The inconsistent crusaders

Judging by the way things are going at the moment the anti-divorce lobby is cruising to a comfortable win if a referendum is held. There are many indicators of why this is going to happen. There is still a good section of the population which genuinely believes that the introduction of divorce legislation will spell the death of marriage as we know it.

The Nationalist Party will weigh in with a resounding ‘No’. Austin Gatt will bludgeon The Times’ readers into weary submission with interminable articles about how he is labelled a ‘conservative’ by the intolerant pro-divorce brigade and why we should not entertain them.

The PN propagandists who used to holler for divorce at every opportunity have become strangely silent, or are flip-flopping about, trying to square their declarations in times gone by with a position which is more in line with that of the PN.

Add to this the fact that the pro-divorce movement is hardly as organised or as well-oiled as the counter movement and the way that it is viewed by many as the Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando bandwagon to regaining national visibility, and well the writing is pretty much on the wall.

So come summer, if the referendum will be held, I expect that the pro-divorce lobby will not only suffer a defeat but more of a rout. At which point, I expect the anti-divorce movement to break from celebrating their victory, to gird their loins and charge into the breach once more.

This time they should turn their attentions to defeating proposals to introduce cohabitation legislation. This is the only position they can take up if they want to retain some measure of credibility and consistency. I can’t see how those who refuse to contemplate the introduction of divorce, hardly bat an eye-lid when it comes to introduce legislation which will confer rights similar to those of spouses to cohabiting partners.

Every single argument brought up by those who object to divorce can also be applied to the introduction of cohabitation legislation.

Let’s start off with the one about divorce changing the nature of marriage from a permanent union to a loose and temporary one. The argument to this effect is that the introduction of divorce legislation will usher in a ‘divorce mentality’ with spouses who are having marriage problems not bothering to stick around to work things out, but sprinting to the courts instead.

Even if you accept this argument – and I don’t think it’s completely wrong – you’ll have to admit it holds even more true for cohabiting couples. If the prevalent mentality is such that married couples have no qualms in shedding a wife or husband with whom their lives are so inextricably linked, why would cohabiting partners think twice before doing so?

If anything, it would be simpler for those cohabiting to disengage from their partner as their assets would not be merged to the degree that they are in marriage.

The anti-divorce lobby insists the introduction of divorce will contribute to the deinstitutionalisation of marriage in Maltese society, that marriage will lose its symbolic meaning, and that the traditional understanding of what it means to be a husband or wife will be weakened.

Again, this might be true, although I have my doubts as to whether it is wholly due to the introduction of legislation and not to other factors.

Then again, if one wants to protect the ‘special’ status of marriage, why confer nearly equivalent rights on an institution which is not marriage? More to the point, why create this form of ‘marriage-lite’ to compete with the traditional model of Western marriage? Isn’t this as much, if not more, of a denaturisation of marriage? And state-sanctioned at that?

Then there is the ‘common good’ argument, which goes something like this: the final dissolution of a marriage has a wide effect on the whole of society and not only on the immediate family. Since the dissolution of these marriages has a negative, knock-on effect, it would be advisable to disallow divorce for the greater good.

Again, those willing to accept this view will also have to admit to the fact that it is equally applicable to people who separate and cohabit.

Try as I might I can think of no argument which is made against divorce which cannot be made against the introduction of legislation regulating cohabitation.

And yet divorce is being opposed tooth and nail by the very same people who are militating in favour of cohabitation legislation.

Proposal 194 in the PN manifesto of 1998, and a measure mentioned in former President Eddie Fenech Adami’s speech to parliament at the start of this legislature – that’s where cohabitation legislation features.

My guess is that it will enter the statute books without much ado. It will be a sop to separated people and same-sex couples who want some kind of status conferred to their union. It will also be testimony to some people’s capacity for inconsistency and ambivalence. We always had an amazing capacity for that.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt