Fallacies in anti-divorce arguments

I’m always struck by the fact that all of the common anti-divorce arguments being made are logically invalid.

Take the argument “from religion”. This argument states that divorce is against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and should therefore not be introduced in Malta, a Roman Catholic country. This argument is faulty because it assumes that since most Maltese people are born Roman Catholic, therefore it follows that the government should enforce the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith. This argument fails to take into consideration the fact that not every Maltese citizen is a Roman Catholic and that while many are born Roman Catholic, they do not necessarily agree with each and every one of the Vatican’s doctrines. Moreover, in a non-theocratic state, the government does not slavishly follow the dicta of religious institutions. To do so would entail abandoning reason in favour of the rules of religious authorities (which may be, but sometimes are not, rational). In this context it is also useful to note that the Roman Catholic attitude to divorce is by no means unequivocally consonant with Biblical texts, and indeed there are many variants of Christianity which do accept divorce in certain circumstances.

Another, perhaps even more common argument against divorce is that regarding “harm to children”. Indeed, “think of the children” is the mantra of the anti-divorce lobby. This argument is, at least superficially, an attractive one; no one wants to harm children.

However, emotionally powerful as it may be, it is still faulty. First of all, this is not an argument against divorce per se but against divorce in a specific circumstance i.e. divorce between spouses who have children. The dissolution of a union between a childless husband and wife clearly cannot harm “the children”.

Moreover, this argument conveniently ignores the harm to children that occurs whenever a breakdown between a married couple takes place. The argument fails to note that while there is correlation between divorce and harm to children, there isn’t causation: it is not divorce itself that harms children. The harm is caused by the various circumstances (such as marital violence) that eventually can lead to divorce just as they can lead to a separation or annulment. In this context it is useful to ask: Who is better off, the child of a married couple who witnesses domestic violence on a daily basis, or the child who lives with a single parent, bereft of the attentions of a parent but living a life free from violence?

When faced with the above arguments, anti-divorce lobbyists often counter that introducing divorce would increase the rates of marriage breakdown, because people will get married without really thinking things through. The high marriage failure rates in certain countries that permit divorce are often cited in support of this argument. The problem is that this is not an argument against divorce legislation; it is an argument in favour of people being careful before committing to marriage! If this argument were correct, one would expect to have insignificant rates of marriage failure in Malta, since people, aware of the magnitude of the commitment, would be wary of entering into marriage recklessly.

Yet we know that this is not the case and indeed the country’s rate of marriage breakdown is increasing in spite of the fact that divorce legislation has not yet been introduced. Indeed, this kind of argument makes the mistake of considering divorce to be a cause of marital breakdown, when in reality it is a symptom. Marriages fail and then people opt to divorce. No happy couple will resort to divorce, and therefore it is illogical to claim that divorce will in itself somehow lead to higher rates of marriage failure.

I understand that anti-divorce lobbyists are a largely well-intentioned group of people who have the wellbeing of the Maltese family at heart. However, keeping divorce out of the statute books will do (and is doing) nothing to help the Maltese family. Indeed, if we are to truly help the Maltese family, the energies of the anti-divorce lobbyists are better directed towards addressing the root causes of family breakdown, rather than illogical campaigning against divorce legislation.