Movement formed to fight divorce
A “pro-marriage” movement opposing the introduction of divorce has been set up and is being launched today. .
Żwieġ Bla Divorzju (marriage without divorce) member André J. Camilleri said the group’s main objective was to raise awareness on divorce and its negative impact on society, now that divorce was high on the national agenda.
“We now know what the issue is, it’s even tabled in Parliament,” Dr Camilleri said. “This is our way of voicing what we feel on this issue.”
The movement is composed of individuals from “very diverse” background, ranging from young university students and their lecturers to married people and people who experienced marital breakdown.
“The idea is that through this diversity, the movement will see its message being carried through to all spheres of society”.
A united anti-divorce front has been conspicuous by its absence since the raging debate was ignited in July, when Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino tabled a Private Member’s Bill calling for the introduction of divorce, based on the Irish model.
Until very recently, the divorce debate had mostly been carried out by individuals rather than organisations, with the exception of the Catholic Church and Alternattiva Demokratika, both of which had made their positions on the subject clear.
However, with the possibility of a referendum looming on the horizon, this changed when in November, Dr Pullicino Orlando joined forces with Labour MP Evarist Bartolo and AD leader Michael Briguglio to form an official pro-divorce movement.
A month later, the two MPs tabled a joint Bill calling for the introduction of divorce, this time with amendments which they said better reflected Maltese legislation.
At about the same time, the anti-divorce camp was stirred into action and the idea of an awareness campaign finally “gelled”, Dr Camilleri said. Even though the Church has been vociferous in its opposition to divorce it had decided not to launch a centralised campaign, leaving a void where a strong antidivorce front could have stood.
The new movement, stepping in to fill this gap, is however “not religiously motivated”, Dr Camilleri said. “The idea is that whoever has an interest which matches ours is most welcome.”
To back its awareness campaign, the new movement is expected to launch studies and research conducted locally in the last four or five months, as well as experiences and studies from overseas. “It’s a pool of knowledge one should definitely not ignore.”
The movement, according to Dr Camilleri, will cease to exist once a decision is taken.
“What we’re saying is we’ll respect any decision that is taken by this country but the least we would expect is that before you take a decision, be it the large institutions or individual citizens, please be informed – know what the impact is.”
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
226 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 14th 2011, 14:33
@DavidGatt'
“ … that contract (marriage) stands as long as those 2 parties agree with having it in force”.” (David Gatt)
“ … as long as those 2 parties agree … “. There is the rub David! You must not assume that BOTH marriage partners agree with divorce application willingly and not under ill-concealed blackmail. Even hotly contested divorce applications usually end in divorce, anyway.
“Uncontested” divorce does not mean that both parties are giving their consent willingly and not under duress. Very often an innocent party is constrained to apply for divorce only after years of physical and mental torture by an irresponsible spouse who wants the freedom to change partners for purely selfish reasons and regardless of the sacrifices made by the other suffering spouse and the needs of other family members. Divorce actually gratfies and rewards these irresponsible criminals.
David Gatt
Jan 14th 2011, 15:48
@Dr Francis Saliba
Calling people who go through divorce 'irresponsible criminals' speaks volume about your beliefs and religious indoctrination.
You failed to answer on what I asked in this part of my post, let me retype it for you: In what ways divorce in Malta would be worse for children or state than: 1. Seperation, 2 Church approved annulment, 3 Divorce approved from overseas
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 14th 2011, 17:41
@DavidGatt. Are you unable to understand my plain English or do you only pretend? I did not call ALL or MOST people who go through divorce 'irresponsible criminals' ". The whole comment clearly restricts that condemnation to those spouses who deliberately inflict years of physical and mental torture on their wives/husbands, making their married life intolerable, in order to obtain a release to marry their latest fancy. Your comment could make sense only if in YOUR opinion most, if not all those who clamour for divorce laws make their married life a hell on earth for their spouse so as to obtain a release from a deliberately wrecked marriage so as to change partners. For all I know you may be right - but you are saying it, not I. "Separations" and church annullments do not pander to these criminals and I do not condone divorce obtained abroad. The relative merits/demerits of these procedures do not concern me because the deplorable effect on young children is not the sole objections to divorce. There are others e.g. injustice to the innocent spouse, "rabta coff" marriages and the increased demands on the social services resulting from serial marriages/divorces, Nevada style.
Mike F Abbot
Jan 13th 2011, 16:54
Marriage is a legal contract just like any other legal contract. In every country there is a legal framework in which you can agree with the involved parties to re-negotiate, amend or dissolve contracts.
Divorce may be against the rules and beliefs of the church but no one is forced to abide by those rules and beliefs and so the church's view is only relevant on a personal level to those who wish to follow it.
Those who argue that divorce is wrong and should be against the law, based on religious values, are essentially trying to force religious beliefs on people. That's most people commenting here. Whether that is a reflection of the majority 'no to divorce' camp, i don't know.
It IS a complex subject, but until we discuss it based on worldly facts, NOT religious beliefs, we will never have a satisfactory outcome. If the law remains, many people will (rightly) feel that religious view forced on them because the argument was won based on religious sentiment which would go against a certain human right - The Right to Freedom of Religion.
Kieron O'connor
Jan 13th 2011, 14:46
The arguements are as old as the hills and over time around the world they have found to be non relevant to the real question.
Should two adults who wish to get divorced be aloud to divorce. No individual despite there own personal views can stand up and say, no..they should not be allowed to divorce..as it is the couples choice.
Further more, no individual in a marriage should be forced to stay married if they so chose to get divorced for whatever reason they chose.
I am pro marriage and believe in it deeply, but at the same time I am mature enough as an individual to aknowledge people should have the choice if they so wish for whatever reason to divorce, and I am comfortable enough in my own faith to not feel weakened by people making choices.
The question is not, do you believe in marriage or do you believe in divorce.
The educated question is, do you believe people should have a choice?
DGalea
Jan 14th 2011, 15:09
But what happens when a spouse wants a divorce and the other does not? The divorce will still go through . How's that for justice and human rights?
Kieron O'connor
Jan 14th 2011, 18:53
Marriage is a union of two people, if one wants out then there is no union and no marriage. As I said in my post above the individual who wants out should not be forced to remain married and should be allowed to get on with there life. This is not a new science, it is tried and tested across the world, allow people to chose, dont force your opinions on others, and as I have pointed out in my above post my opinion and my belief is strongly in favour of marriage, but I wont force my opinion on others.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 13th 2011, 14:42
@David Gatt
Only an incredibly selfish person would claim that he is entitled to do what he likes with his life even when his decisions impinge on the rights of others. It is selfish to claim the right to marry and remarry according to a whim regardless of the obligations towards the marriage partner, the children brought into this world, and the social neighbours who pay taxes so as to provide social services for the needy and not to satisfy the selfish demands of some Casanova making life a hell for his wife and children only because he decides to embark on abandoning one partner and marrying another. One does not have to be a “christian religion” dictator to shoulder the responsibilities towards family and society.
Kevin Cassar
Jan 13th 2011, 16:21
@ Dr Francis Saliba
The quoted "obligations towards the marriage partner, the children brought into this world, and the social neighbours who pay taxes so as to provide social services for the needy " are taken care of by the court of law so nobody is claiming that anyone can scrap any legal obligations.
The irony of it all is that this movement and all those who support it are failing to notice (let's assume that they are not doing this intentionally) that the country already accepts divorce. So unless all these goodwilled persons start a fight to change the maltese law that accepts a divorce that is issued in another country, they can only be known for what they are - HYPOCRITES.
Dr. Francis Saliba
Jan 14th 2011, 04:45
@KevinCassar.
All citizens of the European Union (divorced or not) have the right to freedom of movement throughout the EU and can reside anywhere in it without discrimination. To interpret that freedom of movement as Malta “accept”(ing) divorce or that someone can “be divorced in Malta” is childish quibbling by the usual “HYPOCRITES”.
David Gatt
Jan 14th 2011, 12:17
@ Dr Francis Saliba 'Selfish' are those people who want to impose their religious beliefs on others. A marriage is a contract between 2 people and that contract stands as long as those 2 parties agree with having it in force. The cancellation of this contract will have an effect on the country no different than the effect of canceling any other legal contract. And if you wanna mention children and repercussions then answer me this: In what ways divorce in Malta would be worse for children or state than: 1. Seperation, 2 Church approved annulment, 3 Divorce approved from overseas
Kevin Cassar
Jan 14th 2011, 13:53
You should perhaps check what "Hypocrites" means before you direct it towards me. Can you name somthing which I claim to bellieve but do not???
Mary Borg
Jan 13th 2011, 11:13
Jesus said divorce is not good. The pro divorce movement says divorce is good. Who should we trust the most, Jesus or those who don't trust their own word? Who is the most trustworthy, the Son of God or those who want a law that permits them to go back on their own word?
What a dilemma!!
Karl Farrugia
Jan 13th 2011, 16:40
You can do so yourself, and I applaud you for sticking to your belief.
However you might need to do your homework about the religion you believe in.
First off Jesus said that divorce is bad unless there's martial unfaithfulness.
Secondly, you might remember that Jesus was not a bigot, and never denounced other religious beliefs and other people's way of life. Rather, he gave his opinion on various topics and invited everyone to follow his advise to live a better life.
Thus, as a Christian who should follow Jesus's ways, you should do 2 things: 1. give advise to people, based on your religious beliefs. 2. If divorce is introduced, should you separate from your husband, don't apply for divorce.
On the other hand, since I'm not Christian, I can have my own opinion and do as I please.
David Bonello
Jan 14th 2011, 10:07
The choice is not between "what Jesus said" and what "pro divorce lobby said". If it were like that things would have been much simpler!
The choice is between WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU THAT JESUS SAID...and the "pro divorce lobby". Or maybe you heard Jesus yourself?
Roderick Micallef
Jan 13th 2011, 07:38
It seems that in Malta we have a lot of people that don't have much things to do except dictate on others, here are a few points why Divorce should be introduced NOW :-
1. Divorce is not Good vs Evil like some people are trying to portrait it but is just an opportunity for ALREADY seperated couples to re-build their lifes with another partner
2. People blinded by faith have the right to do what they want BUT have no right to point fingers at others and call them evil, this goes against the faith they believe in completely and confirms how ridiculous these people are.
