One unequivocal stance on divorce (3)

Arthur Galea Salomone’s arguments that, “once divorce is introduced, fewer couples choose to marry as they see less sense in a non-committal union” (January 25) makes sad reading.

One could, of course, argue the exact opposite: that more couples would want to marry if they think that their marriage is subject to an “escape clause”. But this is not the point.

When two persons decide to marry they commit the rest of their lives to a loving relationship with its ups and downs. They do not make the sort of cold unemotional calculations Dr Galea Salomone apparently assumes they do. Their commitment comes from the heart and is not influenced by some human law. Indeed, Dr Galea Solomone’s assumption strikes at the core of the real meaning of marriage and is actually an anti-marriage stance. Any couple who marry because of such considerations and after such calculations would render their marriage invalid.

The point about divorce is that in spite of all the good intentions with which couples enter into marriage, there are some marriages that fail irretrievably. This is not something new. It has been so throughout history in all civilisations.

I do not wish any other human being to die but when somebody I know dies, I acknowledge the person must be buried. I do not keep insisting he or she is still alive.

I do not wish any marriage to fail and will do my utmost to help save it if I can. However, when a marriage fails and its spirit is completely dead, I would be utterly short-sighted to insist the marriage is still alive.