Six myths about divorce

While the energised debate about divorce is bearing some fruit, it is also sprouting a lot of weeds, myths that obscure the vital issues. The most insidious, in my view, frames the question as being about the Nationalist Party's soul, which prevents us from seeing just how much Lawrence Gonzi is acting out of political character so far.

But to see that, it may help first to wade through a few other myths.

The PN has been traditionally against divorce.

A tradition is intergenerational or it is nothing. The only time the PN has ever formally addressed the matter, to my knowledge, was during the 1997-2000 period, when its executive council declared itself against divorce. That is not a tradition; it is a circumstantial assessment.

To be objective, one must/cannot have experienced marital breakdown oneself.

No, to be objective one must at least have systemic information, for Malta, that goes beyond personal experience and anecdote.

However, while the final decision can be well-informed, it is inevitably disputable because it is based on a judgment about social consequences.

Divorce is a matter of minority rights.

Divorce redefines a public institution for everyone, even the unmarried (not only, but not least, because the nature of the institution affects the degree of its attractions). It is a right granted to everyone, even if only a minority of the married population avails itself of it.

In practice, a divorce rate can rise to 50 per cent and over (as it did, according to one index, in the Czech Republic, as well as, historically, elsewhere). Indeed, the case for divorce legislation grows as the rate rises.

And one does not have to need divorce oneself to consider oneself directly involved. The numbers rise considerably when one includes those who want divorce on behalf of family or friends.

Since marriage is a public good, the overarching value should be stability.

Stability is certainly an important criterion but is it the only one? The value of authenticity is crucial, too. It may sometimes trump stability - as when the Church weakened the authority of the Roman paterfamilias, or the mediaeval family clan, to permit new kinds of family feeling to flourish.

In 2010, what erodes the authenticity of marriage more, permitting re-marriage after legal separation or having the distinction between marriage and cohabitation blurred, because of the sheer number of cohabiting couples who, because they cannot marry, even though they would like to, are considered quasi-married by society? (In the same way that separated spouses have begun to be considered, in practice though not at law, "ex-spouses".)

One cannot make one's mind up on that one relying on pure principle, logic or intuition. One needs an assessment of the facts on the ground.

Divorce provokes a battle for the PN's soul.

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, in The Sunday Times, has already explained why there is nothing incompatible between Christian Democracy and legislating for divorce. The crucial virtue is good sense: making a judgment which would lead to more harmful social consequences, prohibiting divorce or permitting it.

It is worth pointing out that Fr Peter's view is mirrored in that expressed by Eddie Fenech Adami. Contrary to a common fantasy, Dr Fenech Adami never declared, as President, that he would refuse to sign a divorce law. In fact, in one of his last interviews as President, when asked about divorce his reply was that (a) he did not think the circumstances were right for its introduction and (b) he hoped it would never come to that. In other words, he can grimly see that it might.

Former minister Michael Falzon has been saying for some years that the time to introduce divorce has come. But the difference between him and Dr Fenech Adami concerns how they judge the present circumstances, not principle.

Dr Gonzi has been true to his political character when declaring himself against divorce.

Dr Gonzi's political persona is that of a master of detail who can reel off statistics, sliced in any number of ways, to explain trends in women's employment, pensions, economic growth, etc. Even when he's trying to wriggle out of a locked casket, you know you are dealing with someone familiar with the nuts, bolts and chains.

Now compare that with his performances on divorce. On Xarabank, challenged by Joseph Muscat, he flapped his hands and exclaimed: "I'm against divorce but why can't we all discuss it?" Last week, it was: "I'm against divorce and in favour of strengthening the family."

This kind of waffle is very uncharacteristic. Should the real Lawrence Gonzi decide to stand up, he would do two things.

First, he would ask for statistical analysis of marital breakdowns in terms of age cohorts, income groups, educational attainment, number of children involved and duration of marriage. Such information would help him judge (and argue) whether the upward trend in marital breakdowns can be halted and reversed. It would give him more ballast if he remains convinced that "strengthening families" not legalising divorce is the way forward.

Second, he would ask for a modified Human Development Index for married and separated couples and their respective children. By comparing life span, income, educational attainment and access to ICT, he would be in a better position to speak about divorce and to what extent it would increase social vulnerability.

Without such arguments, one can understand why many people would continue to fancy that behind Dr Gonzi's current position lies the hairy, warty claw of the Church.

ranierfsadni@europe.com