3. Divorce will NOT increase pain on children as children are ALREADY suffering if their partners seperate and co-habit with another partner! This is a simply a lame excuse.
4. Whether we like it or not people that can afford it, can already take a Divorce abroad and is recognized in Malta. Therefore, not having divorce available in Malta is simply a social injustice on those that can't afford Divorce abroad. No one can deny this!
5. The only cause of Divorce is marriage so without Divorce we are saying NO to marriage!
Marvic Psaila
Jan 13th 2011, 07:13
I do not think anyone is "pro-divorce". I believe that if you marry a man or a woman, you are agreeing to be bound to them for life. However, there are certain instances when divorce should be allowed. No one gets married with the mindset that they will end up divorced. People get married because they love someone, and believe that that person loves them back. A marriage is a partnership, which means both parties have a responsibility to fulfil a particular role, whatever it might be. Saying all of that, sometimes things just do not work out, no matter how hard you try, no matter how good your intentions were, no matter how much help and guidance you seek for. There is nothing worse than being with someone who is not in love with you anymore or who you no longer love. Children are not glue, and they will not magically make something work. Happy parents divorced, are far better than miserable parents married.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 13th 2011, 00:17
@Paul Barrett.
You assume wrongly that divorce is a recognized fundamental human right just like the internationally accepted freedoms of speech, of movement of religion etc. identified as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights etc. You are WRONG. The right to divorce is not recognized in those declarations. That is why no one accepts the challenge to identify the source of the "right" to divorce - it does not exist except where granted by local jurisdictions. You start from the wrong premise that divorce is an established “right” or “freedom” and then proceed to the wrong conclusion that this inexistent right is only waiting to be codified locally. You are enmeshed in a circular argument based on a false premise namely that divorce is a fundamental human right – which it is NOT. It is only an item on the wish list of the pro-divorce lobby
Anthony Roberts
Jan 12th 2011, 20:31
A couple get married in the Catholic Church, they attend pre-marital classes, they live together happily but in time husband turns against wife and wife against husband. This is against God.
Promises at the marriage ceremony are made, but are broken by the husband or the wife - this is against God.
Children are denied to wives who believe that when they get marriage children have been promised - this is against God.
Husbands beat their wives - leave them when they are sick, leave when they don't want to know any more - this can also happen with wives - this is against God.
DIVORCE IS NOT EVIL IT IS A SOLUTION.
john attard
Jan 12th 2011, 20:25
I just saw the news, they held a conference at the Grand Exelscior i think.
5 people showed up.
5 people were journalists.
Charlene Giordimaina
Jan 12th 2011, 19:22
Finally I can take a deep breath.
I'm very glad at this splendid news. A VERY well done to all those involved!
This is how it should be in a democratic society- where EVERYONE should have their say! It's very selfish to say that only pro-divorce arguments can be spoken.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 12th 2011, 18:52
"Marriage breakdown rate slowed after introduction of divorce:" (Kenneth Cassar)
You mean that after the backlog of pending divorces was cleared the number of applications for divorce naturally fell. That is not the same thing as "marriage breakdowns rate slowed".
Karl Farrugia
Jan 13th 2011, 16:43
You'll learn "Dr." Saliba, that marriage breakdown is separate from divorce. Divorce, separation and annulments are the consequences of a marriage breakdown.
What he said is that the amount of marriage breakdowns decreased.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 12th 2011, 18:42
@PaulBarrett.
The fallacy in your comment is that you are NOT arguing for any stable marriage in the interest of social stability. You are rooting for a “rabta coff” style of marriage that would predictably end in Nevada style marriage cum divorce on request.
Robert Callus
Jan 12th 2011, 17:31
In a democratic society, these people have a right to express their opinion. I fully respect that.
My fear is that they start hitting below the belt. For example "pro-marriage" imlpies that the opposite is "anti-marriage". This is obviously not the case for the pro-divorce movement. We are only for the dissolution of FAILED marriages.
Statistics can be easily manipulated. Example: In the last 20 years separations have increased. The reasons are many from stress at work, to less of tolerance towards domestic violence. They increased even though there ISN'T divorce. The question is: HAD THERE BEEN DIVORCE introduced 20 ago would this movement attribute THE SAME increase in marital failure to divorce?
Andrew Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 17:59
Hahaha! Hitting below the belt and manipulation! The sheer cheek! Which planet do you inhabit?
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 19:18
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Is that your best shot at Robert Callus' post?
DGalea
Jan 12th 2011, 23:44
Have you checked on the statistics pertaining to the breakdown of several hundreds of marriages contracted civilly in recent years between foreigners and Maltese girsl for the specific purpose of obtaining Maltese citizenship?
Dont you honestly believe that the breakdown of such sham marriages may hyperinflate the actual number of failed GENUINE marriages in Malta and give a false inpression re the urgent need to introduce divorce as some sort of panacea to cure all evils?
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 13th 2011, 08:30
The planet where divorce is everywhere (bar Malta, which perhaps is not on the same planet) a civil right.
J magro
Jan 12th 2011, 17:31
I don't understand all this fuss on divorce. There are many things that as per the laws i have the right to do but i still don't do because i don't want to. i can go to work abroad but i chose to stay here, i can Drive a motorcycle but i don't. So let me add another thing to that list. Whoever is against divorce doesn't have to divorce just bacause it becomes legal. Live and let live
Joe Zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 16:38
There is absolutely no compassion in divorce. Promoting divorce is promoting evil for the detriment of all people. What is harmful to all people is not compassion. Christ knows more than all of us what is good for us: he commanded us never to resort to divorce.
1. Divorce is a great injustice against God.
2. Divorce is a great injustice against the family
3. Divorce is a great injustice against the children
4. Divorce is a great injustice against society
5. Divorce is a great injustice against the spouses themselves.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it’s already guaranteed!
Chris Mifsud
Jan 12th 2011, 17:49
People like you want to bring Malta back to the dark ages.
A. Mizzi
Jan 12th 2011, 20:02
What is an annulment than- customised divorce for "Catholic" hypocrites who want to re-marry in a Church for all to see??
J Fenech
Jan 12th 2011, 20:41
1 Civil divorce is not against God. State is separate from church
2 Divorce comes into action after a failed marriage (therefore failed family) not the other way around
3 Divorce gives the chance for children in failed and sometimes disastrous marriages form new loving families
4 Failed marriages are an injustice to society, crap happens, that’s life
5 Leave the spouses decide that for themselves
Someone said “live and let live”. IT wasn't Jesus but was still a good person.
It’s incredible how some people want to dictate how to live others live their lives.
J.Scerri
Jan 13th 2011, 11:01
Thanks Profs. Zammit talli ftahtilna ghajnejna :)
Int bis-serjeta jew !!!!!!!!!!
David Gatt
Jan 12th 2011, 16:01
Are we gonna start to make groups to oppose individual rights now? It's the equivalent of having a group that opposes liberty of speech or the freedom of movement.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 12th 2011, 17:25
"Are we gonna start to make groups to oppose individual rights now? It's the equivalent of having a group that opposes liberty of speech or the freedom of movement." (David Gatt)
I asked before, and now I am asking you. What establishes divorce as an "individual right" and where did you find it? Repeating that rash and untrue statement from dawn to dask does not make it a true statement. It is repeated in the hope that if that lie is repeated often enough it will stick in the sunconscious of the credulous. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and other freedoms are codified. Freedom to divorce is not.
Paul Barrett
Jan 12th 2011, 18:06
@ Dr Francis Saliba
You have it one of the nails on the head. Quote: Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and other freedoms are codified. Freedom to divorce is not. Unquote.
Freedom to divorce should be codified - that is the whole point of the pro-divorce movement. The choice rather than enslavement and a life trapped in a marriage that is dead. In fact the words "until death do us part" is very apt as when a marriage is dead that part of the contract is fulfilled; it does not say "until one of you is dead and buried".
Marriage is good for social stability - allow those that wish to get married the opportunity for a civil marriage, to raise their children legitimately in a happy family environment.
David Gatt
Jan 12th 2011, 23:01
@Dr Francis Saliba
In the interest of making the argument as simple as possible I will explain it like this: I decide what to do and not do with my life. I can decide to marry and I can also decide to stay single. So that also means that if I decide to marry I may decide later on not to stay married. What I do with my life is my own choice and doesn't concern you or anyone else. So I can see no sense in somebody wanting to stop me or anybody else from divorcing and re-marrying. Keeping 2 people together against their will is an act of christian religion dictatorship. Is this simple enough to understand?
K J Vella
Jan 13th 2011, 08:33
Dr Saliba,
If you are a doctor at law then perhaps you may conceive of marriage as a contract under the law of tort which indirectly allows for the parties coming to mutual agreement to stop or to dissolve the contract. The law also provides for the resolution of disputes if agreement does not come about. What is different in marriage from a purely legal perspective? It is a set of ethics that awards marriage its place. There again whether I choose to subscribe to a set of ethics or not, is a question of freedom of choice (I believe entrenched in the constitution). Ergo people should have a choice. I am married and (luckily) happily so; in the face of divorce becoming legal, I do not foresee using the instrument. Unlike what Dr Camilleri is saying, and he should know better because he has experience of it in his jobs, people's marriages do irrevocably breakdown. What are we protecting in that case, face or the principal of Christianity? I would much prefer an anti-divorce movement coming clean and claiming that they cannot accept divorce being legalised because of their Catholic morals rather than hiding behind legal rhetoric
C Muscat
Jan 12th 2011, 15:29
Naqbel ma kull moviment li jrid jesprimi ruhu. Naturalment lil min irid id-divorzju nghidlu tizzewwigx. No marriage no divorce. marriage only once in a lifetime and according to my principles no second marriage in any case not even for widows/ers.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 19:21
Bl-istess argument, lil min ma jridx id-divorzju nghidlu tizzewwigx. No marriage, no divorce.
Oscar Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 20:45
WOWWWWWWWWWW jider li f'din is-sena l-gdid l-estremizmu ser jiddomina aktar
Joe Diacono
Jan 12th 2011, 14:35
I do not think that more blinkered extremists is a fair comment.
Like those who are in favor of divorse there are also those who are against. I think we live in a free country and everybody has a right to his/her opinion. This is not ramming down beliefs but just a voice, catholic or not stating an opinion.
Yes personally I am happily married, and am totally against divorse as a solution, but I will not, cannot ever judge others who are not.
Weather divorse is the solution or not to their problem is based on each case seperately and individually one from the other.
N. Pace
Jan 12th 2011, 13:44
At all complaining about this movement, ever heard of the concept of freedom of speech?
If you don't want to listen shut your ears but there are people who want to listen and know more
grow up.
Kevin Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 17:30
If you had taken a second to THINK before you wrote your comment, you might have realized that the "complaining about this movement" is also freedom of speech.
Talk about defeating your own arument!
Joe E Galea
Jan 12th 2011, 13:28
And the battle begins!!!
david debattista
Jan 12th 2011, 12:41
If you want to marry by the church but cannot get a divorce according to the church, then the church is telling us, Do not get married by the church, because if you do and it not working you are done for....... for the rest of your life! Am I getting this right ? The church should be more concerned about the life style she is promoting by such arguments. I have been to Paceville
last week and what I saw and heard made me sick. Divorce is not the problem, the problem is the mental attitude our young generation has adopted as their life style. As for those of you who think some people do not qualify to talk about such issues then, ask your self why we are in such a mess, same goes for the church! Sorry but I say it as I see it, and as it is. NO MORE NO LESS.
d.attard
Jan 12th 2011, 12:12
how can one described this group as pro-marriage when their main objective is to actively obstruct those who have been involved in a failed marriage to marry a second time if and when they meet what they consider to be the right person? that this group stands for less marriages is a mathematical certainty. I would understand the pro marriage tag if they are for marriage at all cost, prohibiting seperation and cohabitation. But once seperation and cohabitation is a reality, not having divorce simply promotes cohabitation that weakens the social fabric as it presently does.
James De Giorgio
Jan 12th 2011, 11:58
Thanks for balancing the debate at last.
Lawrence Caruana
Jan 12th 2011, 11:31
What about the billboard which was next to Zebbug parish church Why it was removed ?. Why we cannot express our opinion ?Are we a democratic country? Put that billboard back
J Simpson
Jan 12th 2011, 11:31
....and I ask ....why does a priest can no longer be a priest and marry someone?
DGalea
Jan 12th 2011, 11:26
It was about ime that such a movement was set up.
My first suggestion to the new movement is to lobby the state to be more marriage-friendly., and that includes refraining from hiking up the tax rate of working singles who opt to bind themselves in the institution of marriage. The state is in urgent need of more stable marriages with enough money at their disposal to bring up comfortably a family of more then just one or two children.
The pro divorce lobby has yet to get down to the practical nitty gritty when it comes to explaining to the general public from where they suggest ,the govermnet of the day will find the extra money to finance the resulting increase on the social services burden that will inevitably accompany the introduction of divorce in Malta.
Therefore, my second suggestion to this new movement is to start a sensible and logical campaign to inform the general public on the effect on the public coffers and taxpayer pocket, such divorce legislation will have. The general public have a right to know and someone has got to tell them.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 19:23
You'll find your answer here: http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110112/fr-joe-borg/another-voice-in-the-divorce-debate
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 11:26
Marriage breakdown rate slowed after introduction of divorce:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0223/1224265038500.html
rcini
Jan 12th 2011, 11:23
@ ALL
Ma ninsewx hbieb li "dak li jghaqqad ALLA ma' ghandux jifirdu il-bniedem". Fl-ahhar mill-ahhar KULHADD irid xi darba jew ohra jidher quddiem ALLA u jaghti rendikont ta ghemilu.
Godfrey Galea
Jan 12th 2011, 16:12
Min int biex tobbligani nghix u nemmen f' alla tieghek u tobbligani nghix ir-regoli tieghu? Ghixhom inti taht ir-regoli tal-knisja u halli lic-cittadini jghixu taht il-ligi tal-istat.
Christian Sciberras
Jan 13th 2011, 20:34
Godfrey - Let me tell you who he is; he's Catholic. If that wasn't apparent enough.
k xuereb
Jan 12th 2011, 11:15
Don't these people realise that the people who want divorce are those who want to marry? Essentially they are pro-marriage too. If they were "anti-marriage", they wouldn't bother campaigning for divorce in the first place and continue to co-habit.
patrick zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 11:12
Wouldn't we be pro marriage any more "once a decision is taken" either way?
Joe Zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 11:11
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.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 19:25
Ah! Angelik! That explains a lot.
George Scicluna
Jan 12th 2011, 11:08
Dan l istorbju kollu beda meta Joe M. sar il leader tal MLP. Qabel qatt, u qatt ma kien jissemma, jew jigi immaginat dan l orribli id divorzju. M'ghandniex ninsew il valuri Nsara taghna, dawk li sawruna, u sawru lill Patria taghna. Oh kemm kellu ragun Monsinjur Arcisqof Mikiel Gonzi!!! Allura ejjew ninghaqdu fi front wihed kontra min irid ikissrilna l aktar haga prezjuza li ghandna... Il Familja.
G. Fenech
Jan 12th 2011, 11:06
Great, more blinkered extremists to deal with.
What happened to live and let live?
Why do catholics have a bad habit of assuming they have the right to shovel their beliefs down everyone's throat AND feel holier than thou about it?
c. caruana
Jan 12th 2011, 14:42
To you and all the pro-divorce 'blinkered extremists' who are braying against the setting up of this movement, I say, why don't you learn the ABC of democracy? The pro-divorcists have set up their own movement, as they have every right to do. Why shouldn't the anti-divorcists do likewise? What happened to live and let live?
Peter Micallef
Jan 12th 2011, 15:00
G. Fenech is it not right that every individual should have their own opinion on the matter or does only yours count. Thankfully we live in a free and democratic society where we are able to voice an opinion without fear of being persecuted.
I am a Roman Catholic and have my own beliefs, nobody has forced anything down my throat. This is the faith in which I was brought up, but as an adult I had the choice of accepting it or rejecting it. Because I can think and reason for myself I accepted it and at times of stress and sorrow I am able to draw great comfort from it.
My children have also been brought up in the Roman Catholic faith, but as adults they have chosen their own path whereever that may take them.
My I ask, what are you afraid of?
m vella
Jan 12th 2011, 10:56
Rottweilers are out.
M. Tabone
Jan 12th 2011, 13:04
Jekk dawn huma rottwielers min jitkellem favur id-divorzju x'inhu? Jew min hu favur biss ghandu dritt jitkellem? Kulhadd ghandu dritt jesprimi l-opinjoni tieghu f'pajjiz demokratiku. Jew le skont int? Is-sarkazmu hu l-izjed mezz bla sens li tipprova tirbah argument! Jekk m'ghandek xejn xi tghid ahjar toqghod bi kwietek! Ghax taghmel figura ahjar! Ghid l-argumenti tieghek u halli lil min ma jaqbilx jghid tieghu bl-istess mod!
j.cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:53
Prosti lil min ghandu il-kuragg li fil-berah juri li kontra d-divorzju, ghax f'dan il-pajjiz sirna li min hu favur il-valuri u principji nsara sar emarginat, kiesu stramb jew fidil. Nissugerixxi li il-moviment jiftah website biex min hu kontra d-divorzju jkun jista jikteb ismu.
k xuereb
Jan 12th 2011, 11:12
Mhux "stramb jew fidil" imma insensittiv u ntolleranti. Hafna mill-persuni li jridu d-divorzju ghas-semplici raguni li jridu jizzewwgu mill-gdid u minkejja l-isfortuna li sabu fi zwieg li falla (IVA, zwigijiet ifallu), dawn xorta jemmnu fl-impenn u l-valur tieghu.
Izda hafna jinterpretaw il-"principji nsara" bhala jedd li jimponu fehemthom u x-xewqat tieghek fuq hajjet haddiehor waqt li huma komdi fil-hajja taghhom.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 11:15
F'liema sens l-Insara huma emarginati f'dan il-pajjiz?
Josephine Bugeja
Jan 12th 2011, 12:00
Nobody is fighting to dissolve the sacrament of marriage. Divorce means dissolving the civil effects of marriage and the Church has nothing to do with that. Those involved in this movement know this because they know the law. But they believe that the Church should rule as in the middle ages. This movement is just the lunga manus of the Church which still wants temporal power to impose its doctrine on all, whether they want to be Catholic or not. This is a power game. The Church knows it has lost ground but she also knows that divorce will cause it to lose further territory - that's what's behind all this. If divorce is not enacted, anger against the Church will fester even more and the Maltese Church will go the same way as the Catholic Church in the rest of Eruope. The number of faithful will dwindle to insignificance and irrelevance. This is already in the stars and no movement will change it. These busibodies should learn not to poke their noses in the lives of others. To my mind, they are being dishonest in trying to convince us that they are not religiously motivated. We are not morons.
Christian Sciberras
Jan 12th 2011, 12:09
Actually, it's the other way round. Way around.
When was the last time values like these have been debated? Never?
I applaud people like Dr Orlando that doesn't fall under the pressure of political parties, the Church, it's discreet puppets and the majorities' false values.
In a place that is predominantly "Catholic" like Malta, it is outright shameful to see how atheists behave in a Catholic manner than those we get in the Church's frontlines.
Think about it, no need to go far, during each major parish feast, the majority of the attending people don't even know what they're celebrating.
I wouldn't be surprised if people thought they were celebrating Christmas in the name of Santa Claus!
I don't know with what face these same people shout "divorce is sin".
Glenn Attard
Jan 12th 2011, 10:52
NO FOR DIVORCE!!!
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:57
No for CAPS LOCK.
Cecil Herbert Jones K.U.L. EWROPA
Jan 12th 2011, 10:47
New game enveloping the nation.... 'Proxy Wars'!
The Maltese love these games..... Games that keep our 'interest', or at least help us to transcend some harsh realities of life.
The issue on realising pro Divorce legislation is however not a game, and it is not about promoting divorce either! Those who suggest it is so, are playing a dangerous game. Their aim is to win by proxy.
I wish to remind everybody that a Human Right is NOT A GAME! A pro Divorce legislation is a human right.
KUL EWROPA opposes any form of game on this issue.
Nonetheless a word of caution to those who think they can separate Church and Civil codes from each other so easily. A marriage administered by church and government is ONE marriage not two, and a married couple cannot obtain a civil divorce and be free if church does not release them also!
It is a different matter for those couples who had a civil marriage only. Their rite of passage will be clearer if divorce is consented to by law.
KUL EWROPA supports a Pro Marriage Movement that accepts Divorce Legislation!
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 12th 2011, 12:13
"I wish to remind everybody that a Human Right is NOT A GAME! A pro Divorce legislation is a human right." (according to Cecil Herbert Jones of K.U.L. Ewropa)
Please prove to us that divorce legislation is a human right and tell us where it is enshrined, please!
Christian Sciberras
Jan 14th 2011, 11:01
Dr Saliba - I've thought about some reasons, but I reasoned you're not interested in hearing them out anyway, so I'll say one thing...
Human rights are independent of religion.
Charles Sammut
Jan 12th 2011, 10:44
People have already found the solution to the problem of unavailablility of divorce. They do not get married in the first place.
Apparently this is considered a lesser evil than getting married and divorcing. A bit like the case of rape without the use of a condom is a lesser sin than rape using a condom. Fundamentalist Catholic logic at its best.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 11:17
Precisely. Until the anti-divorcists start a campaign for making cohabitation and sex outside marriage illegal, they have no credibility.
Andrew Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 16:50
Insults anyone? Now, we have graduated to slurring other people's credibility! Interesting!
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 18:44
@ Andrew Farrugia:
I don't see any insults or slurs in my comment. However, even if what you say were correct, you beat me to it when, on the launch of the IVA (divorce) movement, you said:
"Some people may be living in the dark ages, but some other people are so illuminated that their brains have been fried to cinders. Hahahahaha".
Insults, anyone?
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 13th 2011, 08:33
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Insults? I haven't called anyone a delinquent (remember J'Accuse?), have I?
Andrew Farrugia
Jan 13th 2011, 12:14
@ Mr K Cassar
From you this is what i have come to expect: insults, arrogance, spin and manipulation.
Ramon Casha
Jan 12th 2011, 10:42
May I humbly suggest that the agenda of this new movement should have one item only: To answer once and for all the question of
WHAT HARM DOES DIVORCE DO, WHICH IS NOT ALREADY CAUSED BY SEPARATIONS OR ANNULMENTS?
If the answer to this question is "nothing at all", then they can turn to the next item on the agenda, which would be "So why does this organisation exist?"
If the answer is "because it's a sin", then the next question would be "So why shouldn't it be legal?" After all it's not the business of either government or parliament to enforce religious beliefs.
Raymond Bezzina
Jan 12th 2011, 12:51
@ Ramon Casha
You said that, quote " WHAT HARM DOES DIVORCE DO, WHICH IS NOT ALREADY CAUSED
BY SEPARATIONS OR ANNULMENTS? " Unquote.
Mr Casha, Divorce, separation and annulment are three totally different issues, but since you
want to mix these three issues together, please know that it is a known fact where one person
sometimes gets divorced six times or more. Do you know of any case where one person got
seperated from his/her marriage, or his/her marriage was annuled six times or more ?
The undeniable fact remains that divorce causes more harm than separation or annulment.
Victor Vella
Jan 12th 2011, 10:41
It is the duty of the church in Malta to be vicifereous against the fight for divorce, and not you Dr Camilleri. You are to wear a shoe that is not yours. You are trying to be a hero when the people who represent the church go to take a holiday. Historically, when the labour governments tempted to raise the divorce issue, the Holy church of Malta-that is more pious than the Pope in Rome- always showed some show of force from its pulpits. Why this time the most noble church zipped its mouth? It could be that it changed the heroes, and Dr Camilleri choose to be one of them. I appeal to all Maltese not to give any heed to this person as he is not authorized neither by the Pope or the archishop of Malta to be the new Shepherd for the people of Malta and Gozo.
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Jan 12th 2011, 10:37
PART 2
People are being wrongly informed and manipulated by the church organizations giving the wrong impression that divorce will create more problems. Divorce comes into play because a problem had already been created within a marriage with one of the partners being abused; threatened; shown violence and so on. These are the victims who need help, compassion and love from society. Divorce is for them a lifeline. And here I must say that the church shows so much of its lack of compassion with these victims. The church must stop at once suffocating these victims and instead give them a chance for another life. I also suggest that Dr Camilleri stops wasting his time and face the reality with society. I want to ask Dr. Camilleri what would he think should one of his children (God forbid) become victims of their married partners? Just a simple question.
Divorce is a civil question and not religious. The Church must stop being manipulative and we are being portrayed as a middle-aged village within the EU.
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Jan 12th 2011, 10:36
PART 1
So now we have a group to oppress the marriage victims. We are told that The new movement, stepping in to fill this gap, is however “not religiously motivated, so why not saying anything against church sanctioned annulments? As Patrick Zammit said, a church annulment has the same effect of a state divorce on the children and gives you the right to marry again after a marriage fails.
Church sanctioned divorces are selective because the outcome depends on whom you know and they are secretive because the spouses are kept in the dark on info that should be theirs in the first place. I never said that should be public, far from it.
Divorce is a civil question and not religious. The Church must stop being manipulative and we are being portrayed as a middle-aged village within the EU.
Christopher Troisi
Jan 12th 2011, 10:45
well still be middle aged ( if thats what you want to call it) for europe, because after generations of divorce they realised they need to nintroduce something else to fix their blunders. and malta actually is not middle aged because nowadays people do whatever they want without giving shit about marriage. In europe divorce was introduced because people were actually bound to marriage. In malta were not, people cheat, change partners, move house and change lifes irrelevant of marriage or not ( not the majority possibly... but a significant number of them). The nonly difference is abroad they divorce and do it and in malta we dont. There isnt that much of a difference. People abroad accept divorce and people dont. In malta people accept your went with someone else because of a broken marriage or not... is the paper the difference?
Ramon Casha
Jan 12th 2011, 10:32
They have every right to form this movement, but it would have been more appropriate to call it what it is: an anti-divorce movement, not a pro-marriage movement.
Ocasr Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:51
Prosit
F Vella
Jan 12th 2011, 10:30
The movement is made up amongst others of :
young university students - WOW they surely have great insight of what a marriage breakdown means!
M Bonello
Jan 12th 2011, 10:44
Divorce is not only about 'solving' the problems of a marriage go wrong. The introduction of divorce also minimizes the marriage committement status as it would be no longer 'something for life' but 'something which can be undone'. This will reduce the need of preparation before commitment. I myself am a young man, still single, but I am unsure of divorce for this very reason. I dont think one needs to have had a lot of experience so that one can think that way. of course there is the issue of unhappy marriages which bring individuals in great pain and cannot be ignored!
Michael Parlato Trigona
Jan 12th 2011, 12:25
It is their future that will be most impacted by the change in legislation and their present - living as dependants on their parents/familieis - gives them the ultimate right, as chilren are always the ones to suffer most.
Christopher Troisi
Jan 12th 2011, 10:28
@stephen young - no it wont stephen. the cohabitation bill which was going to be introduced before all this fuss of divorce came about would have betterred that situation. Something a lot of countries, after seeing the effects of divorce, have decided to start discussing; with some countries having already introduced it.
Divorce per se doesnt solve shit. no one is obliged to live in an unhappy marriage. In fact few actually do. Most of the people just leave, pack and deal with their problems. With some starting new relationships outside of marriage. So the idea that divorce will help these women / or men, abiused or unhappy aint really true.
A cohabitation bill, with rights to already married couples needs to be introduced. through marriage, a certain degree of obligation on both parties is still present. With a cohabitation bill the obligations can then be transfered on the new couple outside marriage if the couple deems it helpful. Removing the legal obligations of marriage doesnt mean divorce, and divorce doesnt mean solving anything except changing ones status from married to single...
Christopher Troisi
Jan 12th 2011, 10:23
@maya fenech. the government serves the people. and if the government might believe that the effect of divorce are not sustainable by the country, then it shouldnt introduce it for the few who need it. An against divorce movement might bring to light the cons of divorce and what other countries had to deal with over generations of divorce. The fairytale view of divorce just being splitting money and material possession and moving on to a new life is ... a fairytale view and nothing else. There is so much more involved. There is a possiblity of relief for both parties but also a possible post-divorce depression, a sense of being lost, a lost sense of security and stability. There are a lot of psychological effects, both within the couple and the society surrounding it which might not always be finally positive. The government needs to look at the whole picture and see if the majority of society will benefit or not. And thats all that needs to be seen. Fairytale views like - all marriages can be fixed, things always work out if you believe in god, with enough time, things will be better after divorce are fairytale views
E.Hughes
Jan 12th 2011, 10:20
I have nothing against divorce! I believe that divorce has no influence what so ever on how people live and reason during marriage. Divorce is just another option that couples will have incase anything goes wrong during marriage that unfortunately could not be solved between the two partners. Why should you not be able to start over from scratch and try again with someone else? Should I be decreased for doing so? Who is to judge? Who are you to decide for me?
christopher troisi
Jan 12th 2011, 10:40
Does anyone really have to give you a piece of paper telling you youre not married anymore for you to start over? I mean its not like youll start from a clean slate. Your new partner will know youre divorced, shell know you didnt make a marriage work or if it was just life which didnt permit it. what would divorce truly mean? I know people who have started everything from scratch after a broken marriage. They didnt need to get divorced to find someone new who accepts them for their past. I know people who couldnt accept it because they wantede a fancy church wedding but that will not change. Does a piece of paper which says youre married or not really control your life so much?
Charmaine Marmara'
Jan 12th 2011, 10:13
why all the fuss on divorce ? i dont get it really ....if people are against it then dont divorce but let others benefit from it ....get a life and stop interfereing in other peoples lifes ....kulhadd irid jindahal xi dwejjaq ta pajjiz
Jason Coleiro
Jan 12th 2011, 10:29
110% right.
Nella Bencini
Jan 13th 2011, 23:42
Quite rightly said Charmaine...
And added to so, why does divorce have to always imply that it is to remarry????
As a divorcee myself, and I speak on the behalf of many others in my shoes, sometimes divorce is simply because the marriage for us, just did not work out. If anything, I don't understand why Annulment is allowed in Malta, because to me, and me alone, that makes our kids illegitimite...
As for the anti divorce group, so be it... its called ''freedom of speech''... or does that er er not exist here in Malta? get a life
Ernest Vella
Jan 12th 2011, 10:12
Iz-Zwieg tnehhilu indissolubilta jitlef il-kredibilita tieghu
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:58
Bniedem li jemmen li zwieg ma jistax ifalli anki wara l-ahjar sforzi u intenzjonijiet, jitlef il-kredibbilta kollha.
H Dempster
Jan 12th 2011, 10:11
It is very easy to go up north and get a divorce outside Malta and them come back , so why should divorcees be exposed to this extra travelling expense. Furthermore the government should be happier with the introduction of divorce since he will fill up its coffers much more . Example: If livng separately he gets double income tax, double vat on w/e bills, gas, rents, cars, fuels etc. so in the end its the government who gains and consequently it is in the government's interest to stop this anti divorce movement.
Mark Galea
Jan 12th 2011, 10:10
without getting in the merits of being in favour / against divorce. One must note that
THE INTRODUCTION OF DIVORCE IS AN EVERYBODY'S CONCERN.
Divorce will effect those who will need it. It will also effect the other families that do not need it. Moreover, it will INCREASE dramatically the amount of social expenses that a government must fork out. (if the divorcees would foot all the expenses, then it could be that it only affects them, but if the other families have to pay up for them as well, then the other families have a right to be against)
Paul Barrett
Jan 12th 2011, 13:31
I really do not see your costing logic. How is divorce going to cost "everyone" any more than the existing legal separation or annulment. The answer is that it isnt.
Anthony Cachia Castelletti
Jan 12th 2011, 10:10
I am Please to hear that there will now be a pro marriage movement and would be pleased to help out in any way I can
Marius Zulgis
Jan 12th 2011, 10:04
It appears that here in Malta there is no shortage of people with so much time on their hands that they dedicate their entire lives to interfering in other people's business. Sad.
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 10:04
No - Parliament has no right to introduce divorce, at least not in THIS Legislature. And besides it's the people who are soveriegn and not Parliament. We dont trust our MPs with such an important part of our lives. NEVER. And I dont even trust separated MPs. They are not trustworthy.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:38
"And I dont even trust separated MPs".
Says a lot about you. Let's hope no one from your family ever gets separated and loses your trust.
L Azzopardi
Jan 12th 2011, 10:41
YEES !! Let's PUNISH them further for failing at marriage!!
u hallina!!
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 09:59
Jekk ser nibdew nghajru lil min huwa kontra d-divorzju, ghax jiftah halqu kontra d-dhul tad-divorzju f'Malta, ( li huwa zgur ta' hsara ghall-pajjizna u mhux ta' gid), allura lestu ruhkom ghall-insulti baxxi, oxxeni ta' min huwa bla sinsla, bla kuragg u fuq kollox bla kelma soda li jkun ta lil mahbub/a tieghu. Jigifieri irgiel u nisa tat-tiben. Il-Knisja Kattolika ma tista qatt tkun favur id-divorzju u allura ghandha taghti l-appogg shih u bla kundizzjoni lil dan il-moviment immexxi minn persuna denja. Dahal ghal piz kbir. Nistenna li l-Knisja tappoggja bis-shih dak li ser jaghmel dan il-moviment ghal LE GHAD-DIVORZJU F'PAJJIZNA u ghal dak li qed jaghmel l-Arcipriet ta' Haz-Zebbug.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 11:00
Possibbli ma tirrejalizzax li l-kumment tieghek mimli insulti?
F. Abela
Jan 12th 2011, 09:58
Seeing what the current situation is in Malta, what with so many separations and annulments, are we not being hypocrites ? Divorce law should be enacted - it should not be a referendum choice. The pro-divorce movement are most probably people who have marriage breakdowns and the anti-divorce movement is a group of people who are happily married and have had no problems. In conclusion, I say if you are a practising Roman Catholic you know that divorce is not allowed and you must abide by the Roman Catholic church rules. If you are not a practicing Catholic no should dictate what you should do.
Andrew B. Gatt
Jan 12th 2011, 09:54
DRITT CIVILI SAGROSANT. BLA EBDA KONSULTAZZJONI. RELIGJON MA TIDHOL ASSOLUTAMENT XEJN !
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 10:01
zbaljat bil-kbir. Il-knisja tholl u torbot ghax iz-zwieg huwa sagrament. mhux cajta li tfarrak familja. Mhux cajta li tkisser socjeta'. Kull poter gej minn Alla u anki l-ligi naturali gejja minn Alla u mhux mill-bniedem. Il-bniedem mhu xejn hlief trab u rmied. Id-divorzju mhuwiex dritt civili, mhux dritt uman. U dan fatt. Huwa hsara lill-familja u hsara lil pajjiz bhalma qed jigri f'pajjizi ohra.
K.Anastasi
Jan 12th 2011, 10:04
Exactly .... but this is a island with IQ of a donkey!
Jeremy J Camilleri
Jan 12th 2011, 10:17
Iz zwieg civili Mhuwiex sagrament sur Farrugia..bhas soltu l bocc l bod hafna mill likk!!!
M Camilleri
Jan 12th 2011, 10:36
Sur Farrugia u l-annulament xi ffisser ghalik?
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:40
@ J Farrugia:
Tista tispjegali fejn jidhol is-sagrament fi zwieg civili?
Andrew B. Gatt
Jan 12th 2011, 10:41
@ J. Farrugia : dak li qieghed titkellem dwaru inti huwa iz-zwieg nisrani, is-sagrament. X'ghandu jsir rigward l-istat civili tieghi ma huwa affari ta' hadd. ON TOP OF ALL : IL-KNISJA ! U by the way, anke l-Ordni Sagri huwa sagrament ................. !
S. Vella
Jan 12th 2011, 09:53
The "pro-marriage" term is quite misleading. I am fervently pro-marriage but also in favour of divorce legislation being introduced to assist couples whose marriage has irretrieviably broken down.
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 10:02
You cannot be in favour of God and Satana. Either for the family or against the family. CHOOSE. But dont remain a hypocrit.
Christopher Troisi
Jan 12th 2011, 10:35
j farrugia... im a catholic and i believe in a responsible choice of marriage but your view of being against the dissolution of marriage is completely hypocritcal as a catholic. You have annulments in the church which are completely messed up. So the church does deem some marriages unfit, and so does the government. Your idea seems to have been warped by yourself or by the person who has brainwashed you, into believing something unnatural. Studies need to be made for the introduction of divorce or any other bill which will keep our soicety intact. The church isnt capable of doing that anymore. And thats why you have many marriages which are just cival marriages. I hope this movement will inform people and completely ignore people like you.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:45
@ J Farrugia:
Only simplistic thinking sees only black and white. Clear thinkers see the grey in between.
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 12:04
No Troiosi I will never accept divorce. How can a catholic a christian accept the fact that one parent throws the other out of their common home and what about their children? Shall we cut them to pieces. We are already doing it and that is the reason why so many young people are writing in favour of divorce, because they are the offspring of separated and divorced people. They dont know what family life is. They dont know what love means. No Mr Troisi, Catholics will never accept divorce, they cannot be called catholics.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 19:33
@ J Farrugia:
Nobody is asking you to accept divorce. I agree with you on one thing: How can a catholic christian accept the fact that one parent throws the other out of their common home? But I further add: How can a catholic christian tell the one thrown out to "deal with it, and grin and bear it"?
C Zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 09:53
I think it should be parliament to decide the question of divorce. That is why they have been elected to make decisions and laws. They required no referendum to raise their income nor for so many other taxes and legislation - so why shouldn't they shoulder their responsibilty and start acting like MP's?
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 10:03
No - Parliament has no right to introduce divorce, at least not in THIS Legislature. And besides it's the people who are soveriegn and not Parliament. We dont trust our MPs with such an important part of our lives. NEVER.
Joe Zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 09:52
Do you remember the old Bing Crosby song:
"Accentuate the positive,
Eliminate the negative,
Latch on to the affirmative?"
So,
Accentuate the indissolubility of marriage,
Eliminate the illusion of divorce,
Latch on to the permanence of marriage.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Andrea Portelli
Jan 12th 2011, 10:41
Yes let us muster the Christian armies for the upcoming battle!
Victory is ours!!
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:46
Sure, victory is guaranteed...just like in Ireland, I suppose ;)
Paul Smith
Jan 12th 2011, 10:59
NO we dont remember the Bing Crosby song - and here in lies the problem, old misguided people whom have failed to keep up with the modern world asking a younger more wealthy and worldly population if they remember a Bing Crosby song LOL Get real fella!
And take your Devil and God and good and evil and keep your religious fantasies to yourself.
I know of nowhere in the modern world where divorce is illegal. Just pass a law and be done with it - referendums on divorce! How about a referendum on every new legislation brought before parliment - that would be true democracy no? No, it would be a bloody mess and inflame people to use violence to achieve what they cannot democratically achieve - just like what happened in Arizona
J Simpson
Jan 12th 2011, 12:53
Yes tell that to an unhappy abused married person!! Marriage is forever....you have to stay miserable with your spouse for the rest of your life...but the Victory is Ours!! Hoorray!!
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 19:36
Oh, the irony. Bing Crosby sure joined the battle between God and the devil and fought the good fight! He smoked marijuana and lobbied for its legalisation after it was criminalised. Bet Joe Zammit didn't know about that!
Vincent Vella
Jan 13th 2011, 15:48
Jeeeeeeez!! this guy's goona kill me with laughter. Is he serious???
He assumes we all must share his religious fantasies.............Bring on the inquisition.
