Website aims to drum up support for divorce legislation
A website aimed at rousing support for divorce has attracted some 700 people to sign a petition.
Divorceinmalta.com was set up to provide information about why divorce should be legalised in Malta, its founder Jonathon Shaw said.
"On a personal level I believe the state should eventually legalise divorce. This website is a good tool to disseminate such information and to measure the direct response through an online petition."
The website highlights the need for the state to introduce divorce legislation in Malta and allow people who are legally separated to re-marry after the civil dissolution of their marriage.
"It is obvious that different people will have different views on the matter, but I don't see why people should be against the introduction of divorce if it does not affect them personally. The fact that someone is pro-divorce does not mean that they are unhappy in their relationship, or that they will have to get a divorce."
When asked if a referendum should be held about divorce in Malta, Mr Shaw said this would not be a democratic way to tackle the issue since the issue affects a minority.
"The eventual legislation of divorce means that this will not be imposed on anyone... A Referendum is held when there is a national issue which affects the majority and one is directly or indirectly affected by the outcome. Should we then have a referendum on whether petards should be banned? They are a nuisance, generate noise pollution and whether you like it or not are literally imposed on us!"
Mr Shaw believes the divorce debate should be targeted at legislators in parliament as well as the Government, both of whom have the ultimate responsibility for the state and the well-being of Maltese society. "Neither party should fall into the trap of politicising divorce, but should work together to make a positive change by allowing for much-needed freedom of choice on this issue.
75 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Feb 24th 2011, 10:30
BORG IN-NADUR: 17 ta' Novembru, 2010:
Uliedi, illejla tajtkom prova ċara. Iva wliedi, għalhekk Ibni Ġesù qed jibgħatni hawn, fuq dil-gżira. Għalhekk għażilt dil-familja kważi ħames snin ilu. Għalhekk ridt lil Angelik u lil Catherine. Iva wliedi, Ibni Ġesù ma riedx jara żwieġ imfarrak. Għalhekk ħames snin ilu bagħatni hawnhekk, nerġa’ ngħidilkom. Ġejt inħabbrilkom minn qabel x’se jseħħ fuq dil-gżira. Kien hawn min fehemni u oħrajn lanqas biss taw widen.
Ftit taż-żmien ieħor se jkollkom għażla f’idejkom intom stess. Oqogħdu attenti x’tagħżlu wliedi. Iġġibux il-gwaj fuqkom.
Fejnhom fil-familji l-imħabba, l-għaqda, il-maħfra, is-sinċerità u t-talb flimkien? Fejnhom? Għalhekk illum kulħadd qed ifarfar minn fuq spallejh mal-ewwel intopp li jinqala’.
Iva wliedi, il-qalb tiegħi u l-qalb ta’ Ibni Ġesù muġugħin minħabba fikom. Jiena muġugħa għax jiena omm li nħoss għalikom.
Akkost ta’ kollox uliedi, jiġri x’jiġri, ibqgħu għidu: “LE GHAD-DIVORZJU, LE GHAD-DIVORZJU!"
U għidu r-rużarju u ġiegħlu lil ħaddieħor jgħid ir-rużarju.
Grazzi talli smajtu s-sejħa tiegħi.
David Caruana
Sep 9th 2010, 22:00
Referendum or not, the people will have the last say on this matter. We're already witnessing a decline in marriages. People nowadays are getting a better education and a greater exposure to information therefore they are in a better position to figure out themselves that they need neither Church nor State to build a family.
Stay out of this mess... DO NOT GET MARRIED!
David Seychell
Sep 9th 2010, 16:27
"When asked if a referendum should be held about divorce in Malta, Mr Shaw said this would not be a democratic way to tackle the issue since the issue affects a minority."
I'm not convinced by this conclusion. Divorce is, essentially, an alteration/modification of the laws concerning the institution of marriage. In other words, once divorce is introduced, the instituition of marriage would be somewhat different. Introducing divorce means having a "changed" institution of Marriage. Therefore, divorce would alter every marriage contract, including all the existing ones. In this sense, divorce affects the majority and not the minority.
Dr Joe Brincat
Sep 9th 2010, 18:01
@David Seychell. Legally you are right, as any such law would be of general application. It would be pointless if it has a start date. No one is excluded from having recourse to such an action.
What Mr Shaw is saying is that it is needed by a small portion of society. It is hoped that marriage breakdowns remain a small proportion, whatever the law is.
Jfarrugia
Sep 8th 2010, 14:35
My parents divorced when i was 16, at the time it wasnt the nicest experience especially for my younger brother, but why should my parents stay together when they no longer loved one other, they made the decision and 20 odd years later they are both with new partners and both healthy and happy. I turned out fine as did my brother and i got married and swore i would do my best never to go through what my parents did so in a way i had the chance to learn from it. Divorce is a second chance for those people who after all either made a mistake or are very unhappy in there life. Who are we to decide on their behalf.
David Seychell
Sep 8th 2010, 15:49
"Divorce is a second chance for those people who after all either made a mistake or are very unhappy in there life. Who are we to decide on their behalf."
We did not decide on their behalf. They did. They freely DECIDED to get married and signed a life-long contract. The contract they decided to sign did not allow the possibility of remarriage (divorce).
joseph micallef
Sep 9th 2010, 12:21
Mr. Seychell - all contracts may be broken with the consent of both parties. You talk as if there are no separations or annullments! Don't tell me that in a separation the couple are still married - that's simple hogwash as very few really behave as if still married - while most find other partners and cohabitate!
David Seychell
Sep 9th 2010, 15:36
Joseph Micallef - Marriage is actually more like a contract between three parties: man+women+society.
O. Sant' Angelo
Sep 8th 2010, 12:08
Been through the website. With particular regards to "Divorce & Children", can you provide any references? I would prefer reading the research and coming to my own conclusion rather than reading your summary. For example I would like to see statistical data supporting the statement that divorce is "an opportunity to structure the post-divorce parental relationship in a way that is deliberately designed to serve the best interests of the child."... is that what actually happens?
Raymond Bezzina
Sep 7th 2010, 17:23
@ Jonathon Shaw
In the last sentence of your article you spoke of " freedom of choice " with regards
to divorce.
Mr. Shaw,
Those who are in favour of abortion argue exactly the same with regards to abortion,
hence: that women should have freedom of choice to murder their own child, if they
want to.
Every time I read an article such as yours, I become more convinced that if divorce
would be introduced in Malta, pressure would increase by those who are in favour of
abortion, to introduce abortion.
I deeply believe that there is a direct connection between divorce and abortion, which is
that evil generates other evil, with the result that things will only go from bad to worse.
In almost all the countries of the European Union the heinous wilful murder of the
most innocent and defencless is legalized. With such a mentality there can never
be truthful respect and compassion towards others, because if a person does not
respect an innocent and defencless child, how can that person respect others, who
after all are not so innocent ? Is this so difficult to realize and understand ?
A Cassar
Sep 7th 2010, 18:44
This is a totally illogical argument!!
First of all the argument of freedom of choice for abortion makes no sense, since it involves another person with no choice...the child
Secondly in many countries giving voting rights to women has happened before abortion was introduced....does it mean that we should not give this right to women as it leads to abortion?? There were no teenage pregnancies when teenagers were kept at home to wash the floors....maybe we should not give any freedom to girls lest they become pregnant
R.Borg
Sep 7th 2010, 16:52
Do not forget:
You will have to face your God at the end of your life whether you believe in it or not and whether you like it or not.
VERRA' IL GIORNO.....Don Abbondio to Don Rodrigo in 'I Promessi Sposi'.
Everyone is accountable and giving an account of our decisions could be just behind the door.
Marius Zulgis
Sep 7th 2010, 17:21
...and when all else fails, resort to threats.
Mark Borg
Sep 7th 2010, 17:45
I don't believe in god and I won't be meeting god when I die thank you very much. Your threats are rediculous.
martin saliba
Sep 7th 2010, 18:05
The only whether you like it or not is that divorce will be introduced to malta.
Joe Grima Brussels
Sep 7th 2010, 18:06
Mark Borg.
Whether God exists or not does NOT depend on R Borg's, or my belief in Him. Or on your DISBELIEF, for that matter! He is there, and everybody has to meet Him on his WAY OUT! That is, unless you would like to exit this world by some other means!!!!
Many an unbeliever, a couple of whom I know personally, asked for ONE THING on their deathbed: a priest by their side! This in spite of all the boasts during their lives that God does not exist; that the church is antiquated; that they live as they wish;.........
Good luck.
Maria Caruana
Sep 7th 2010, 19:09
Joe Grima Brussels,
Once again you hit the nail on its head! There is nothing more to add to your comment. Well said.
Mike F Abbot
Sep 8th 2010, 00:02
@ Joe Grima Brussels
You are so right. Whether God exists or not does not depend on whether you believe in him or not. How you come to the conclusion, though, that regardless of your belief he exists is beyond logic or reason.
You can't just claim he is there... like that stands as some sort of undeniable statement of fact?!
If you want to beleive he is there, fine go ahead, no one is stopping you are they? Other people have their own views on the matter and they are no less valid than yours.
And by the way, while we're on the subject. I find it quite disturbing that you feel judgment of your actions is deferred to after death. Can't you just concentrate on the now? Just be a nice person, now mmm? If God exists and he is all seeing. he will see. No need for threats.
David Caruana
Sep 7th 2010, 16:07
Apologies, the name of the website was included in the article.
Joe Zammit
Sep 7th 2010, 16:00
Legislating in favour of divorce is grave sin that separates the offender from God and puts him or her on the path to hell.
Legislating in favour of divorce is legislating in favour of evil, condemned by God.
Legislating in favour of divorce is betraying God who tells us that what he has joined together, let no man put asunder!
Legislating in favour of divorce is a diabolical step that pleases only the devil.
Legislating in favour of divorce makes you responsible before God for the grave sins others will commit on account of your sinful and evil legislation.
Johnny Muscat
Sep 7th 2010, 16:34
We want SIN, we want EVIL, we want the DEVIL!!!!
It is none of your business Joe ZAMMIT. In this country we are free to SIN!!!
Mike F Abbot
Sep 7th 2010, 16:44
Legislating against divorce forces your selfish will on Gods people
Legislating against divorce protects abusers and allows them to continue to inflict harm their partner.
Legislating against divorce allows the devil to continue his diabolical work under the veil of 'no divorce equals happy marriage'
Legislating against divorce makes you responsible before God for the misery of his children trapped in broken marriages with no hope.
Legislating against divorce, drivel, gibberish, devils, evil blah blah
how's that for cut and paste?
Sandro Agius
Sep 7th 2010, 16:46
Well, what is a sin will not become a grace just because not to repeat the 60's saga....Divorce is evil in himself because it thinks that can turns a promise given to God and brings forwards the sin of adultery, which St.Paul in his letter to the Corinthians said; "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Cor 6:1-11)
Now, here you can say whatever you want but for the believers, they must know that they can laugh to the back of people, and of there conscience but they will not laugh on the back of God. And the hour will come, not now with the babaw of the Mortal Sin of the 60's but with the eternal damnation for those who agreed in favour of sin.
There is a website infavour of divorce? So what? There are so many Catholic Pro-Marriage websites too....nice to note that so not to be biased.
Christopher Xuereb
Sep 7th 2010, 17:02
Mr Zammit, I don't care two figs for your God, your bible or even your devil. Kindly have the goodness to allow me to sin as much as I please and mind your own business.
martin saliba
Sep 7th 2010, 18:09
I have asked you time and again and i will ask once more. What do you say with regard to the shops , grocery stores include , that sell condoms ? Are they sinning with every sale they make ? Have you ever used a condom and sinned as well ?
O. Sant' Angelo
Sep 8th 2010, 12:20
Joe, you may mean good, but your comments are having the opposite of the effect you desire.
Comments like Johnny Muscat's are disturbing to read, but they are a natural consequence of your fundamentalist attitude. No matter your conviction, we all need to speak a common language here or the whole matter will degrade into a childish 'church, old-people-mentality' vs 'state, liberal, young-cool-people' argument.
So... if you really care about your stand against divorce, keep singing but change your tune.
Anthony Castillo
Sep 7th 2010, 15:43
@ VICTOR Borg. I to remember the 1960's and just to remind you because although you'r 73 years old it looks like that you start to forgot what really happens in those years because all it happens was that Dom Mintoff starts the war against the church and the P N got nothing to do with it, they just campaign those elections only on the needs and political issues of those years and the Maltese electorate choose the PN under the great man Dr George Borg Oliveir and he dose not need any help from nobody to convince the Maltese people because he was a great onset politician. He was respected and believed even from his political rivals and not a TRAITOR which like somebody else that his own people gives him the name.
eugene sapiano
Sep 8th 2010, 17:07
I do not remember the sixties, I'm in my early fifties, but I used to go to the Public Library to take a look at those times newspapers, and amongst other things I found a list of directives given to priests at a meeting held for them late in 1959, before Mintoff's six points or his invitation to Mgr Gonzi to hold a debate at San Gwann t'Ghuxa.
Besides that at the supposed religious meetings held at the granaries Floriana many a time happened that there were people with Nationalist Party Scarves, not to mention Nationalist candidates.
H Galea
Sep 7th 2010, 15:22
I vote YES for divorce for two reasons. The church imposed us to marrage, but does not support couples after marrage. If we have a problem, we have to wait for three years in line at the Kana. This is absurd. Other point is the State. If we are married we have less privalages then singles. What i mean is TAX rates ratio, adding two singles allowances are better then married allowance. The List is endless in all sphers where the State has placed his fingerprints on marrage. What's the use to have more burden on us because we are married, the State is abusing of marriage, try the means test, the SINGLE and couples all fall in one basket. On the media as from 06:00 till the next day talks about religion is every day. Pls give us a chance, for a few times, listen to us, we are here, we do have a voice, stop- using the media as one way traffic. When the rot in marrage has gone deep, the solution is never reached, thanks to the church/ State, we have no one to turn too. We all want to save our marriage, but things went astray.
D. Doublesin
Sep 7th 2010, 14:38
"…but I don't see why people should be against the introduction of divorce if it does not affect them personally"
Why not? Neither does abortion.
Marius Zulgis
Sep 7th 2010, 15:53
Divorce, for the UMPTEENTH time, has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Still perhaps I am being obtuse - could you explain the connection to us?
A Cassar
Sep 7th 2010, 16:08
Yes ABORTION does affect someone else...the UNBORN CHILD!!!
So in the case of abortion one is deciding on the fate of someone else who has no say in the matter. There are 2 parties, the mother and the child.
In divorce there are two parties, both of which can decide for themselves!!
D. Doublesin
Sep 7th 2010, 20:07
Why can’t I be against something which does not affect me PERSONALLY?
@A. Cassar
Abortion affects the unborn child but not me PERSONALLY!
P. Borg
Sep 9th 2010, 10:26
Please separate the two things. Abortion and divorce are just two different arguments. Divorce is freeing someone possibly in a bad situation, abortion is killing someone else. While I am almost convinced that abortion should not be introduced, I am fully agreeing with divorce. In many cases of broken marriages divorce will help people while abortion will only spread death and will make women who don't care about getting pregnant more into it because then they will rely on it. So please here we are discussing divorce NOT abortion.
D. Doublesin
Sep 9th 2010, 16:52
@P. Borg
My point is that I have the right to be against divorce even if it does NOT affect me PERSONALLY. I am defending that right as one day the above statement could be directed at you too even if abortion would not affect you personally.
A.Gatt
Sep 7th 2010, 14:19
Did not know about this site, off I go to sign the petition. :-)
R.Camilleri
Sep 7th 2010, 14:13
Sur Shaw,
Din il-website ghamiltha biex is-sahhah l-ideja tad- divorzju. Jien nahseb ahjar ghamilt wahda kif ghandna insahhu l-familja, ghax meta pajjiz jghati c-cans li jitkissru l-familji jkun qed jghati cans li jitkisser il-pajjiz. Fejn mhemmx 'Alla' li Hu kollox mhemm xejn hlief tharbit. Naqas hafna t-talb u l-bniedem sar jahseb li kapaci jsolvi l-problemi wahdu, biss qed jarralu bil-kbir. Imsieken it-tfal il-Generazzjoni taghada li sar kollox xejn mhu xejn u svaccattament quddiem it-tfal u kulhadd. Il-bniedem qed isir ar minn annimal. Niehdu hsieb nidraw inficcu s-suluzzjonijiet bil-pacenzja u saggrifficju, mhux dan lanqas ghadu jezizti. Mur gib lit-tabib jaqtalek idek jew sieqek flok jipprova s-sewwi.
Jesmond Micallef
Sep 7th 2010, 14:02
I will quote very specifically here: "They are a nuisance, generate noise pollution and whether you like it or not are literally imposed on us!"
You refer to "US" here, Mr. Jonathan Shaw. Are you a public figure ? On what democratic collecive grounds do you speak ? What are, and have your credentials been formally endorsed ?
Christian Sciberras
Sep 7th 2010, 17:14
I would presume that his definition of "us" would be "all those that dislike petards".
