The debate on divorce legislation in Malta
When commenting on the issue of divorce, Martin Scicluna (February 23) declared "Every possible objection to the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta was addressed head-on and found wanting".
In his article The Politics Of Divorce (February 19) Michael Brigulio, chairman of Alternattiva Demokraika, stated that "separation is on the rise in Malta for various reasons, including economic stress and institutional factors". So he suggested the introduction of divorce in Malta.
Joseph Muscat, Leader of the Opposition, in the conference on marriages, lately, quoted the increase in the number of civil marriages and seems to have suggested that this is another good reason for the introduction of divorce in Malta.
If these, instead, were talking about physical ill-health, surely, first, they would have promoted curative and preventive medical services to restore sick people to good health, and prevent others from falling sick, and not clamour for the provision of coffins to eventually bury the dead.
They failed to make reference to the importance of providing curative social services, like marriage counselling, psychotherapy and family therapy to married couples in distress.
To his credit Dr Muscat did advocate enhanced marriage preparation and educational services as an investment in sound marriages. Mr Scicluna and Mr Brigulio did not. I am not sure I heard the Church make loud noises about the need to expand marriage reconciliation services either.
Some years back the government saw the validity and utility of marriage reconciliation services and had in mind to enact legislation to make it mandatory to all married couples, when opening a separation case in the family court, to go for marriage counselling to tentatively restore the marital relationship. Unfortunately, the government's efforts were derailed by powerful and aggressive lobbying and the whole thing ended with the court making it mandatory to litigating married couples to go for mediation, not reconciliaton, services.
Effectively they were offered only the professional assistance of a mediator to help them reach an amicable agreement on the division of their assets, including the care and custody of their children, when separating for good. The mediator is not there to help them reconcile their differences.
The government and the opposition, together, should dig their heels in the ground and resuscitate, through effective legislation, and without further delay, the mandatory provision of marriage counselling, psychotherapy and family therapy services for litigating married couples when they go to court. They should also promote resort to these services before the litigating couples go to court.
The government should also introduce mandatory marriage preparation courses for civil marriages as Dr Muscat very rightly insisted during the conference on marriages.
When commenting on Tiger Woods's gross infidelity to his wife, which is one of the main reasons for the breakdown of marriage, Phil Wahba, columnist of The Sunday Times (February 21), suggested that "Ultimately Woods may be better off waiting to finish his therapy to learn how to tame his temptations, and put his family life in order". Tiger Woods is the world's top golf player and his brand name is worth $100 million a year.
When the affair became public, upon reflection, he went for therapy and his wife did not go for divorce.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Francis Bellizzi
Mar 6th 2010, 08:58
I fail to see the difference bteween " Divorce " and " Separation". Whatever you call it couples are still apart and their marraige is over. Surely not making " Divorce" legal is to appease the Church. I say open your minds and get into the 21st century.
Kevin Cassar
Mar 5th 2010, 21:50
@ Gerry Cowie
The only possible decision that will "suit everybody" is the introduction of divorce. How is this so? Very simple. Malta is made up of let's say 90% Catholics, and 10% other religions or atheists (figures are made up and by no means necessarily accurate). A large majority of the Catholics will still not divorce because of their faith. Some Catholics may divorce. A number of atheists and other religions will still not divorce because they are in a good marriage. The rest will divorce. Everybody happy. That is unless someone's happiness depends on the suffering of others. I'm so tired of repeating myself but I feel I have to. Being in favour of the introduction of divorce does not mean being in favour or wanting divorce. It just means you acknowledge that all people should have the right to choose. So yes, I am in favour of choice, even though I'm not in favour of divorce itself and will not divorce myself.
William P Flynn
Mar 5th 2010, 21:37
@TimRipard
Please don't confuse the argument with logic.
Gerry Cowie
Mar 5th 2010, 20:24
I have too often read W Flynn's comments that people should "butt out of arguments which do not concern them." I therefore cannot understand how this Australian gentleman is so obsessed with changing the law in Malta! His use of alarmist language about people ending up in mental institutions is not constructive either! The whole situation will be decided upon by those with a right to vote in Malta, and nobody else. I hope that whatever decision is made eventually is the one that best suits everybody. Malta, which is inmajority catholic - like it or not, Mr Flynn - is bound to take its religious beliefs into account. This is hard to accept for any lapsed Catholics who have converted to atheism, but it is a fact. I am not suggesting that the Church should have the upper hand here, before you accuse me of being a Catholic apologist! It's just that you must accept that the people of Malta will take into account the beliefs which seem to upset you so much. As for Ramon Casha, he simply uses sarcasm to make what is really not a constructive contribution to this debate, as usual!
Tim Ripard
Mar 5th 2010, 15:45
Tony Mifsud, Tiger Woods opted for counselling when divorce was available. This means that the availability of divorce will not automatically destroy a marriage, not even when there are huge problems. Thanks for pointing out that divorce and counselling can co-exist. The rest of your article is a waste of space.
g. scerri
Mar 5th 2010, 14:09
Most of us recognise a kite-fliyer when we see one. The interesting question is on whose behalf are they doing the kite-flying? The answer to that one might tell you whether to expect divorce legislation sooner then expected.
William P Flynn
Mar 5th 2010, 12:02
"The mandatory provision of marriage counseling, psychotherapy and family therapy services".
There shouldn't be anything mandatory of this sort. Before long people will start to disappear in mental institutions for the convenience or for the sake of cover-up and appearances.
In your poor analogy this is like chaining a living person to a dead corpse. The health or otherwise of a marriage is the business of the married couple and no one else.
If a couple, or one of the spouses, wants to end the marriage they should be able to and it is the government's obligation to put divorce on the books. Marriage and its dissolution is the business of no other institution.
If some want to consult their advisors, religious, professional or otherwise, there will always be the option to do so. But the final process should be between the state and the individual.
Ramon Casha
Mar 5th 2010, 11:29
To use your analogy of physical ill-health, there are times when a wound can be cleaned and bandaged, but there are times when the only choice is amputation, without which the damage would spread and make the situation worse.
The current policy is to ignore the creeping necrotic flesh and pretend that everything will magically turn out right eventually, while blaming the patient for contracting gangrene.
Edward Camilleri
Mar 5th 2010, 11:21
Because such therapy is available in Tiger Wood's home country doesn't mean that they do not have divorce!
Kenneth Cassar
Mar 5th 2010, 10:37
While I agree that more needs to be done on marriage preparation and reconciliation, this letter is not even an argument against divorce.
Please choose the reason of your report below: