Divorce decision will be made - Prime Minister
A decision on divorce would be taken, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi promised yesterday, admitting he was “scandalised” by those who wanted to cut corners and finalise the issue within weeks.
He was speaking on the Nationalist Party’s radio a short while after Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat said responsible divorce was “long overdue”.
During a radio interview, Dr Gonzi was adamant that, although a decision had to be taken, this could not be rushed. He said he was “scandalised” and had “deep concerns” about those who wanted to cut corners and conclude the matter within weeks, as if they were making “pastizzi” (cheesecakes).
He acknowledged the issue had to be tackled “head on” and promised not to sweep it under the carpet, insisting, however, he would not accept any guillotines because this serious topic merited serious discussion.
“After we discuss the issue internally as a party, we will start the debate in Parliament... and then see what the next step should be. That’s the only commitment I am willing to make,” he said.
Dr Muscat urged Dr Gonzi to give Nationalist MPs a free vote in Parliament, underlining the fact that his own MPs could speak freely on the issue.
He noted the “confusion” that ensued when Nationalist backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando said the Prime Minister promised a divorce debate and a referendum next year only to have the statement toned down by Dr Gonzi within hours.
“We had one meeting and two versions of what was discussed, with the Prime Minister seemingly agreeing in private on a referendum,” Dr Muscat said, adding that he would campaign for divorce whether the decision was taken in Parliament or through a referendum.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
23 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raymond Bezzina
Oct 18th 2010, 20:09
The large majority of those in favour of divorce are constantly repeating that there are thousands of broken marriages, so the government should allow divorce; and they continue to say that those who are against divorce will not make use of it, if they so wish.
The fact that divorce is evil in itself, and evil begets more evil, this is already a good enough reason not to legalise divorce.
Every politician has the duty and responsibility to legislate entirely in favour of truth and righteousness, regardless on how many marriages are breaking down.
Every politician must tackle a problem at its early stage and not after it deteriorates. For example, when politicians notice practices which harm the family union, they must act immidiately, and not let them aggravate, otherwise things will go from bad to worse.
If our politicians argue the same as those which I have mentioned in my first paragraph above, I believe that in the future, they will be pressured to legalise pornography, abortion, drugs, and other harmful practices.
I sincerely hope that our politicians will not legislate in favour of any evil practices.
Raymond Bezzina
Oct 18th 2010, 16:45
The large majority of those who are in favour of divorce are constantly repeating that there are thousands of broken marriages, so the government should allow divorce; and they continue to say that those who are against divorce will not make use of it, if they so wish. The fact that divorce is evil in itself, and evil begets more evil, this is already a good enough reason not to legalise divorce. Every politician has the duty and responsibility to legislate entirely in favour of truth and righteousness, regardless on how many marriages are breaking down. Every politician must tackle a problem at its early stage and not after it deteriorates. For example, when politicians notice practices which harm the family union, they must act immidiately, and not let them aggravate, otherwise things will go from bad to worse. If our politicians argue the same as those which I have mentioned in my first paragraph above, I believe that in the future, they will be pressured to legalise pornography, abortion, drugs, and other harmful practices. I sincerely hope that our politicians will not legislate in favour of any evil practices.
A Cassar
Oct 18th 2010, 18:52
You don't get it do you?? So if someone is beaten up by her husband and files for divorce to remarry someone who respects her.....is she "evil"? There are other "evil" things.....like alcohol, cigarettes, promiscuity, gambling....(and others according to the church like contraception, homosexuality, sex outside marriage, masturbation)....should we make those illegal as well?? You are against legalising what YOU think is evil......and it seems that you think that politicians should agree with YOU on the definition of "evil"
Paul Barrett
Oct 18th 2010, 19:25
Divorce is only evil in the minds of those still oppressed by a branch of the Christian faith, it has no substance and no place in a secular state. There is a social need to allow those legally separated to legalise a new family relationship by a civil marriage. Failure to bring in legislation to allow this to happen will result in an ever increasing social disorder. To bring "pornography, abortion, drugs, and other harmful practices" into the argument is really grasping at straws.
Philip Sultana
Oct 18th 2010, 16:45
I really do not see a reason for delaying the process. The issue does not concern religion, morals or values but freedom of choice. Those who do not wish to follow the teachings of the christian religion, for whatever reason: perhaps because they are non-believers, or perhaps they have a different faith, or even if they are true catholics but choose not to follow the church's rules on divorce, should have the possibility of getting a divorce. The state should not impose it's moral values on the people. This would make it no better than the few oppressive Muslim states to apply sharia law as state law.
Paul Barrett
Oct 18th 2010, 19:10
Very well expressed and absolutely right.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Oct 18th 2010, 14:12
@ Anthony Falzon In a democratic environment a political party would debate a policy issue within the confines of its Executive Body with the unanimous understanding that at the end of the debate a vote will be taken and the will of that majority becomes the party policy and the minority would support it. The parliamentary group, also represented in the party’s Executive Body would then execute the will of that majority in parliament. On the other hand the majority within the Executive Body may decide that the item under review does not need to become a party issue and all party’s MPs will be left free to vote at will. At the end of the day, a secret vote in parliament is never allowed as that undermines democracy- voters have got a right to know whether their representatives in parliament are respecting their electoral promises. This, in a way, is what devolution of power is about.
James De Giorgio
Oct 18th 2010, 13:24
Nah, I agree with Gonzi here. It should be discussed well. Even though some argue it's overdue, it doesn't mean it has been discussed yet in a good manner. Look at the EU membership debate. Negotiations started in 1995. The referendum was held only eight years later, in 2003! Though I'm sure it won't take long, I'm all out for a decision to be taken after the next election. Two years can't be considered to be a long time and I feel it would be perfectly respectable to give it some thought. Even though I have the feeling that we're going to be sickened hearing about divorce these two years, and I'm not looking forward to that...
Paul Konti
Oct 18th 2010, 13:16
I can assure you, Dr Gonzi is quite capable of dealing with the issue of divorce and does not have any fears to come to a decision. What he will not do is RUSH into a decision (under pressure) in order to please people and win votes. He is a very intelligent person, of good character, and a good leader. Maybe I am biased because I am known to be a P.N. supporter. But I am also proud to be a practising Catholic and, as such, I obey the directives of my bishops. They have studied the issue of divorce at a much higher level than most of us; so the bishops' word is to be considered 'gospel.' If one really wants to be a good Catholic, say NO to divorce!
Paul Barrett
Oct 18th 2010, 19:06
Agreed 100% if your faith demands that you say no to divorce and you religiously follow that faith then of course you should say no to divorce. This is a personal choice and you are not being forced to apply for or accept divorce. However in a secular state, by what right do you believe you have to prevent those of a different belief from obtaining a civil marriage should the wish to do so. Lets be honest, divorce legislation will not effect you personally one way or the other if you do not wish it, so why prevent others from any chance of a legally recognised family unit.
Paul Barrett
Oct 18th 2010, 11:43
Procrastination is not going to solve the increasing social problem. There are now many hundreds if not thousands of legally separated individuals, some who have formed successful and happy family units running into many years and have been prevented from obtaining a civil marriage.
Some (but undoubtedly not all) wish to legalise their position in civil marriage and they should have the freedom of choice to do so.
Legislation in favour of the freedom of choice to apply for divorce following legal separation does not effect the rights of those religiously or morally against divorce not to apply for or recognise divorce.
In a secular state It is unjust to withhold legislation in favour of divorce based on religious laws of one particular religion, even if those bringing in the legislation themselves are bound by the laws of that religion. This in fact could be aligned with change in law to decriminalising gays - you don't have to be gay to approve the change in the law.
Anthony Falzon
Oct 18th 2010, 11:09
What scandalizes me is to hear both political party leaders saying that they will give a free vote to their members......I always thought that in a democratic parliament the members where free to vote as they deem right.......so much for freedom and democracy.
Jeremy j Camilleri
Oct 18th 2010, 11:01
Could not be rushed?
Its 2010.....and we're still going to start discussions!!!!!!!!!!!!! and then he says we're in a hurry!!!!
Ramon Casha
Oct 18th 2010, 10:53
The PM may have been asleep for the past few decades, but nobody's cutting corners. We've been discussing this matter for years, even if parliament and his party has not.
His solemn promise to consider the possibility of thinking about the concept of giving the matter some attention is not fooling anyone.
Joe Zammit
Oct 18th 2010, 10:45
Divorce cannot be accepted nor voted for even if it is proved that it is beneficial to the whole society. Divorce is evil, condemned by Christ.
The end never justifies the means. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. This applies even if divorce were beneficial to the whole society.
What God has joined together let no man put asunder. This must be the primary reason for refusing the legislation of divorce.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Paul Barrett
Oct 18th 2010, 14:24
Quote: even if it is proved that it is beneficial to the whole society. Divorce is evil, condemned by Christ. Unquote. I think there is something in the book about not working on a Sunday - presuming working on a Sunday is evil, do you suggest that we do away with electricity, Police, Fire, Ambulance, Doctors, Nurses, Hospital Workers, AFM, Pharmacists, Café, Restaurant Staff, Media Staff (including T.V., radio and Newspaper Staff) Politicians and of course members of the Clergy every Sunday or would you agree that their services are beneficial to the whole of society.
Ramon Casha
Oct 18th 2010, 14:30
May I ask whether you have sold all your possessions and given everything to the poor? Judging by your enthusiasm, I'd expect you to have done everything possible to live by Jesus' teachings, right?
Right?
Joseph Calleja
Oct 18th 2010, 15:32
What are you saying JZ? So if divorce is proven to be beneficial to the whole society according to you, and you alone, we should not vote for it. You are starting to sound like a politician and I am sure you don't want to do that. You sound like somebody from those crazy religions that refuse to take medicine in spite of the consequences. In some cases we call that murder. You are going against the grain here.
Joseph Calleja
Oct 18th 2010, 17:45
" The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!" While you are at it, can you give me this weeks winning lotto numbers?
martin saliba
Oct 18th 2010, 19:36
"Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed! " You are putting your god in a very akward position. What if , no sorry , when dicorce is legalised , what will you say ?
M. Azzopardi
Oct 18th 2010, 10:19
Dr. Gonzi is right....people should be given all the information and there should be time for a national debate to take place before holding a referendum. After all a few months time won't make such a big difference for such as issue to be decided.
Miguel Micallef
Oct 18th 2010, 09:51
Dr Gonzi, what scandalises me is your inability and fear to deal with the issue and come to a decision. You like like an unsure and awkward teenager, at best.
Charmaine Marmara'
Oct 18th 2010, 10:22
well said Mr.Micallef