AD insists Parliament should start debating divorce
Parliamentarians should start debating divorce, especially since the social affairs committee is debating cohabitation, Alternattiva Demokratika said this morning.
Chairman Michael Briguglio told a news conference that the party wrote to the social affairs committee stating its position and submitted the legislation of Ireland and Italy, two countries with a Catholic heritage, which could be used as a starting point for the drafting of a law.
He said AD had always stressed upon the importance of legislation on registered partnerships and cohabitation.
“We are pleased that at last something is being done as regards to cohabitation.
“But such legislation will not compensate the lack of rights and legislation on other areas which concern basic rights of non-married couples - such as those concerning divorce, siblings living together and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights respectively.”
Mr Briguglio said it seemed that the government's proposals on cohabitation were more of a political strategy to keep postponing essential reforms on other areas regarding the rights of different types of families.
“It is very unfortunate that the Nationalist parliamentary group is refusing to read the signs of the times, and is therefore burying its head in the sand on such important issues as divorce.
“Labour on the other hand, is adopting a catch-all approach by trying to please everyone at the same time.
“It is more than evident that the Labourite proposal for a parliamentary free-vote on divorce will be defeated, due to the opposition of certain Labour MPs.”
He said that while the PN was shifting the goalposts by discussing cohabitation at the exclusion of other key issues, the PL was lacking leadership and vision by conveniently speaking about a free-vote on divorce, whilst not taking decisive action and presenting a draft law immediately.
Legalisation of divorce, similar to legislation on other family rights, required political courage. The plain truth was that some marriages failed.
“Should a state ignore this reality, thus excluding thousands of citizens from basic civil rights,” he asked.
He accused the government of abdicating from its responsibilities by giving the Catholic Church a monopoly on pre-marriage education, excluding those who did not wish to have a Catholic marriage from any form of education in this regard.
Civil rights spokesman Yvonne Arqueros Ebejer said that despite the absence of divorce, separation was on the rise in Malta for various reasons, including economic stress and other situational factors, but also due to the fact that people gave more value to being happy in their relationships.
“Divorce gives the possibility to those couples whose marriage has irremediably failed to start a new life, whatever it may be. Many separated persons would simply like to be given another chance to marry. From this perspective, divorce can be seen as being pro-family because it permits couples to regularise their relationships,” she said.
She said that together with the introduction of other measures to strengthen the family unit, divorce legislation would harmonise social and legal anomalies.
While AD appreciated the role of the Catholic Church as a legitimate and major voice in Malta's public sphere, one had to appreciate that in modern secular societies, where respect of civil rights took centre stage, being a Catholic was one identity among others.
“No one is obliged to divorce but the possibility of divorce should exist as a basic civil right,” she insisted.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Marsa murder - Police looking...
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Updated - Two bodies, capsized boat,...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
In Discussion
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
Chinese company to study Malta-Gozo...
Updated - PM reacts to Labour anger on...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
No appeals board for first part of power...
Updated - PM comments as Franco Mercieca...
BBC site highlights illegal hunting in Malta
30 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
M Pace
Jun 13th 2010, 11:08
Mr. Portelli many people have been mislad by thinking that voting to be part of the Eu would bring miracles. Its the party whom we elect that matters so if you want divorce vote for any party (such as AD) except the PN, you will never get any where with them, they are only promises promises unless you are "minn tal qalba".
Claire Busuttil
Jun 12th 2010, 22:11
AD is right!
Frank Vella
Jun 12th 2010, 20:47
I totally agree with Ms.Yvonne Arqueros Ebejer's intelligent reasoning and expansion on this subject and further add that Divorce will, whether PN or PL or indeed the Church want it or not, be instituted on these islands. It is just a question of time ... it is an unavoidable state of affairs. Everybody knows this but presently and perhaps for the immediate future this will not happen first because the PN would not dare upset the goose ..or perhaps the Pelican that lays the golden egg by means of which it, i.e. the PN sustains itself . Secondly because the LP is too cautious and conscious of the past and is not prepared to consider a real definite approach in this regard. All it boils down to is simply Votes, Votes and Votes...no more no less. Let us not kid ourselves with righteousness when we all know the meaning of hypocrisy. Well done A D.
Mark A. Sammut
Jun 12th 2010, 19:15
I'm intrigued by what kind of basic rights bisexuals actually want...
Do they want the registration of ... what exactly? Do bisexuals form couples? Or menages-a-trois? How can BI-sexuals fit in a COUPLE?
What is a "different-type-of-family" in the case of bisexuals?
A family made up of: two-men-a-women-and-children, two-women-a-man-and-children, so-many-men-so-many-women-and-children? And whose children, by the way?
Are bisexuals against monogamy? Or they do want divorce, to marry first a woman and then a man or vice versa?
As for transgenders: what is it that THEY want?
If I understand the term correctly, a transgender is someone who was born of one sex and then migrated to the other sex. But I cannot understand what is inherently different in this situation to either same-sex couples or heterosexual couples.
If transgender people become of the other sex, then they can form heterosexual couples of sorts - and there is no problem.
If they do not become of the other sex, but remain somewhere in-between, what exactly are they claiming? What kind of rights? Rights like gays and/or lesbian would want? If yes, then why is it LGB-T? LGB would suffice, wouldn't it? Rights different from gays'/lesbians' pretended rights? Why the difference?
Stefan Kottmann
Jun 12th 2010, 19:39
Mark Sammut - Bisexuals are people who are attracted to members of both sexes. A bisexual man might happen to be attracted to a woman and decide to marry her. No problem. A bisexual woman might happen to be attracted to a man and decide to marry him. No problem. But if a bisexual man wants to marry another bisexual, or gay, man, there is a problem. It has nothing to do with forming threesomes or a union of more than two persons. Nobody is demanding that I think. As for your other many questions - I really don't have an answer, nobody knows everything, and quite frankly - everyone is already doing the things they want anyway. All they want is to have their relationship offficiated. Think of all the reasons why straight people want to marry. Some marry to have a fairytale wedding. Others for a sense of financial security. Others to get that surname. Others for love. Whatever the reason is, it's the same for everyone.
Mark A. Sammut
Jun 12th 2010, 20:54
@StefanKottman - The little sociological literature there is in English on bisexuals portrays animosity between gays/lesbians on the one hand, and bisexuals on the other, because of bisexuals' tendency to polyamoury. (The tendency results from studies, so I'm taking it as fact.)
It couldn't be otherwise, for why should a bisexual prefer one of his/her orientations? If s/he did, then s/he would either be straight or gay/lesbian.
Also, the literature seems to show that bisexuals want to have a primary partner (usually of the other sex) and a secondary partner (usually of the same sex). This hierarchy seems to create tensions in such "different-types-of-families."
One wonders whether bisexuals want such hierarchies regulated by law. In which case, wouldn't they also require the concomitant decriminalisation of bigamy?
With regard to transgender persons, your remark is neither here nor there. If they want to have their relationship regulated, it has to be defined. How can something undefined be regulated? It would be an oxymoron.
How to define a transgender relationship and how to regulate it by law?
Needless to say, everybody is doing what they like. That's fine with me. The problem is when they want "what they like" to become law.
Anton Portelli
Jun 12th 2010, 18:50
Ms Giordmaina - There is no point of having referenda, Divorce law should have been implemented long ago, at least after joing the EU. This was one of the reasons I voted in favor of joing EU. Now we are in EU but I do not have the same rights as other EU citizens. Nor do I have the rights of the few who are financially well off to get a divorce abroad and the get it recognised here.
I t time that the state starts considering the rightful wishes of those who need to apply and get divorce in Malta. After all unlike what some say divorce can be pro family as said by Ms Arqueros Ebejer.
victor rodenas
Jun 13th 2010, 09:23
you do not need to be financially well off to get a divorce abroad,of course if you are very poor you are doomed. First, you have to choose the place from where you can get the divorce very well,.do not choose very expensive countries such as Germany,France etc. There are poor countries in the Eu,so services there would be reasonable much cheaper.......I know people who went to the south of Spain(quite cheap) hired a small flat there,made proper I.D`s with the authorities there (because you have to prove that you lived there for a year) ,hire a Spanish lawer (he will instruct you what you need).While being there you can also work(do not be too choosy) as a cook,waiter,barman....insomma,whatever you can get,it`s only for a year....Enjoy your holiday there too while you can......after a year your lawer will have all the nessesary papers ready..,come back to malta and your divorce will be accepted...good luck if you really need divorce, this is the way to get it....if you are happily married......thank God for it...........
K. Pullicino
Jun 12th 2010, 18:44
Why isn't there anyone insisting Parliament should start debating on how to improve and promote the Maltese families? We're so intent on ensuring that families can be broken we're forgetting to actually try to make it work, aren't we?
Stefan Kottmnn
Jun 12th 2010, 19:07
I believe we are assuming the marriage is beyond saving - which it can be. And, besides, the Maltese are already having to pass church tests before getting married, have already been systematically indoctrinated on christian values at MUSEUM since chilhood, and have already attended a cana course on marriage. What now - refresher courses? More social benefits? We forget that these are two people over the age of eighteen years (adults) who have decided to call it quits. The last thing they need is someone to patronisingly tell them 'but hold on - I think you should try again. Learn this. Go there. You must. You're not alowed to be apart'. Et Cetera Et Cetera. Let us finally allow adults to go their own way in peace, as it is their right to do, and let us stop assuming they are mindless children who don't know better.
K. Pullicino
Jun 12th 2010, 21:48
I've met so many "adults" that were no better than mindless children. Actually I think children are so much better than adults in many ways. First off, children aren't so defensive of their interests... something, which I hope everyone getting married, knows that is necessary for a successful marriage.
G.Schembri
Jun 13th 2010, 11:26
The majority of marriages are entered into with the belief that it is forever. All marriages that fail are not something the couple are proud of, and I'm sure many try to save their marriage before they call it quits.
Why should the lucky ones who had a successful marriage impose on the others not to have another chance. I believe in my marriage and I'm sure that if divorce is introduced it will not harm my marriage. I cannot understand how marriages can be harmed by the introduction of divorce.
Anton Portelli
Jun 12th 2010, 18:36
Fully agree with Mr Vella Zarb. Divorce is not a matter to be decided by any referendum. It is not obligatory like paying VAT or Income TAX, but it will be there for those who need nd WANT to resort to it. Having a Divorce law does not oblige any body to use it, asking for a divorce is purely voluntary.
Having such a right in Malta would be giving a minority a right that at the moment is being ridden roughshod by the state and the Church. This is especially so since, those who are well off financially can get it abroad and this will be then recognised by the state. Actually this is nothing but rubbing salt onto a poor person's wound.
Having no divorce laws in Malta is by no means preventing broken marriages and by no means increasing the faith in the pope or the bishops. On the contrary a person who would be living alife of misery because of the intollerable stance the church is taking is more likely to loose his or her faith.
Stefan Kottmann
Jun 12th 2010, 17:50
Certain things are not subject to a vote, or a majority. Rights are rights, whether recognised or not. Does someone not have a right to live simply because s/he is on death row in a US state that permits executions? Certainly. Does not one have a right to democracy, even though s/he lives in China? Certainly. Does someone have a right to start over again after a failed marriage, even though they live in Malta? Certainly. You see, it does not matter what the majority says. The majority might restrict your ability to live your rights, or in the case of China, the powerful might restrict your rights, but they can never take them away from you. Now, as for divorce, who is anyone to force anyone to stay with someone else? What do you care if they are happy together or happy apart? How does it impact you? Society? Nobody marries another for the benefit of society. And the children? First of all, they will get over it. Secondly, there will be legal frameworks dealing with children of divorced couples - which would probably be similar to that of legally separated couples.
Franco Farrugia
Jun 12th 2010, 17:41
@ Oscar Cassar - Nifrahlek tal-mod eccellenti kif spjegajt l-argument tieghek, specjalment l-ahhar sentenza, li hi ezattament dak li ried jghid bih Serracino Inglott.
Oscar Cassar
Jun 13th 2010, 09:33
Tnx
Charlene Giordimaina
Jun 12th 2010, 17:33
I am not in favour of divorce but I think that if we were to work democratically ideally there should first be some education about the topic, amongst the citizens which are eligible to vote, and then a referendum would take place.
True that the majority of the Maltese are still Catholics but that does not imply that they are against divorce.
Charles Sammut (NY USA)
Jun 12th 2010, 17:27
Congratulations to the AD Movement for standing up and showing some backbone by stating the obvious...Divorce should be available to those whose marriage is a failure and who want the opportunity to be legally married again. Those that are against Divorce would not be forced to have one so I don't understand why they want to impose their religious beliefs on others. Once Divorce is available it will not mean that people will be rushing to get one. I live in the USA where Divorce is available but the Maltese community here have very low Divorce rates. Condemning people to a life of misery is not healthy and certainly not beneficial to anyone. People do change and noone should be forced to live in a failed marriage and the high numbr of separations bear this out. So what's wrong with having another attempt like civilised people in other nations have?
j sammut
Jun 12th 2010, 17:02
i agree 100%,that is time to start debating divorce.all people have the right for it.Divorce gives the possibility to those couples whose marriage has irremediably failed to start a new life.
wally vella-zarb
Jun 12th 2010, 16:33
Majorities do not have a bearing in this case as the decision will only affect the minority who are in need of a legal solution to their plight. This legislation will not oblige the majority to make use of the new legal solution; in fact, it does not oblige anyone to utilise it. It will be there for those who need it, even if they are a minority of just a few couples.
Minorities have right, too. It is a travesty of democracy when the majority rides roughshod over the minority. In our case it is worse because our laws already recognise divorce decrees that are issued elsewhere, thereby discriminating against those Maltese Citizens who do not have the financial means to obtain such foreign decree and are therefore consigned to a life of misery and legal limbo.
Steve Pace
Jun 13th 2010, 09:03
@Mr.Vella-Zarb - Thumbs up for you comment.The article and your comment express very precisely the feelings of many . As you said, divorce is a free choice and not imposed. No one is being forced to take it . I am a practicing catholic and although in principle i may not agree with it and would not consider it as an option for me, i cannot and will not try to use my religion as a means to evoke hate and emotionally abuse others. One should respect and understand the pain and emotional turmoil seperated people go through. It is also true that we must protect children. I tend to believe that the current anomalies in the existing framework are not adequate and not benefecial to children, especially to the ones born out of seperated couples situations. The church has its agenda. To teach . Fair enough. The state has a duty towards all members of society and not just towards the catholics. This raging war must end. We are risking sinking back into the times of MGR Gonzi.
CARMEL SERRACINO-iNGLOTT
Jun 12th 2010, 15:16
I do not agree with AD at all. I have faith in what our Pope says ( and not only faith but I also agree) Now some in Malta are not Catholic but up to now the majority is. The thing is that the majority do not want divorce in Malta at least to be legal and the government cannot go against the wish of the Maltese. In this case discussion in Parliament is nearly waste of time.
Discuss by all means but in Parliament there must be a motion. There might be members who are in favour of D but when the majority already is against it why go on a wild goose chase. Further more if AD or anybody else for that matter will collect enough signitures for a discussion or a referendum on D. then fair enough lets have one for then there are enough numbers to listen to. AD at most might one day have a single member in the house but again this does not mean that all backing AD are in favour of D nor in deed are those backing PL and NP are all against D.
Mark Seychell
Jun 12th 2010, 15:39
Carmel, how do you know the majority do not want divorce?
Oscar Cassar
Jun 12th 2010, 16:09
Jien nahseb li l-maggoranza jevitaw l-argument aktar minn li huma kontra. Bdan il-mod jistghu jidru sbieh ma kulhadd. Bhal fil-kas ta kull kuntratt legali iehor, il-Gvern huwa fid-dmir li jaghti rimedji ohra civili f'kas li l-kuntratt ifalli. Ghalkem il-Gvern imexxi skond ir-rieda tal-maggoranza li skond is-Sur Seracino Inglott qed jaghid li hija kontra d-divorzju, l-Gvern xorta huwa fid-dmir li jhares id-drittijiet tal-minoranzi fil-pajjiz.... Bhekk Sur Seracino Inglott, fil-bidu tal-legislatura l-Gvern jiehu l-gurament bhala il-Gvern tal-pajjiz kollu u mhux ta' faxxa / sezzjoni wahda fost il-pajjiz. Nahseb li inti kellek aktar f'mohhok il-Gvernijiet tal-Afrika li meta tribu tirbah il-Gvern, toqtol tibujiet ohra fil-pajjiz li jkunu fil-minoranza. Prosit Sur Seracino Inglott.
Joseph Calleja
Jun 12th 2010, 17:56
Mr SERRACINO-iNGLOTT are you afraid or ashamed to mention D-i-v-o-r-c-e by name? Why are you referring to divorce as D. The reason that politicians are afraid to bring up divorce in legislation is because they are afraid of losing votes and they are gutless. Malta and Malawi are the only two countries that don't allow divorce and that is saying a lot. Us Maltese are a bunch of misguided people. We tend to follow the pied piper to much. What does divorce, cohabitation, gay/lesbian have to do with running a country. Don't mix tomatoes with apples.
joe brincat
Jun 12th 2010, 18:25
1) the majority are against taxes, so what should the government do away with them????
2) when iran adopts shia islamic morality as the inspiration for its legal codes, then we call it a theocracy, when Malta choses catholic morality as the source of its laws, we call it democracy, so much for consistency!
3) It is not true that the majority are against divorce! see the times survey!
A Spiteri
Jun 12th 2010, 19:26
@ joe brincat
Spot on!
Ramon Casha
Jun 13th 2010, 06:12
"Now some in Malta are not Catholic but up to now the majority is."
Don't make the mistake of assuming that every Catholic is against divorce. If all Catholics agreed with everything the church says, condoms would rarely be sold and nobody would have sex before marriage.
Here's a thought - introduce divorce and then instruct all Catholics to refrain from it. That way, everyone would act according to their conscience.
M Grima
Jun 12th 2010, 14:39
Not debate but legistlation
C. Farrugia
Jun 12th 2010, 15:39
Debates lead to nothing. Divorce is a long awaited right.
Please choose the reason of your report below: