Very short guide to the humbug

In the wake of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's Private Member's Bill proposing divorce legislation, be prepared for a procession of the compassionate and the good to tell us, in measured tones, just why we should be thinking what they are thinking.

Here, in no particular order, is a very short, partial list of some of the hackneyed phrases we can expect to hear.

Why not do everything we can to save marriage first?

This suggestion is effectively a recommendation for a moratorium on divorce. The key word here is "first". It suggests that divorce legislation could be countenanced after all else fails. But what counts as "all else"? We would need to establish that every programme of mediation and marital education had been tried. In the best way possible, with sufficient funds and human resources, etc.

Even that might not be enough. Rates of marital breakdown fluctuate, even while embarked on a long-term trend. (That trend, in several western countries, is that of marginal decline, although the drop in rates of marriage is partly to explain for this.) Sometimes rates fluctuate in relation to the economic cycle of boom and bust. So, given the large number of variables that influence marital breakdown rates, the evidence for the success or failure of efforts to "strengthen marriage" will not be in for a very long time - not until there is sufficient experience to be able to weigh the relevant factors.

So anyone who suggests a moratorium should be asked to specify its length and what would count to change his or her mind.

A matter of conscience, not imposition of one's beliefs.

This familiar argument suggests that being against the introduction of divorce legislation can only be justified by "Catholic belief". In fact, Catholicism does not oblige its adherents to oppose divorce legislation; if there is any attitude that flows from religious belief, it is that introducing divorce cannot be seen as a blow for liberty but, rather, as a necessary evil (in those cases where one's judgment, inescapably political, is that less mess is created by the introduction of divorce than by the alternative).

The Roman Catholic authorities in Malta have always stressed the sociological nature of their arguments. The fact that some of the arguments are shaky is neither here nor there. In so far as they ask to be judged on secular evidence, they are secular arguments.

Therefore, to say that Maltese law should not be based on a religious understanding of marriage, good in itself, simply cops out of addressing the main anti-divorce argument being made by the bishops.

To show that the anti-divorce argument is actually religious, one must first address the bishop's arguments about the social consequences and show that they are irrelevant or mistaken with respect to the Maltese case.

Why don't we have a full and mature discussion in civil society?

A politician's argument, this is really another way of saying: Why don't we wait till a clear majority in favour of divorce has evolved, so that my party does not have to take a decision that splits its core vote down the middle?

A free vote.

Another argument designed to avoid a political party's responsibility to have a platform. In this case, it is justified by saying that divorce is a matter of conscience or too delicate a matter.

However, all major reforms - fiscal, social, health, pensions, rent - are delicate reforms, with a profound and wide-ranging impact on society. That is usually an argument, however, for a party to develop a nuanced and technical position that tries to accommodate the different interests.

Anyone who says that marriage law reform is different should be asked why. If they invoke "conscience" or "imposition of one's belief" you know what to tell them.

Second chance.

Yes, the opportunity to remarry does give a second chance. Indeed, unless the law limits the number of remarriages possible, it gives several more chances. But what kind of chance is it?

Is it another opportunity to give it a go, using one's own resources? Or will one's chances of succeeding receive a helping hand from the state in the form of various forms of aid?

The question is as old as political discussions of opportunity and social equality. The opportunity to remarry - successfully - will not be equally available to everyone.

So advocates of second chances should be asked what they mean. If they are only advocating a change in the marriage law then they are establishing their credentials as liberal conservatives. If they are advocating a levelling out of chances, then they are social democrats... but they should be expected to say how they expect to do it and how much money they think it will cost.

Some of these arguments can be used to build up a good case for each side. But only if the additional issues they raise are addressed, not avoided.

ranierfsadni@europe.com