Maya Fenech
Jan 12th 2011, 09:51
@ Paul Barrett
Excellent, but you forgot to mention that people do develop during the years of marriage and some of them develop nasty habbits such as drugs, spouse and children abuse etc. The partner has to live and sometimes die with that? Gosh, I think others said it already a hundred times: Divorce is not the great evil lurking around the corner. It is no thread to a happy marriage but a solution to marriages wich aren't that rosy.
@ Marina Caruana
Why separate and not accepting a divorce? It doesn't matter if you call is separation or divorce? Church wise you do the wrong thing anyway. You show that you are no longer interessted to continue your marriage (for whatever reasons) and therefore you should divorce, split your finances and properties and be a single under the law. Everything shall be clear and fair for both partners. Do not mix church laws with civil laws. Civil law has to serve a country, church law serves a believer!!
Stephen Young
Jan 12th 2011, 09:51
This movement should be described as "pro co-habitation" not "pro marriage". Divorce would at least regularise all those cases of people living together without obbligations towards each other and towards those children born out of such relationships.
Martin Vella
Jan 12th 2011, 10:10
Prosit Stephen very well said.
Dr, John Zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 09:51
The Alleanza Liberali - www.freewebs.com/liberalalliance - supports the Committee for Divorce and Dr. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando for his initiative to present a private member's bill supported by Mr. Evarist Bartolo and Alternattiva Demokratika. We wish also to tell them that we are ready to meet and give support to the Committee for Divorce and they must put us in their list of organizations in support for divorce. - Dr. John Zammit - Leader, Alleanza Liberali.
Hannah Chetchuti
Jan 12th 2011, 09:49
I really wish that anti-divorce lobbyists focus on what makes marraige relationships better and what works out....not battle against divorce. Civil marriage is a contract, and like any other contract there are laws to undo that contract. Simply not having divorce in Malta is a breach of human rights, and the EU wants us to ratify this unfair situation. Yes, the option should be available for those who cannot take it any more. Honestly no one wishes to go through divorce proceedings, they are ugly. But how unfair is it to have a horrible situation at home? As a kid I would hate to see my parents living together when they are hating each other's guts. As a kid I would rather see my parents happy with someone else.
So please DO NOT FIGHT DIVORCE, fight for those little things which make marriage unbearable!!!
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 10:06
You cant fight for irresponsible people who enter into marraige just for the fun of it. But Malta does not need divorce to go through what other countries have become, desolate states. We dont need our people to recurr to suicides. We are already seeing some of them in our courts. Horrific stories. Is this what Malta needs?
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:49
@ J Farrugia:
Are you going to start a campaign to make marriage separations illegal?...just to prevent suicides, mind you.
Edgar Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 09:47
Both Iva and this ZwiegBlaDivorzju thing is called Oppression!
...imbaghad nghidu li hawn Freedom of expression....dan indottrinazzjoni!
Halluna ha naghzlu ahna u tindahlux!!
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 10:07
we have as much rights as you have. Yes it is our duty to oppose divorce in Malta. ANd we will succeed. We want a referendum when the time comes but not in this legislature. They have no mandate to introduce divorce.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:52
@ J Farrugia:
One doesn't need to declare it in one's manifesto to make a referendum, and neither to legislate in favour of divorce. You clearly have no idea on the legal aspects of parliamentary democracy.
Charles Aquilina
Jan 12th 2011, 09:43
For the information of your readers the Association for Men's Rights - www.freewebs.com/mensrightsmalta - has been campaigning for a divorce law since its founding on 10th March 1990. We call the committee in support for divorce to include us in their talks and list of those in favour of divorce. We thanks Dr. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando for the presenting of his private members bill in Parliament - Charles Aquilina - President, Association for Men's Rights Malta.
Vincent Galea
Jan 12th 2011, 09:43
Perhaps I am getting old and cannot keep with the times.But to organize divorce parties wih photographers and all ceremonies.,People sort of celebrate their transition. They give rings with a gap in the middle.There will be divorced cakes and the wedding cake is turned upside down.This is the latest trend in parties celebrations and fun.
I am not against divorce and wish the couple the best of luck and happiness but to mock the sactament of marriage is wrong.
Chris Mifsud
Jan 12th 2011, 09:42
There should NOT even be a referrendum. Why?
Because people who are against divorce have NO business deciding weather or not divorce should be introduced because it does NOT concern them. If they are against divorce then nobody is forcing them to do it. Its None of their business, Full Stop.
Divorce MUST be introduced without a referrendum and sooner rather then later.
Why is it that Malta is always 200 years back when it comes to moral / religious things. The only country in the world (aside from the Phillipines) without divorce. X'Misthija!
Mike. Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 11:11
Thats democracy so because this morning you woke up and decided that you want divorce everybody must listen to you?
S. Calleja
Jan 12th 2011, 09:37
Funnily enough, Malta scored 100 in "freedom" in the International Living Magazine Qualify of Life survey.
d. borg
Jan 12th 2011, 09:32
Zwieg bla divorzju only when you are happily married not when your life has become a living hell. Let happily married couples enjoy their marriage but let others whose marriage has failed to get on with their lives.
S. Calleja
Jan 12th 2011, 09:30
Bla sens. The "Yes to Divorce" movement is not against marriage or in favour of marriages breaking down, so a pro-marriage movement will be fighting against... nobody.
c.cc.arbonaro
Jan 12th 2011, 09:30
Qalgħu d-divorzju biex jaljenaw il-poplu mill-kriżi ekonomika li għaddejja minn fuqna.
R.Gauci
Jan 13th 2011, 08:03
Prosit habib/a kumment bis-sens u nahseb li gejjha xi sena shiha sejrin hekk u mhux biss 600 ewros zieda li hadu l-MP's jintesew!! Kompli sejjer hekk ja Gahan Malti!!
Charles J. Buttigieg
Jan 12th 2011, 09:30
If the Church and the anti divorce lobby have any respect for freedom of choice they would refrain from debating the moral aspect until our legislators make up their minds. In the unlikely event that this administration enacts in favour of a divorce vehicle, the Church could do its God’s given mandate to propagate the immoral aspect of same. Do I want a divorce? No thank you but who am I to stop you to get one. Incidentally, we are living in year 2011 not in the dark era of the 60’s with priests and prelates dictating to a priest ridden society.
Sabrina Borda
Jan 12th 2011, 09:28
This new movement formed to fight divorce state that they will 'back off ' only after a decision is taken. They do not respect or care that many decent people have already taken the decision that they need divorce. Why they cannot fathom this is shocking. They aim to disrupt the possibility of those looking to better a seriously difficult situation. They aim to support injustice by dictating and interfering in peoples private business and impede how people ought to live their lives. They are making a quest to be interfering busy-bodies whilst pretending they know what is best for others therefor showing a lack of wisdom and just how arrogant meddling people can be. This ridiculous movement lacking inspiration aims to politicize and hold hostage individuals vital intrinsic needs as they themselves stand deluded and satisfied without compassion or contact with reality.
M Camilleri
Jan 12th 2011, 09:44
well spoken ....I only have one question for this new movement...who do they think they are dictating to other people how they should live their lives and solve their problems?
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 10:10
Who do you think you (pro-divorce movement) are, imposing your minority and perverse will to the majority of the decent maltese people? Who do you think you are to dictate to us to join you and irresponsible people in your search for your personal egoisms, to destroy our families. our society? Who do you think you are? You are just dust of the earth.
Sabrina Borda
Jan 12th 2011, 10:52
J Farrugia,
Being as one with the dust of the earth.... still, it is not I who attempts to choke the lungs of people's right to choose their personal way, where as your futile movement wants suffocate rational at its whims. No personal insult to me will better your ridiculous movement against human compassion.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:56
@ J Farrugia:
Interesting. A "dust of the earth" is now calling us "perverse".
Saliba J MA
Jan 12th 2011, 09:26
I would like to advice Andre J. Camilleri that he can not hide that there is a problem.
Other than having an Anti-Divorce Movement, first and foremost the authorities should start to do the necessary retuning of the existing legal proceedings that lead to separation. The Ministry of Justice should take action urgently to define the time court proceedings for separation.
J Farrugia
Jan 12th 2011, 10:12
You have nothing to advice Dr Camilleri. He is much better than you are and more factual than you ever where. He has as much right as you and I have to his opinion and that is what he is doingl. Just put your same question to those politicians who are trying to destroy our country, our society and our families just because they took the wrong roads to their own self destruction.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 10:54
@ J Farrugia:
"You have nothing to advice Dr Camilleri. He is much better than you are and more factual than you ever where (sic)".
How do you know?
Stefan Spiteri
Jan 12th 2011, 09:24
Cant under stand in this country why people cant feel free to decide,we always have to act as heroes and change every single way!!!!comics malta
Tommy Vella
Jan 12th 2011, 09:22
"I don't understand why a group has to organise in order to oppress others." This group is not being set up to oppress others. You started your contribution by saying "I don't understand" and I think that you do not understand. This group is being set up to make manifest the negative impact that divorce has on society in general.
It may, again I say may, because I am not sure, be partly beneficial to a person (s) who are seperated but it inflicts a lot of harm on society in general and man is a social animal. Should something which may be beneficial to some but harms society in general, be allowed? That is the whole point.
o.galea
Jan 12th 2011, 09:22
hmmmmm..... let me think.
So let's say, for argument's sake that your daughter went thru what Ms. Alicia Spiteri has gone thru with her husband.... (being beaten for 10 hours straight etc etc) you would still insist that she remains married ? You wouldn't let her divorce if she wanted to ?
If this is so, then i want no part in your movement or, for that matter your interpretation of religion.
You are doing nothing except to scare young people away from a church marriage. Marriage is a "closed box" after all.............. one would be mad to take that step without any means of "escape" should one find oneself between a rock and a hard place.
martin vella
Jan 12th 2011, 09:40
First of all Ms Spiteri was not married !!! Secondly i think that everyone know with whom he is living and sharing his life with so what is the reason that in Malta we should have Divorce . What are we going to gain ? Whats next after divorce ?
o.galea
Jan 12th 2011, 10:56
@ Martin.
No Martin... if you're a practicing catholic then you don't know what your husband/wife is like until you marry ! iz-zwieg kaxxa maghluqa. You only truly know a person when you've lived with them for a while.
Re Ms.Spiteri... forgive the oversight. But the comparison still stands.... if your married daughter went thru what she went thru would you deny her a divorce if she wanted it ?
Also, living in a violent household is more harmful to children than divorce .
Pauline Abela
Jan 13th 2011, 10:52
@Martin Vella: Quote, 'i think that everyone know with whom he is living and sharing his life with so what is the reason that in Malta we should have Divorce' Unquote. Wrong, since a 'Good' Catholic would be living in 'sin' if he/she cohabits before they get married, many do not cohabit prior to marriage. It is not until one gets married that the true character of a partner can be experienced and that is when problems often arise. Divorce is not something to be taken lightly. There is financial and emotional cost but to deprive someone of starting a new life is nasty.
A.Vassallo
Jan 12th 2011, 09:21
Straight from 1910! ha
C. Briffa
Jan 12th 2011, 09:21
Well done.
For those who say that the divorce is the only solution, have a look at the UK since they are on the verge of introducing a new tax in order to refrain the couples from devorcing, Moreover the funds, from this tax will go to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, as the latter is becoming a finacial burden.
So if I may ask who is going to fork the money in such cases if the divorce should be introduced in Malta maybe the persons who endorsed the private members bill can enlighten us from were we are going to get the money?
Let us think before it is too late because we already have a problem with cohabitation.
K. Said
Jan 12th 2011, 09:18
WELL DONE! Good luck :)
H Dempster
Jan 12th 2011, 09:18
Divorce or no Divorce , does not make me any difference since I am and have been happily married for the last 41 years, but still think that it is not fair on other couples who cannot get along together and it even not fair that people , whether politician or clergy should interfeer in such a delicate decision. People like this movement are just double face because co- habitation and separation are allowed by law. So why not divorce. Come lets be practical and face the world of today
patrick zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 09:17
A church annulment has the same effect of a state divorce on the children and gives you the right to marry again after a marriage fails.
Church sanctioned divorces are selective because the outcome depends on who or whom you know and they are secretive because the spouses are kept in the dark on info that should be theirs in the first place. I never said that should be public, far from it.
Marina Caruana
Jan 12th 2011, 09:13
In this whole debate, we seem to be forgetting those parties who are actually separated but are against divorce.
What will happen to these individuals? Will they be forced to accept a divorce and succumb to the request of their partners? Do have a choice to refuse divorce?
Christian Sciberras
Jan 12th 2011, 09:19
Divorce is about freedom of choice, no one forces you to divorce.
That said, it doesn't mean you don't get pressured into it.
Just as there's pressure from the Church (and certain "pro-marriage" people) to keep marriage intact for the sake of it, regardless the low state it ended up in.
Children with divorced parents might have a sore which only time may heal.
Children with forced parents have to deal with an ongoing sore.
You decide.
C Gatt
Jan 12th 2011, 09:30
I'm not sure I even understand the question. What does Ms Caruana mean when she says a partner is 'forced to accept divorce'. How does that change the situation? If Ms Caruana is concerned for her immortal soul then she need not worry, in the eyes of the Catholic church, despite words to the contrary, it is not divorce which is a sin but cohabiting with a partner outside marriage or remarrying, both of which are considered adultery.
If she is concerned that the other partner might have the opportunity to find a new relationship legally and doesn't like the idea, then what can I say, no wonder the partners have split. Such animosity iis not nice.
H Zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 09:31
I had asked the same question weeks ago to the pro-divorce movement but they came with no answer. If one is a catholic (and therefore I cannot accept divorce), can divorce be imposed on him/her if his partner in marriage decides to file for divorce? Answers please.
Paul Barrett
Jan 12th 2011, 09:56
@ H Zammit
Quote: I had asked the same question weeks ago to the pro-divorce movement but they came with no answer. If one is a catholic (and therefore I cannot accept divorce), can divorce be imposed on him/her if his partner in marriage decides to file for divorce? Answers please. Unquote.
Divorce is exactly the same as separation with the additional freedom of choice for one or both of the couple to re-marry each other or another individual should they so wish. I really do not understand why people are blowing so much smoke and find this so difficult to understand.
Paul Barrett
Jan 12th 2011, 09:13
If you are in favour of:
Co-habitation for legally separated couples with no way to legalise their position or legitimise any off-spring resulting from the union.
Children born outside marriage.
Children raised in a family unit where the parents are at constant loggerheads.
Infidelity where there is no fear that your spouse can find happiness with marriage to someone else.
Believe that preventing divorce legislation you will strengthen relationships in a marriage that cannot and will not work.
Cannot understand that people can make mistakes in a relationship, can grow apart, can mature, can separate but not be allowed to form another relationship sanctioned by a civil marriage.
Then this is the movement you should join and fully support.
R.Zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 09:54
Well Said Mr.Barrett and I agree with your comment completely. Everybody has a right for his/her opinion but nobody has the right to deprive others to decide their own future or chances in their life. If legalised, Divorce will NOT be implimented on everybody by force but will be available for those who really have no other choice DUE to their complitely broken relation in their marrages. Why should'nt they be given another chance to live happily again?! I myself am happily married and pray to God that this will last as long as I am still alive.... BUT again who am I to deprive others who have a different situation than mine or believe otherwise? For some people, Divorse is an EVIL matter... but than so is SEPARATION and COHABITATION and yet somehow these are now part of our lives in these Islands and unofficially accepted..... DIVORCE IS A HUMAN RIGHT in genuine cases, SO LET IT BE !!!!
c.catania
Jan 12th 2011, 09:11
jiennaqbel li id divorzju jidhol u min jogghbu japlika ghalih u u min ma jogghbux ma jatix kasu imma ma tistax tindahal lil min u ndannat jew indanata fiz zwieg.
Karen Theuma
Jan 12th 2011, 09:11
In my opinion, there should be cohabitation laws in place and enforced sooner than later. When one makes a promise of LOVE AND BELONGING FOR LIFE, i.e., get married in church; one has to keep that promise FOR LIFE as he/she is swearing in front of Jesus Christ, the son of God. You promise love in good and BAD!!!. That is a very big promise to make and it carries a lot of responsibility. So why should you get divorce when you have made that promise?? Young couples, think well and many more times than twice before taking your vows. Stop and reread that promise you are going to make a million times and forget the party, the dress, the food and the drinks. This is a promise, a sacrifice for life!! Church marriage has become a tradition, part of your life routine, and very few seem to care what it really entails before they make the big step. Church marriage should be taken seriously as it is a contract, and like every other contract, one has to face consequences when breaking it.
Paul Barrett
Jan 12th 2011, 09:37
You make an excellent case for the abolition of marriage.
Michael Camileri
Jan 12th 2011, 09:41
Contracts (in normal society) can be broken as long as both parties mutually agree.
These so called 'representatives of god' should not be allowed anywhere near society. It is merely a non-regulated institution issuing lock-in contracts. And on top of that, as a financial instution, it is FATF black listed. And on top of that! The institution many put so much faith is so Opaque, the colour black seems light in comparison.
Mike F Abbot
Jan 12th 2011, 12:18
Mr Barrett - well put!
All contracts in life can be broken with some form of agreement. Priests can break their contracts. The church can break (sorry, annul) the marriage contract. in fact, i can't think of any contract that can't be broken, re negotiated etc. Why should marriage be any different?
If in fact it becomes illegal to break that contract, all those anti divorce people are going to be rewarded with are ever higher cohabitation rates. What then? Anti cohabitation laws? May as well go back to arranged marriages.
Chris Vidal
Jan 12th 2011, 09:11
x hela ta hin. l anqas biss ghandha tkun issue din ahseb u ara kemm nghamlu r referendum. Jekk veru jsir referendum dan ikun kollu hela ta flus il-poplu fuq kwistjoni li ma ghandiex tkun deciza minn nies li ma humiex fis sitwazzjoni
mario aquilina
Jan 12th 2011, 09:01
Once the plate is chipped, throw it away.
What is the point in staying in an unhappy marriage. Once trust is broken, it will never be the same again.
The kids will live-with you or without you.
l.zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 09:01
(i still believe in church marriage.)
if a person decides to marry in church, and if in the worst case the marriage did not work out the church annuls marriage. right?
if a person decides to marry only in civil way, and in the wosrt case if the marriage do not work out, currently there is only seperation; which is not enough; thus leaving the need for a civil annulment which in this case is being referred to as divorce. (based on solid grounds)
any religion must not impose any of its beliefs on anyone, choice is done freely.
state and religion are to be seperated, because in a state there might be people who embrace different religions. i hope that my message is understood in the way i intend.
Mark Anthony Sammut
Jan 12th 2011, 09:08
Wrong. The church annuls a marriage only if there is proof of invalid grounds BEFORE the marriage took place which make the marriage void.
Kevin Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 11:26
@ Mark Anthony Sammut
Wrong. Annulments are also given when the marriage is not "consumed", which evidently is supposed to happen after the marriage takes place.
J Simpson
Jan 12th 2011, 12:59
Mark Anthony........Things that Happened BEFORE or AFTER bla bla bla...the thing is that annulment is the same as divorce...but with only annulment you cannot build a better life afterwards! one still is seperated ftom the other spouse, and children are there whether things happened before or after marriage!
J Simpson
Jan 12th 2011, 08:57
why don't these people mind their own business. If they are happily married good luck to them, but they have to acknowledge that not all marriages are happy as theirs.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 12th 2011, 09:39
Concern about preserving the stability of the family, and not opening the floodgates to a Nevada style divorce eventually, is everybody's business, not just the concern of the pro-divorce lobby. Experience abroad proves that the introduction of divorce has severe repercussions on the whole of society.
J Simpson
Jan 12th 2011, 11:27
what about the repercussions made when a person is physically and mentally suffering because of her spouse and children are everyday watching this ordeal?!!!!!!! That's what concerns me!!!
