MPs express differing views on divorce
Issues such as the nature of divorce legislation and the impact of divorce on children were briefly discussed today when the Parliamentary Social Affairs Committee continued a discussion on divorce.
The debate started yesterday on the basis of a presentation by Martin Scicluna on the Today study group’s report which called for the introduction of divorce in Malta.
Resuming his presentation, Mr Scicluna quoted overseas studies which found that children were better off in divorced households than in families which stayed together in conflict.
It was wrong to argue, he said, that divorce on its own harmed children, and it was better to discuss what factors harmed children before and after separation. Children viewed parental separation or divorce as a crisis and a trauma, but that diminished within the first year when there was stability. What affected children most was intense and ongoing conflict.
Custody arrangements post divorce also had a major impact on children, with joint custody being much better for children’s adjustment.
OBJECTIONS TO REMARRIAGE AFTER SEPARATION
It was nonsense, Mr Scicluna said, to argue that cohabitation was higher where divorce existed, because there was no connection between cohabitation and divorce.
Cohabitation was more popular among the younger adults because it was viewed as a stepping stone to marriage, a sort of testing a relationship before tying the knot. This did not mean a divorce mentality but a case of evolving societies and the way people approached marriage.
It was cynical to say that divorce transformed marriage into a temporary contract. Society currently paid a heavy price for sustaining the indissolubility of marriage and marginalizing separated couples instead of encouraging them into stable new marriages.
While no two countries were alike, in Ireland, a Catholic country like Malta, the introduction of divorce had not borne out the dire predictions of those who had opposed it. The Irish, like the Italians, had some of the lowest divorce rates, and he did not see Malta being different.
Changing the law, as long as it was done in the right way, would not undermine society.
“The wise legislator will ensure that divorce legislation is firm but fair and will not lead to easy divorce.”
LEGISLATION
Mr Scicluna said the Irish law appeared to be the best model Malta could use for its own legislation.
Law had to be sensitive and responsive to the needs and security of both spouses and the children. His suggestion was that access to divorce should be restrictive, with legal separation established for four of the previous five years before dissolution could be granted. The irretrievable failure of the marriage had to be established and there had to be a comprehensive support system including mediation and social support, for families to reach the right decision.
The current legal remedy of separation had been unsatisfactory. It had not stopped marriage breakdowns, but it had caused untold pain for those who wished to remarry, Mr Scicluna said. Society would gain more if people had the freedom to remarry in an ordered structure rather than resort to cohabitation because they had no choice.
Dr Michael Farrugia (PL) said he felt there should be separation between the laws of the state and religions. The state had to legislate for everyone. It was discriminatory that some Maltese could opt to live briefly abroad to be able to get divorce and then remarry in Malta, while others who could not afford to do so and stayed in Malta did not have the same opportunity.
His personal and professional experience showed that one of the biggest and most harmful problems for children was having to live within ongoing conflict within families which were united in name only.
On the other hand, separation which was smooth resulted in a positive outcome for the children. Of course, problems continued for the children if the spouses remained in conflict after separation. Children who remained in the custody of just one parent also risked suffering from problems such as poverty.
Believing in marriage had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with divorce. Opting for divorce could be something positive for those who believed in marriage but whose first marriage broke down, because they could remarry. That provided them with better emotional and also legal security whether it was for social services, succession or even assisted procreation - if the IVF law was to be restricted to married couples.
He felt that loving couples should therefore be given the opportunity to remarry. He agreed that one should consider the Irish model of divorce legislation, where divorce was not something which could be acquired easily but was available where marriages broke done irretrievably.
STABLE RELATIONSHIPS
Anthony Zammit (PL) said it was his personal opinion that marriage was something which strengthened society. Where a relationship was stable, the children of that relationship had a greater chance of making a success of their life. He too wished to underscore the distinction between the state and religions and felt the state should legislate to stop the discrimination mentioned by Dr Farrugia about people going abroad to get divorced, making it possible for them to remarry in Malta, while others could not.
He felt that the state should encourage separated couples to return to stable marriage rather than cohabitation. Marriage ended before divorce. Children suffered problems when there was conflict within marriages. Divorce could end the fighting between their parents.
He felt that any decision need to be preceded by discussion and study in the interest of all members of society.
Frederick Azzopardi (PN) said believers in religion should not ignore their faith when they discussed state law. Would it be better to legislate on cohabitation, rather than opting for divorce?
Committee chairman Edwin Vassallo said it was the committee’s duty to speak about the people’s concerns. The ‘religion’ of the committee was the common good. That did not necessarily mean the public mood, but what was right in the context of the MPs’ own morality, as Mr Azzopardi had said, and their defence of the common good.
Referring to Dr Farrugia’s reference to IVF legislation, Mr Vassallo said assisted procreation should ideally be given to married couples, for the sake of the children. Dr Farrugia had spoken of loving couples rather than just married couples. He agreed that legislators had to define what constituted a stable relationship. Marriage on its own did not signify that a relationship was stable.
He augured that the discussion would continue in an open and healthy way, Mr Vassallo said. The fundamental problem was marriage breakdown, and one had to study whether the availability of divorce would further undermine the institution of marriage. His personal view was that divorce reduced marriage to a temporary contract and undermined society, as much as legal separation did.
Dr Farrugia, reacting to Mr Azzopardi's remark, said that because he believed in marriage, he believed Malta should have a divorce law, rather than a law on cohabitation.
25 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Jan 28th 2011, 12:56
Uliedi, illejla tajtkom prova ċara. Iva wliedi, għalhekk Ibni Ġesù qed jibgħatni hawn, fuq dil-gżira. Għalhekk għażilt dil-familja kważi ħames snin ilu. Għalhekk ridt lil Angelik u lil Catherine. Iva wliedi, Ibni Ġesù ma riedx jara żwieġ imfarrak. Għalhekk ħames snin ilu bagħatni hawnhekk, nerġa’ ngħidilkom. Ġejt inħabbrilkom minn qabel x’se jseħħ fuq dil-gżira. Kien hawn min fehemni u oħrajn lanqas biss taw widen.
Ftit taż-żmien ieħor se jkollkom għażla f’idejkom intom stess. Oqogħdu attenti x’tagħżlu wliedi. Iġġibux il-gwaj fuqkom.
Fejnhom fil-familji l-imħabba, l-għaqda, il-maħfra, is-sinċerità u t-talb flimkien? Fejnhom? Għalhekk illum kulħadd qed ifarfar minn fuq spallejh mal-ewwel intopp li jinqala’.
Iva wliedi, il-qalb tiegħi u l-qalb ta’ Ibni Ġesù muġugħin minħabba fikom. Jiena muġugħa għax jiena omm li nħoss għalikom.
Akkost ta’ kollox uliedi, jiġri x’jiġri, ibqgħu għidu: “LE GHAD-DIVORZJU, LE GHAD-DIVORZJU!"
U għidu r-rużarju u ġiegħlu lil ħaddieħor jgħid ir-rużarju.
Grazzi talli smajtu s-sejħa tiegħi.
Steven Brockwell
Sep 20th 2010, 20:39
this whole divorce issue is a complete joke. just blown out of the sky. if i have been separated for 5 years. how can divorce destroy my familly when it is all ready broken.
Elena Baeva
Oct 28th 2009, 12:55
To Dr Emmy Bezzina, B.A.,LL.D - I totally agree. Moreover, can I claim all my divorce expenses from the Maltese government that I have incurred for obtaining a divorce in the UK? That is flights, at least one year of living expenses, loss of income, court fee, etc. And all that just to restore my human right to have a family, which was taken from me by my former spouse with the full support of the government.
To Frederick Azzopardi (PN) - looks like you suggest to legalise bigamy, the act or condition of a person (kind of legally) marrying another person while still ... How do you classify this cohabitation legislation other than two parties entering into contract to obtain legal recognition of their relationship?
PHILIP HILI
Dec 15th 2010, 11:52
Don't forget to claim the mid-term bonus and the Christmas bonus as well!!!!!
Kenneth Cassar
Oct 28th 2009, 12:16
@ Raymond Bezzina:
May I remind all MP's that :
May I remind you that we already have the civil right to "steal" another person's spouse (note the inverted commas - to say that someone "steals" one's spouse is to say that the spouse is property). It is called adultery and it is perfectly legal, since spouses are not the legal property of anyone. Slavery was abolished a long time ago.
Divorce won't change any of this.
PHILIP HILI
Dec 15th 2010, 11:59
As of when to steal has become a "civil right "?
Jigifieri jekk qieghed nifhem sew Sur Cassar li tisraq huwa "civil right" jew dritt civili?
John Azzopardi
Oct 28th 2009, 11:14
@ Raymond Bezzina. With respect, which universe is the gentleman living in? Married couples are still splitting up with some co-habiting with other other people's spouses. As long as people have free will this will continue to happen. Divorce will not make it worse.
Raymond Bezzina
Oct 28th 2009, 10:32
May I remind all MP's that :
Civil legislation in favour of divorce means, that a person would obtain a civil right to steal
another person's spouse, if s/he wishes to. That is, a person becomes authorized to
steal.
Therefore, divorce could never be beneficial to the family, or to society.
J. Micallef
Oct 28th 2009, 09:42
I never understood why all this fuss about divorce !!!!
Very simple ......... Avoid trouble and do not marry your partner !!!! Love him / her, respect him / her and that's all. Marrige won't change anything except increase problems in the future.
As the Maltese say : '' Tressaqnix lejn in-nar halli ma ninharaqx''
PHILIP HILI
Dec 15th 2010, 12:25
Of course you cannot understand this fuss about divorce, because the pro-divorce team is not telling the public the repercussions of divorce once it is legalised. Don't forget that now it's Christmas and presents are wrapped in a very nice wrapping paper in order to be attractive. Sometimes even bombs are wrapped in attractive wrapping paper.
Once divorce is legalised, who knows what kind of social benefits from the tax-payer's coffer intends to claim from the State these couples who apply for divorce?
And another thing, once divorce is legalised on the so called "Ireland model", what assurance the people have that the law will not to be amended later on according to the likings of the pro-divorce couples? To amend a law is much easier than to introduce a law.
Kenneth Cassar
Oct 28th 2009, 08:03
@ Ivan Sciberras:
Cont...
Or how about this: You will find that the majority (my guess is more than 90%) of prison inmates believe in God. Does this mean that belief in God makes one more likely to break the law? I don't think so.
All the statistics you quoted (if true or reliable...no source) show is that many people who divorce are perhaps more likely to favour cohabitation...not that cohabitation leads to divorce. This is not at all surprising considering that the number of cohabiting unmarried couples is (for better or worse) growing, leaving less chance for divorcees to be never-cohabited-before-marriage spouses.
t. borg
Oct 28th 2009, 07:52
Please leave religion aside. Who wants to follow religion he can do that but no one can impose to others. Many laws need to be changed like the one that Joseph Muscat is proposing to lower the age of a person being considered as an adult from 18 to 16. Today children at schools are experimenting sex at a very younger age. I am sure that 90% of girls are having sex before the age of 18. The law says that whoever have sex with a minor (till 19 birthday) is liable for criminal charges. Therefore why not 90% of the population is in prison? Only the unfortunate ones are going through persecution because of religion or ignorance.
Kenneth Cassar
Oct 28th 2009, 07:44
@ Ivan Sciberras:
We should be careful not to read too much out of statistics. After all, 100% of divorcees eat food. Should we abolish food to save marriages?
Kenneth Cassar
Oct 28th 2009, 07:42
@ K Pullicino:
Divorce does not "break down" marriage further. Divorce is sought only after a marriage breaks down. But by all means, let's also discuss how to prevent marriage breakdown where possible.
As for the "argument" that "divorce gives an individual the chance to fail once again at something which he/she already promised not to mess up", well, by the same "reasoning", marriage is the only way for a couple to have one's marriage fail. So should we abolish marriage to prevent marriage failure? I think not.
Frans Sammut
Oct 28th 2009, 07:40
I reckon it is worthwhile to note that the MPs discussing the issue were offering their personal opinions not those of the party to which they belong. It would be interesting to know what their parties think on this matter.
Kenneth Cassar
Oct 28th 2009, 07:37
@ George Mifsud:
They will be the same lawyers who now take up separation cases. So "business" will be diversified, not augmented.
Eric Psaila
Oct 28th 2009, 07:33
Hon. Frederick Azzopardi (PN) said believers in religion should not ignore their faith when they discussed state law. Would it be better to legislate on cohabitation, rather than opting for divorce?
What does Frederick Azzopardi mean? Is he concerned that if he votes in favour of divorce he will be doomed to eternal damnation? If he is worried about that he should rest assured that he is also doomed if he votes in favour of cohabitation as both are equally wrong in the eyes of the church.
One's own religious believes should not come into question. We demand State /Church separation otherwise we are no different than the Tabliban regime.
It is up to each and every individual and I stress in our capacity as individuals and not as MP to follow the rules of the church we belong to.
If MP want to take statistics into account then just have a look at the church's own statistics of those who still go to church every Sunday. MPs are representing both believers and non believers and that is what they should take into account. Keep your religion to your church and to yourself. Do not force it on others.
Dr Emmy Bezzina, B.A.,LL.D.
Oct 28th 2009, 07:25
Any EU Citizen who has the `` right credentials`` [ and that includes us Maltese Nationals ] can obtain a DIVORCE from any of the rest of the 26 Member States some of whom are CATHOLIC in their spiritual orientation,like Spain,Portugal , Republic of Ireland and Italy: why not the same for Malta? The case of our country is one of DISCRIMINATION now and the MALTESE State should be sued for this gross Democratic Deficit and DAMAGES claimed by the hundreds of the injured parties.RELIGION,MORALS & SPIRITUAL orientations have no part in this REALITY.Biblical Quotes about DIVORCE have NO RELEVANCE to the completely different cultural world we live in.
What is more because of BRUSSELS II Regulation bis, a Divorce obtained as per above can be registered in MALTA without any due interference from any myopic politicians a number of whom for vote-catching purposes state publicly what they do not align to privately: Political Hypocrisy !!
DIVORCE has long been a coming to our shores.This has led to a diffused chaos in our Family Life, a country with a distorted Family Law because of the alienation of DIVORCE: DIVORCE NOW - end of Story!
George Mifsud
Oct 28th 2009, 03:00
Bet you all those lawyers graduating will be rubbering their hands for more business coming to the law courts.
PHILIP HILI
Dec 15th 2010, 12:35
Now, we will have more lawyers practising marriage law!!!!!!!!!!
Ivan Sciberras
Oct 27th 2009, 22:42
"It was nonsense, Mr Scicluna said, to argue that cohabitation was higher where divorce existed, because there was no connection between cohabitation and divorce"
Well, I guess Mr. Scicluna needs to check his facts: cohabitation does promote a selfish lifestyle (getting the sex, but no committment). It has been shown that couples who got married after a period of cohabitation find it difficult to shrug off their earlier mentality. In the United States, where 56% of marriages end in divorce, the figure sours to 80% for couple who lived together before marriage. What about couples who cohabitated for more than five years before getting married (having the "advantage" of knowing one another better)? The divorce rate for these couples shot up to 90%.
Yes, Mr. Scicluna, there is a connection between cohabitation and divorce.
Ivan Sciberras
Osar Cassar
Oct 27th 2009, 22:38
Discussion on the possibility of introduction a divorce legislation has taken too long... We have been discussing for years now and our politician seem as if afraid of admitting facts or just ignoring the current social problems within the nation. This is simply a shamful act of abdicationg from their responsibilities.
Tommy Lee
Oct 27th 2009, 22:19
Jesus said at Matthew 9:19
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
So according to the Lord Jesus Divorce is acceptable on grounds of adultery.
Do these people against divorce think they are greater than Jesus?
PHILIP HILI
Dec 15th 2010, 12:40
How unfair quoting a verse from the Bible and interpret it to your own likings!!!!!!
K. Pullicino
Oct 27th 2009, 22:02
If the problem is MARRIAGE BREAKDOWN, why are we discussing how to break it down even further?
Shouldn't we be discussing how to preventing marriage breakdown? If anything, divorce gives an individual the chance to fail once again at something which he/she already promised not to mess up.