Nowadays, if someone writes against divorce, citing religion or in any way indicating any religious beliefs or quotes from any religion, people in favour of divorce seem to go on the defensive in the most aggressive way. I am, in fact, expecting my article to suffer the same faith. Don't worry, this is not another religious article. My intention is to present arguments against divorce from a completely humanistic and practical approach while, at the same time, being most sensitive to people living in difficult situations and therefore, are very much in favour of the introduction of divorce.
With the rite (or contract) of marriage, the couple commit to each other to stay together "... in sickness or in health, in the good or the bad", till death of one of the spouses or, putting it in legal terms, till one of the parties to this contract dies.
Therefore, assuming that the parties to this contract are legally capable of entering into a contract at the time of signing, then the rights and obligations of this contract are equally binding.
One should also note that the wording is purposely the way it is.
The contract of marriage is binding in all circumstances and not, as divorce assumes, till one of the parties, for whichever reason, decides that s/he no longer wishes to honour the contract they entered into weeks/months/years before. There is also a human and emotional perspective which is even more important.
How can I believe the word of my partner in marriage when she states that she loves me and expresses the words above (in sickness or in health, in the good or the bad, till death of one of the spouses) when, at the first opportunity, she files for divorce? Is that real love? Do we want to live in love or marriages of convenience?
We also need to devote attention to those persons who, out of legitimate suffering from being abandoned by their spouses, question why they should remain bound to the person who cause them continuous suffering.
These people could have been suffering domestic violence, adultery, etc. One should understand their suffering and empathise with them and offer as much support as one can possibly give.
Some also argue that divorce is the possibility for those in suffering to have a second chance in life. Is it truly so? Doesn't the sense of abandonment and hurt for being left alone by your old partner remain?
And what about the children of these broken families? Aren't they marked for the rest of their lives due to this unlucky situation?
I am not saying that people who are suffering from their partner's actions should remain with their partners.
These people should surely stop living with their partner. They need to protect themselves and their dependants.
However, no matter what your partner has done to you, even though your partner is breaking the words s/he expressed when s/he got married to you, does it give you the right to break that same promise yourself? What about sickness or health or in the good or the bad?
Or is divorce a way to get back to our partners in seeking revenge? Does it mean that we no longer love our partner even though they might have left with someone else who is maybe younger and more attractive than we are?
Is there any value in the words expressed in the rite or contract of marriage? Do we really understand the meaning of what we are stating with these words? Should one value what one says?
I consider myself to be a young adult who, however, is honoured to assume responsibility of whatever I say. So, if I stated the above words when I married my wife, I understood that, no matter what happens, even if my wife decides to leave or if I decided to leave, that does not mean we are no longer bound to each other till the death of either one of us. If I were to leave for whichever reason, I will need to shoulder the responsibility that no one (not even myself) should ever take value in what I say or commit to.
Why not change the wording in this rite/contract of marriage to replace "till the death of one of the partners" with "till one of the parties decides to leave for whatever reason"? If this were the case, then I would question what sort of relationship I'm in; whether my partner truly loves me. Do we want this sort of bond or commitment with/from our partners? I would rather not get married in the first place. The rite of marriage in its present state is intended to manifest true love by the total giving of one to the other. With the introduction of divorce we are denouncing this invaluable characteristic in our lives.
In conclusion, one should not assume that whoever is against divorce is necessarily either doing so because of religion or else does not understand the life of suffering others would be going through. The introduction of divorce is not the solution but, rather, the dismantling of society. Rather than introducing divorce, we should focus more on offering support to those that have been abandoned and, more importantly, ensure that couples who want to go into civil marriage as a sacrament truly understand what they are going in for. In doing so, we would ensure they would truly and heartily profess those words to their partners, to the one true love of their lives.
No man is an island. We might be surrounded with people. However, without true love, no matter how successful we might be, we will find no meaning in our lives and, be it as individuals or as nations, in the long term, we will perish.