Unless you meant to say that you believe no one else shares his opinion, in which case, I'd say you're very much mistaken.
Jesmond Micallef
Sep 7th 2010, 19:05
Indeed, you "presume" Mr. Christian Sciberras, you're not imposing, well done !!
David Caruana
Sep 7th 2010, 13:45
It looks rather strange that the article does not include a link to the petition, so here you are:
http://www.divorceinmalta.com/signpetition.php
It seems that more than 100 more signed up since this morning, so link or no link...
THANK YOU TIMESOFMALTA!
victor borg
Sep 7th 2010, 13:35
@Roger Abdilla i happen to be one of the many thousands of the PRORESSIVI U MODERATI.
Can you please tell us why you are so high and allmighty to call us idiots. I happen to be a regular church goer and i have never heared the church teachings telling us to rubbish others but be humble. Please mr.Abdilla stop using the church to help your political cause. I am allmost 73 years old and i hope before the Lord calls me i will not live through those dreadful 60's again
when the PN conviniently used the church to win two elections.
Cassandra Miggiani
Sep 7th 2010, 13:24
What a shame this is. Divorce should never enter Malta, and citing other European countries as reasons why we should include it are ridiculous.
Malta is too good for divorce.
joe gatt
Sep 7th 2010, 14:05
`Malta is too good for divorce`
But absolutely perfect for the `Pogguti`, (separated & cohabiting) perhaps that is what you mean?
Must be some time since you last visited, these Island??
Christian Sciberras
Sep 7th 2010, 15:04
"Malta is too good for divorce."
Right. Riiiiight...
A. Bartolo
Sep 7th 2010, 15:13
Re "Malta is too good for divorce".
What a holier-than-thou attitude. And how short-sighted. Try changing "Malta" to "The Maltese" - are you still convinced that most people, yes even Maltese (shock horror) are so "good" (in your holy terms) that they would want to sacrifice a large part of their lives to an unhappy marriage??
Are you suggesting that people who want divorce are bad people, by the way? That's a bit judgmental and uncatholic, don't you think?
Mike F Abbot
Sep 7th 2010, 15:25
Malta is to good for many things. Tax evasion for one. It's illegal but we still have it. Do you seriously think the lack of divorce actually saves marriages? really?
You can't legislate a broken marriage away. There are real people trapped in a hellish situation that they never envisaged happening or planned for and now they have no one to turn to.
Do you really want to be the person that turns a blind eye? i mean, you would have to be blind to think that there is nothing wrong in that marriage, that everything is ok, that the children are not being effected by long drawn domestic battles that accompany failed marriages held together with nothing but idealism.
You don't see that in your statistics do you?
As long as the great Maltese marriage stats say all is well, then you are happy.
So sad.
J Caruana
Sep 7th 2010, 13:02
Excellent. I'm signing too.
William P Flynn
Sep 7th 2010, 12:29
A referendum to legalize divorce woud be won.
J Farrugia
Sep 7th 2010, 13:08
just try it man and we will see who will laugh last. The majority will have it its way since they want the family to be the perm of our society.
Marius Zulgis
Sep 7th 2010, 15:50
Divorce is hardly a "laughing" matter. It's deadly serious and a fundamental human right. Some people may be happy keeping up appearances but seeing someone else on the side, but the introduction of divorce legislation allows people a second chance. It is no longer a question of majority anymore.
Gerry Cowie
Sep 7th 2010, 19:21
Mr Flynn
I think you will find that a referendum would indeed be won - but it would be won by those who do not favour divorce.
What Mr Shaw is doing - whatever his motives and agenda - is to conduct a constructive debate as opposed to mud-slinging at the Catholic Church. You might like to take a leaf out of his book!
No doubt his petition will be conducted in a manner which prevents all parties from voting more than once or for voting on behalf of others and all the other possible abuses to which these things can lie open.
Remember that at this point only 700 recorded signatures have been received.
I am not presenting a case either for or against divorce, and make no apology for that. what I am pointing out is that a debate may be carried out in a constructive way if people would only drop their prejudices and concentrate upon the facts alone.
P. Vella
Sep 7th 2010, 12:28
woww!!! 700 people! congratulations! hahalool. that accounts for around 0.2% assuming voters are around 300,000. a very good start
Marius Zulgis
Sep 7th 2010, 12:51
Lets see if you're still laughing in a week's time.
M Brincat
Sep 7th 2010, 12:53
I am not signing the petition because I'm happily married and divorce is not on my agenda BUT come referendum day I will vote yes for divorce firstly because I don't like to impose on others (as much as I don't like others imposing on me) and secondly because people like you and Mr Joseph Zammit makes me do so by your one track minded attitude.
S. Fenech
Sep 7th 2010, 14:21
In less than two hours since you put your comment, more that 142 others had signed the petition. That is more than 19% of what were signed before this article was published.
Divorce is a civil right. Religion should not be involved in this. After all, whether or not divorce is introduced in Malta, the Christian marriage is still insolluble through the same divorce. It is a matter that is handled by the civil law, giving the possibility for couples to have civil recognition of their new relationship together.
No one should expect the Church to accept divorce within its structures. So let it be. The state can have laws which might not be 100% compatible with the Catholic teachings. It is up to the Catholics to stick to the Catholic Church's rules (and that include me). The rest can do as they like, within the state's laws.
The state can educate more on the advantages on stable marriages, and the Church can increase its efforts to educate more on how to strengthen relationships. The rest is history.
Pauline Calleja
Sep 7th 2010, 16:38
The petition is nearing a thousand!!!! And all this in a few hours.
I think all this "laughing" is coming back to haunt you!!!!!
roger abdilla
Sep 7th 2010, 12:21
Is this site another CRUSADE againt the catholic church? Is it another crusade against the family? Is this website another idea of the progressives and modern idiots? Is this another site for the perverted few who want their egoisms to reign supreme over the rational and healthy families we have in our country? Aren't these the same people who dont want the Catholic church to mount a Crusade against Divorce? They want their ideas to be the only ones discussed in our country. Never. They will face a tough crusade from the lay family people who dont want to be led by their noses in breaking up our families.
Ramon Casha
Sep 7th 2010, 12:41
Is it a bird? Is it a plane?
No, it's a website that is trying to introduce the fundamental human right of divorce to Malta, and to strengthen families whose very existence is currently not recognised by the state.
Paul Barrett
Sep 7th 2010, 12:50
If you think outside the box you will see that far from busting up families, divorce legislation actually assists people from already broken marriages to form a legally recognised family.
This is not a crusade against the Church - no faithful member of the Church has to take advantage of divorce legislation but it is an option should they so wish to do so.
Mark Zerafa
Sep 7th 2010, 13:06
Some comments about your post, Roger:
(1) This website, the whole pro-divorce ideology indeed, is not AGAINST anything, but rather, in FAVOUR of the right of the individual to make his/her own choices in life, to enhance his/her sense of fulfilment and happiness.
(2) You refer to "ideas": The pain and personal circumstances in people's lives are not "ideas" but a tangible scenario that the individual goes through and has a right, and a need to deal with.
(3) You refer to "our families". Sorry, my friend, don't talk about our families. It's MY family, YOUR family, HIS family, HER family. We are all individuals with a right to make OUR choices in life.
(4) Led by our noses, you say? By who? The Roman Catholic CHurch, maybe?
J Farrugia
Sep 7th 2010, 13:09
divorce is no human right and this was endorsed by the ECHR.
L. Grixti
Sep 7th 2010, 13:12
You're not real are you?
The laws of the state do not interfere in the laws of the Church, so it would be right if the Church did not interfere with the laws of the State.
The Catholic Church is not the only religion here in Malta. Let divorce be possible through the State, and not approved by the Catholic Church, big deal. People not living their marriage are already committing a mortal sin anyways according to your Church, so what's the big problem? You can't go to hell twice.
Chris Reiff
Sep 7th 2010, 13:21
"They will face a tough crusade from the lay family people who dont want to be led by their noses in breaking up our families."
CRUSADE! Just the word I was hoping to see! We all know how morally and ethically right the crusades were, and how they didn't try to force people into believing stuff, don't we?
Breaking up families? If you're still as dim-witted as to think that without divorce families don't get separated, then look up some numbers and live in today's world! Thousands of people are separated in Malta and raised another family out of wedlock! Divorce just gives these people the right to remarry! What in the WORLD is wrong with that?
Kris R
Sep 7th 2010, 13:38
Modern idiots? Crusade? You need to drag yourself out of the past and behold the future. Women in marriages who sustain abuse, you are saying that they do not have the right to divorce? Or people to grow in an unhappy families? Why would a healthy family divorce? A sad wife or husband would create an unhealthy marriage?
In the old testament `Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people’s hearts, not because they were God’s desire’ and to prove that the rule of an invisible entity or the son of by way of selecting various books/memoirs which fit the picture according to a society of 1500 years old…with a few changes here and there of course…ahem the new testament. The modern people are beginning to part from blind faith and `think for themselves’, and it is great!
Sabrina Borda
Sep 7th 2010, 13:50
Mr Abdilla, your paranoia against divorce is unfounded.
If you are indeed happily married please stay so.
Many families are already broken up, if you haven't noticed these people walking amongst you, then you may easily not notice divorced people because it may simply not be your concern.
eugene sapiano
Sep 7th 2010, 15:06
Roger can you tell me why you are referring to us as idiots? Are we not entitled to our opinion? I remember when Dr Alfred Sant founded a committee to look in the possibility of divorce being introduced ,in Victoria Gozo, close to St George's Church there was a poster saying Id-Divorzju jgib il-glied u tbatija fost l-ulied. I wish to ask whether this poster was also sanctioned by the Church.
I happen to have signed this petition in spite of being an active member of a religious group. I am also founder member of the Movement for Divorce way back in 1982.
Mike F Abbot
Sep 7th 2010, 15:10
I just want to take your comment point by point.
“Is this site another CRUSADE againt the catholic church? Is it another crusade against the family? “
A crusade typify the idea (usually a religious one) of forcing your will on everyone. Legalising divorce forces nothing on anyone while denying divorce does.
“Is this website another idea of the progressives and modern idiots? “
You have to laugh. Since when has progression and modern thinking been led by idiots? I think, my friend, you’ll find it’s the other way round.
“Is this another site for the perverted few who want their egoisms to reign supreme over the rational and healthy families we have in our country? “
Or... your ego reigns supreme in thinking that supporting the ban divorce is doing your bit to keep families happily together? Believing that that takes massive ego.
“Aren't these the same people who dont want the Catholic church to mount a Crusade against Divorce?”
I think we can agree, crusades are a bad thing. So no, we don’t want the catholic church to mount a crusade. Problem with that?
Mike F Abbot
Sep 7th 2010, 15:11
“They want their ideas to be the only ones discussed in our country. Never. “
This might be your little ego talking again. Debate is what we want. By ‘our country’ i assume you actually mean ‘our’ country –as.. in yours and mine?. By ‘Never’ I assume you don’t want to discuss the ideas of whoever ‘they’ are? Odd person.
“They will face a tough crusade from the lay family people who don't want to be led by their noses in breaking up our families.”
Back to crusades. You do like a good crusade don’t you?
Karl Consiglio
Sep 7th 2010, 12:18
Well said Jonathan Shaw. I'm signing.
Paul Barrett
Sep 7th 2010, 12:07
There is an argument that divorce will undermine the meaning of marriage; It will not. Marriage is already undermined by annulments, separations - both of which seem to be on the increase and of course the current trend of co-habitation.
Divorce, already accepted if it is granted by Courts outside Malta should be granted following a period of time (one year) after a legal separation has been granted.
There is no logical or social reason to prevent two people having the choice of a civil marriage should they so wish following the absolute and legally recognised breakdown of a previous marriage.
Joe Fenech
Sep 7th 2010, 12:02
From your website: It does not prevent or undermine marriages which last and remain stable for life, nor does it create a culture in which divorce becomes the norm.
When something is legal, it is acceptable by society at large, and therefore it becomes the accepted norm.
Joe Zammit
Sep 7th 2010, 11:52
On the latest survey on living and income conditions released by the National Statistics Office, a pessimist would say 7 per cent of marriages have failed. An optimist would be satisfied that 93 per cent of marriages are still going steady. A realist looks at both and tries to help failed marriages to heal and steady marriages to become stronger.
Only 7% of our marriages have ended up in separations and some of these do not want divorce.
A Cassar
Sep 7th 2010, 16:15
So that is great......why are you so worried??
7% only seperated.....some of them don't want to divorce.....why all this fuss Joe?
Why does it bother you that some people don't have your same beliefs? How will it affect you?? Your wife gonna leave you if there is divorce??
Amanda Bennetti
Sep 7th 2010, 17:41
"Only 7% of our marriages have ended up in separations and some of these do not want divorce."
And they don't have to get divorced but those that wish to, should have the option.
Some marriages are broken beyond repair!!