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 19:39
@ Dr Saliba:
Who is asking for a Nevada style divorce?
j gatt
Jan 14th 2011, 13:05
@Dr Saliba,
If the Flood Gates (as you refer) are opened, and there`s no water accumulated, there will certainly be no flooding. On the other hand if you contain water tainted heavily with sewage, you`ll either have to bear the stench produced, eventually opening those Flood Gates to relieve the problem.
By suppressing the will of others for whatever reason, be it religious belief ect. the problem will not go away.
I should think that you are well aware that this is the year 2011 doctor.
Emerson F
Jan 12th 2011, 08:47
"the new movement is expected to launch studies and research conducted locally in the last four or five months"
So you're using research on divorce conducted locally to oppose the local introduction of divorce? How does that work, exactly?
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 08:47
"André J. Camilleri said the group’s main objective was to raise awareness on divorce and its negative impact on society".
Great. Perhaps at long last, someone will answer this question: When marriage separation is already legal and recognised by both State and Church, and cohabitation is legal, what added negative impact could divorce ever introduce?
R.Gauci
Jan 12th 2011, 10:07
Agree with you 100% and I can't understand the people which are opposing the introduction of divorce in Malta on the Irish Model which means that only people which had been living separated for more then four years can apply for it ! This means that the married couple/family would had been clearly already broke down and in most cases one or both of the couple would had another relationship with someone else, so please explain me how can you break something which had been already broken by a legal separation??!!
As others said you can try to fix a ceramic vase with glue( fragile like love and trust) that had been broken but you will still see the cracks in it!
It is better that instead wasting their time on an anti divorce campaign some people join a campaign against the increasing of the cost of living which had put the Maltese Family and Society under high pressure to make ends meet since when the property prices and other essentials started to go up 15 years ago making one or both of the couple working like slaves and having less time together to pay their debt!
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 12th 2011, 10:08
Divorce (i.e. separation plus remarriage repeated as often as desired), inevitably multiplies the “negative impact” as many times as the divorce/remarriage cycle is repeated. It is notoriously known that sequential marriage “breakdowns” tend to recur more frequently in habitual divorcees. Not “Great” at all from a healthy society’s point of view.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 11:05
@ Dr Saliba:
Serial cohabitation with different partners is also repeated as much as desired...and legally. I don't see a campaign to make it illegal, though. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.
Patrick Bellia
Jan 12th 2011, 08:45
Jien nixtieq insaqsi xi haga, imma ma nistennix li ha tghiduli messu ratu qabel jew messu rah qabel, dan suggett serju u li jolqot kwazi direttament jew indirettament lil kullhadd, Jien ma ghandix bzonnu imma jekk kemm il darba jsir referendum nivvotta iva favur. li nixtieq insaqsi hu dawn, jekk xi hadd min dawn li huma kontra ikollom it tfal taghhom li jridu divorzju x jaghdulom ahjar ghalik? jiena min jien biex incahhad lil haddiehor milli jibda hajja ohra? bhallissa id divorzju tista tiehdu barra l pajjiz u jigi rikonoxxut hawn, jekk jien ma niflahx inhallas ghaliex ma ghandix niehdu? dik diskriminazzjoni u fl EU dik ma tezistix supppost. Dejjem nghidu li t tfal ibatu, xi naqra iva veru ibatu, imma x hemm differenza bejn separati u divorzjati, differenza wahda hemm li ma jistghux jibdew hajja gdida il bqija jekk it tfal kienu jbatu xi naqra l istess baqghu, fl ahhar min qieghed f dawn is sitwazzjionijiet jista jitkellem l aktar biss jiena nhoss li ma nistax nikkundizzjona l hajja ta haddiehor ghaliex dak li ma jghoddtx ghalija ma jfissirx li ma jghodtdtx ghalik,
Pauline Abela
Jan 13th 2011, 10:33
Well said. Regarding kids suffering. Most kids do prefer to have both parents around - provided their parents are reasonably civil to each other most times and are not constantly arguing or being violent towards each other. Adults whose parents divorced when they were children normally say that it was better to spend individual, peaceful time with each parent rather than when they lived in a constant battle zone. Not hard to understand. Life is too short to have your actions dictated to by others.
Michael Camileri
Jan 12th 2011, 08:42
Correct me if I am wrong, but do all contracts have the common agreement that it may be cancelled if both parties mutually decide to cancel? And what makes marriage different? It is afterall, just a contract.
If any law is to be adhered to, it should be the law of the land - laws created by representatives of the people. Not the law of an outdated institution that does not believe in logic and for centuries (even milleniums) has put the fear of christ into the public.
So, let the people decide. The church should not have any say in this matter. If the state allows divorce then that should be it!
It is time for the people to have control and be responsible for their own lives. People should not depend on 'self-proclaimed' representatives of an invisible man and the biographies of his apparent son.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 12th 2011, 09:25
"Correct me if I am wrong, but do all contracts have the common agreement that it may be cancelled if both parties mutually decide to cancel? And what makes marriage different? It is afterall, just a contract". (Michael Camilleri)
Not only does marriage NOT have any clause permitting dissolution of the "contract" by mutual consent but it has a clause that actually states the opposite: "until death do us part". Such an explicit clause overrules any wishful thinking to the contrary.
C. Briffa
Jan 12th 2011, 09:37
First of all if you sign a contarct you should first read it, than you sign it. If you opt for to marry in Church you are taking the the Vowes before God moreover you know that part of the contract you sign says clear that you do not have the opt out clause, so the terms of the contract are clear.
Moreover you stated taht should both parties mutally decide to cancel the contract they could do so, presume you are right so if the Church authorities do not agree with divorce so you cannot cancel the contract since in the agreement of marriage in chucrh one of the parties is the Church on behalf of God.
Moreover if you are refering to this invisible Man why you are taking you vowes in Church.
Robert Agius
Jan 12th 2011, 09:56
@ Dr F. Saliba
What about a civil marriage. If it is case until 'till death do us part' shouldn't this be changed? That is biased and clearly written following religious dogma. That is a CLEAR example of intolerance by religious institutions, is it not?
Ramon Casha
Jan 12th 2011, 10:31
@Dr Francis Saliba:
The words "until death do us part" does not form part of the marriage contract. It only forms part of the marriage ritual.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 11:08
@ Dr Saliba:
The "marriage clause" you mention is not legally binding. In fact, divorce obtained abroad is already recognised in Malta.
mark dalli
Jan 12th 2011, 08:42
This effort should be directed into something more rewarding to society....like helping mothers cope financially after their husband disappears with a barbie. ...if not financially help them otherwise.
In the lack of legislation these things happen everyday around us in Malta. We have separated mothers with other kids from new boyfriends!.
Even men suffer from emotionally over-abusive ex-wifes. (hence ghaqda ta irgiel imsawta) sometimes sounds funny, but scaringly true!
There are court orders and agreements signed by husbands/ex-couples and they are not honored....and the kids suffer.
These are the issues we need to solve, not opposing something that already exists in practice! Please wake-up!
John Borg Vella
Jan 12th 2011, 08:42
I suggest that Dr Camilleri stops wasting his time and face the reality with society. Facing up to reality may eventually save the Roman Catholic Church from self destruction. It is more fruitful for us faithful to resolve the matters with the Church and the blanket of darkness cast by the various abuse accusations.
John Hughes
Jan 12th 2011, 08:36
Voicing what you feel on this issue does not mean it's the way forward for individual whose marriage failed. People need to get on with their life and be free to choose what is best for their future.
Why should others (like this movement and the church) dictate what the person to move on with their life!!! Life is too short to be messed around with.
Klaus Pedersen
Jan 12th 2011, 08:33
Here is an idea for a logo for this movement: how about A SET OF HANDCUFFS? :-)
Luca Mule Stagno
Jan 12th 2011, 08:23
I don't understand why a group has to organise in order to oppress others. If these individuals do not wish to get divorced, then their options are obvious: don't get a divorce. There is simply no moral, legal, or philosophical argument to reject the allowance of divorce in this or any other nation.
Joseph M. Meli
Jan 12th 2011, 09:36
I fully agree Luca - well said !!
Evarist Saliba
Jan 12th 2011, 10:25
I see.
It is alright for a group to be set up to introduce divorce but not alright for a group to oppose this.
Kevin Cassar
Jan 12th 2011, 11:06
@ Evarist Saliba
In order to oppose divorce you can choose to do like me and not make use of it when it is made available. What this movement is really opposing is the right to choose. When divorce is introduced, then, and only then will this movement make sense.
patrick zammit
Jan 12th 2011, 08:12
No against state divorce, but yes to cohabitation laws and church sanctioned, but very secret and selective church divorce!
Sandro Agius
Jan 12th 2011, 08:25
Patrick Zammit make note that the Roman Catholic Church has no divorce, for valid marriage is till death. You cannot give annulment a meaning which is false. The problem with annulments in the church is not because they are selective but because take time.
I welcome this group so to counter argument the 'pro-divorce' movement. That's true democracy
Manuel Mangani
Jan 12th 2011, 08:44
So you believe annulment procedures should be paraded for public delectation? I would think it would make more sense for civil annulment and separation procedures not to remain accessible to all and sundry..
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 12th 2011, 08:45
@Patrick Zammit.
A "pro-marriage" anti divorce movement is urgently needed precisely to combat the false propaganda LIE that there is a "Church-sanctioned cohabitation" and a secret and selective Church "divorce".
Edwin Mifsud
Jan 12th 2011, 08:53
You hit the nail on the head Mr. Zammit.
Conrad V. Busuttil
Jan 12th 2011, 09:12
I would also add to your most valid points, Mr Zammit, the convenience of obtaining annulments from the Church Tribunal, acquired as per the persuasive abilities of one's lawyers. Hence to say, the Church can be moved to annul marriages upon being convinced of a doubt (possibly only apparent) which could have risen prior to the marriage knot being tied. This will bring about more doubt on the Church's responsibility it is herself undertaking when organising and supervising the marriage preparation councelling classes, for which which a certificate is issued and same need be presented prior to applying for the banns and without which the bride and groom would not even make it to the parvis of the Church itself!
The situation looks like a dog trying to bite its own tail .... and if it will ever manage, it will have to release the pressure as otherwise it will still hurt itself.
Please choose the reason of your report below: