakdowns, and their causes.

The young increasingly did not even believe in marriage. So would introducing divorce help?

Mr Scicluna said the framework for divorce legislation in Malta had to be tailored to the context of Maltese society. That way people could opt for the stability of remarriage as against cohabitation.

Mr Vassallo said he did not see stability as equating with the right to remarriage. The fact that marriages were collapsing showed there was a problem of stability there which needed to be tackled.

Concluding today's sitting, Mr Vassallo urged Mr Scicluna to present the committee with more statistics on the situation abroad. Arguments, he said, had to be backed with statistics and research in other countries. Would the right to remarry improve marriages and family stability? So far it had been shown that even separations were undermining society. Would the right to remarry undermine Maltese society further?

Mr Scicluna said he had not concluded his presentation, but his arguments were based on rationality and justice for those who wished to remarry.

Mr Vassallo said politicians had to know whether they would strengthen or weaken society.

Mr Scicluna said divorce would introduce more order in society because people could remarry rather than opt for cohabitation as at present.

Mr Vassallo said he could not agree, because statistics showed that in countries which had divorce, cohabitation was still increasing.

Mr Scicluna insisted these points were not related. Most Maltese people wanted to marry and it was only just that they should be given the opportunity to do so.

Mr Scicluna is to continue his presentation in another sitting.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.