Divorce: Labour MPs want referendum first
Labour MPs Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca and Carmelo Abela this evening spoke against the introduction of divorce and said they felt that a referendum should be held before the House debated the subject. They said they had not been elected with a mandate to legislate on divorce and therefore they felt uncomfortable debating the subject in the House before the people expressed themselves.
The two MPs also said that despite the fact that many in the PL were in favour of divorce, they felt comfortable expressing their own personal views.
They were speaking at a debate organised by the Anti-Divorce Movement. Also taking part were Nationalist MPs Jason Azzopardi and Charlo' Bonnici, who are also against the introduction of divorce.
All four argued that divorce would erode the concept of a marriage for life and that it would create more social problems than it would solve.
Dr Azzopardi said this debate was an opportunity for the country to reflect on the state of the family as a unit and within society.
Ms Coleiro Preca stressed that the people should be able to decide on the basis of proper information backed by studies. She said that children might accept cohabitation, however grudgingly, but divorce was harder on them because it was a more permanent split.
Mr Bonnici said divorce was especially harmful to children. He stressed the importance of marriage preparation as well as assistance to married couples and said that children too, at a young age, should be taught about the importance of marriage and the family. He noted that both those in favour and against divorce realised the importance of marriage, but those favouring divorce believed that a marriage could be dissolved.
Mr Abela said it was important to see the family in the traditional way, based on the relationship between a man and a woman. No form of arrangement could be equated to marriage.
Among those who intervened from the floor, some said that children aged 16 and over should be allowed to vote in a referendum, a proposal which Mr Abela backed.
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...
52 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Michael Grech
Feb 13th 2011, 17:08
originality is definitely not Charlo Bonnici's fotre "...divorce was especially harmful to children." Yes, and what about those children who are constatnly seeing their parents fighting each other, at times using violence? " He stressed the importance of marriage preparation as well as assistance to married couples and said that children too, at a young age, should be taught about the importance of marriage and the family." Ok, but this is no argument agains the right to divoce. "....those favouring divorce believed that a marriage could be dissolved." Even the church believes that marriage may be dissolved. Have you ever heard about the Pauline and Petrine Privileges?
Michael Grech
Feb 13th 2011, 17:04
I normally admire Marie Louise, but her comment "....children might accept cohabitation, however grudgingly, but divorce was harder on them because it was a more permanent split." takes the biscuit. Children (and not merely children) fail to distinguish betwene cohabition, divorce, separation and annulment, all they know is that Mummy/Daddy is dating/living with someone else. MOreover, her logic (co-habitation better than divorce, since the latter is more permanent) entails that the state should prohibit its own courts as well as ecclesiastical ones from annulling marriages, since annulment is as permanent as divorce. Courts should suggest spouses to co-habit instead!
As for Mr Abela's comment "....it was important to see the family in the traditional way, based on the relationship between a man and a woman. No form of arrangement could be equated to marriage." I think the guy has a problem understanding what is going on around him. We are not discussing whether marriage may be Peter and Mary, Jane and Joan, or Peter and Steve or Mary and Rex. We are discussing whether one who already contracted marriage, may be allowed to form another family with another woman. Moral....how can we trust such people to represent us?
Edward Farugia
Feb 12th 2011, 18:43
Why make a thing so complicated ? Divorce is a civil matter nothing absolutely to do with the Church and as such it is definetly the responsibility of Parliament to make it legal enabling married couples to use it as a tool to detach themselves from each other and render them free to re-marry if they so desire. Immediately a divorce is degreed by the Courts the couples `ipso facto ' become separted and at this stage the situation becomes identical to a separation by law as we know it to-day. Divorce at this stage enable divorcees of all creeds to seek and marry another partner with the difference that catholics doing so are breaking God's Law. God created us free to choose what to do with our lives However, for catholics to remarry on the strength of obtaining a divorce they would be doing so on their own conscience. A referandum does not come into the picture at all. Europe is not imposing on us to introduce divorce but from a logical point of view I think it is correct to have divorce in our legal books in as much as Europeans to-day have become one with equal rights.
S Saliba
Feb 12th 2011, 15:11
pft. can't people take their own decisions?! I am in favour of divorce, however I am absolutely for the right of freedom of anyone to be against divorce. I am extremely happy that finally there is a democratic party in the political system that truly allows freedom of speech and let everyone express his ideas.
although i don't agree with the arguments put forward by all 4 MPs, including the PL side, I still favour Joseph in the way how he lets everyone deliberately expressing his ideas publicly, unlike some PN ministers who are willing to resign if their party takes a stand in favour of divorce. and to all those "mbasta progressivi" comments down there, progressive doesn't mean to take a stand for divorce but progressive means at least for everyone having the right to express himself/herself. it is highly unlikely that all 30+ members of any party will agree on the same ideas all the time... please use reason :/
J. schembri
Feb 12th 2011, 14:50
prosit lil dawn l-erba deputati li ma qaghdux jahsbu darbtejn biex jesprimu lehinhom kontra id-divorzju. Nies bhal dawn ta minn jammirhom gejja mill-liema partit gejja. Kull min ghandu ghal qalbu l-familja Maltija zgur li jiftakar fihom meta jasal il-waqt.
E. Azzopardi
Feb 12th 2011, 14:00
Isn't this what has been "promised" over and over again during the last several months?
Geroge Borg
Feb 12th 2011, 12:07
WOW very progressive from Marie Louise Coleiro and Carmelo Abela.... I think that your time in politics has passed Marie Louise on the other hand Carmelo's response was a real surprise...
Joe Zammit
Feb 12th 2011, 11:41
Divorce is a step backward. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage.
Divorce is a negative step. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage.
Divorce is a big injustice. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage which is justice according to the word given in the celebration of marriage.
Divorce is to the detriment of all people. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage which good for one and all.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Joe Galea
Apr 27th 2011, 19:20
HU NIFS XIDEWJAQ FIK LOL!!!!!!!!!
eugene sapiano
Feb 12th 2011, 11:11
Is it true that amongst those who are known to be against divorce had their marriage annulled; what is annullment if not another way of divorce given the church's blessing?
a.micallef
Feb 12th 2011, 11:00
Mhux aktar ta min ihalli lil dawn iz-zewg partiti jiggvernaw wahedhom lil pajjizna. Kull
ma jghodd ghalihom huma il-voti. Hasra li hemm daqshekk studenti l-universita
u ma jghamlu xejn sabiex jinholqu aktar partiti politici b-ideat friski u bla rabta ma hadd.
Bic-car jidher illum li la il-PN u l-anqas il-PL ma huma li tafdahom aktar imexxu lil
pajjizna wahedhom. Hekk gara gewwa hafna pajjizi tal-EU, dawn welldu partiti ohra
u llum ghandhom gvernijiet ta koalizjoni. Gvernijiet li ma jistghux ikunu arroganti.
Alistair Galdes
Feb 12th 2011, 10:50
Li jkollok membri parlamentati nazzjonalisti li johorgu kontra l-introduzzjoni tal-ligi tad- divorzju kont nistenniha.
Izda li jkollok membri parlamentari laburisti li suppost huma progressisti u jemmnu fil-libertajiet u id-drittijiet ta' l-individwu, li jkunu mhux kontra id-divorzju per se ghax dan huma ghandhom dritt li jesprimu l-opinjoni personali taghhom,izda li jkunu kontra li jinghta dan id-dritt lill dawk li iz-zwieg taghhom ikun spicca u minghajr ebda tama ta' rikonciljazzjoni ma kont nistennijha qatt.
Ir-ragunament li gabet M.L.Coleiro Preca ma' jghamlux sens ghax hija assurdita' li tghid li ghat-tfal hija aktar facli li jaccettaw li jkollhom jghixu ma xi hadd mill-genituri taghhom li jkun poggut milli jkunu ma genitur li jkun mizzewweg.
Rigward dak li qal Carmelo.Abela. Mhux haga ovvja li l-ahjar haga hi li thares lejn iz-zwieg bhala ghaqda bejn mara u ragel b'mod tradizzjonali. Huwa tajjeb li tghamel dak kollu possibbli sabiex jekk ikun hemm xi diffikultajiet jigu solvuti, izda jekk dawn ifallu,x'jigri?
X'se tghidlhom lill-dawn in-nies, morru poggu? X'se tghidlhom lill dawk it-tfal li jitwildu minn dawn il-koppji li jkunu pogguti?
Mela ejja ma nikkundannawx aktar nies ghall hajja ta' disprament.
Hadd mhu ser jisforza lill xi hadd biex jiddevorzja jekk ma jkunx irid.
d. borg
Feb 12th 2011, 10:33
Marie Louise Coleiro, you disappoint me. I never expected you to be against divorce, giving a second chance to people whose marriage has failed irrevocably. Very disappointed.
J Brincat
Feb 12th 2011, 10:09
To be honest I am very surprised by the reaction of the 2 MPs from the PL since they come from a party which professes to be progressive!
l.theuma
Feb 12th 2011, 11:02
Is divorce law progressive or regressive? A divorce law never could be called progressive.
Joyce CAssar
Feb 12th 2011, 15:41
Progressive does not mean ignoring the realities the sole called progressive countries are in with regards to impacts on children, youths and the concept of what marriage stands for. Nobody can bring in the discussion proof that where divorce has been the reality for decades it has helped in the social order as people are marrying less, cohabitating more, domestic violence ranges between 16 to 25% of more of crime in several countries, drug abuse and juvenile delinquency is on the increase, records for depression and other disorders are on the increase. This not to mention the economical and financial impact on society. Being progressive is taking an option which focuses well on informed decisions, learning from mistakes of others and not being afraid of being different. There are many priorities the country should look at prior to the divorce option such as the preventive element from childhood and for all those who marry whether civilly or in any church. That is being progressive.
Graham Crocker
Feb 12th 2011, 10:06
Pathetic.
Victor Laiviera
Feb 12th 2011, 09:06
So now we know - we cannot have divorce because we did not have in Roman and Napoleonic times.
I thought I had heard it all, but this brilliant bit of logic surprised me.
M Cassar
Feb 12th 2011, 08:44
'She said that children might accept cohabitation, however grudgingly, but divorce was harder on them because it was a more permanent split.'
Does anyone have a reference for this? It would be interesting to see which studies our learned MPs are basing their opinions on!
a.micallef
Feb 12th 2011, 08:34
Min huwa mizzeweg jista jibqa mizzeweg, min irid jizzeweg jista jizzeweg u allura dan
il-moviment ma jghamilx sens, ghaliex il-ligi tad-divorzju mhux ser tnehhi l-ligi taz-zwieg
jew ser tobbliga lil min hu mizzewweg sabiex ma jibqghax mizzeweg. Dan il-moviment
imissu jisejjah MOVIMENT TA INDHIL FIL-HAJJA PRIVATA TA HADDIEHOR SABIEX
JGHAMEL DAK LI NGHIDULU AHNA. Separazjoni u divorzju ghandhu li stess rizultati
fuq it-tfal u fuq kullhadd. Anzi tifforma familja gdida ohra huwa aktar vantagg ghat-tfal
u ghal-koppji ghaliex dawn ma jibqghux jiggerew barra ma dik u ma dak.
J Borg
Feb 12th 2011, 12:54
Most pro-divorce commentators argue that divorce is ONLY for those who want it, and so those not in favour should not have their say. A rather twisted argument, I believe. In a similar way, suicide does NOT affect those who want to live. Should we make a referendum on suicide then?
C. Farrugia
Feb 12th 2011, 08:22
At last -- opinions against divorce based on the social problems it will create and not based on religious ideas. Marriage problems are not individual but public as they effect the whole nation who needs to support financially marriage problems.
Sabrina Borda
Feb 12th 2011, 06:33
Ministers voting against permitting the chance for the dignity to divorce have sadly missed the point as their goal is directed solely to keep marriages that are well intact, where good marriages are not in question. They miss the part where marriages are already broken. They miss the part that marriages will continue to break. They miss the part that their "No" vote leaves many unable to move on and heal, instead these people will feel depressed and helpless. This suffering will increase as hope fades because Ministers steal away from them the very choice they need to move on in life. They miss the part where their vote against divorce will not ever control or help this phenomena, except that they box it.
They protect something that is not being disputed. They ignore something that is.
Many people young and old will suffer this pain as a result of their Ministers thoughts, words, and deeds.
Paul Barrett
Feb 12th 2011, 12:10
Very well expressed - there is absolutely no threat to happy sound marriages but only hope for those cast into limbo by years of legal separation with no chance to put their lives together again with a new partner in a legal civil marriage.
J Borg
Feb 12th 2011, 12:51
'Dignity of divorce!' (?) I see DIGNITY only in a couple living faithfully to their commitments, their promises, their duties! If you consider as dignifying when someone is unfaithful, does not keep his promises, shies away from his duties....... You have very disturbing ideas. Glory be to confusion, disorganization, unfaithfullness, cheating, Amen!
Mark Piscopo
Feb 12th 2011, 00:46
Hope that all PL members will vote in favour of divorce so that a referendum will be held. Malta should have a consultative referendum before the House votes. Hope that Mare-louise Coleiro, Carmelo Abela and Adrian Vassalo vote in favour so that we are not denied the referendum. This filthy tactic” to turn a promised referendum on divorce “into a possible referendum aimed at striking down the proposed law if parliament doesn’t strike it down beforehand.”
Joseph Pavia
Feb 11th 2011, 22:51
I fail to understand why our MPs are shying away from their obligation to vote. Is the introduction of Divorce a Life or Death issue as would be the introduction of Abortion and Euthanasia? Divorce is a need for a minority whose marriage failed without hope of reconciliation. Why do the religious, the unmarried, or the very elderly, have to condemn these couples to hell.
Should 16 year olds be allowed to vote? If they are allowed to vote on Divorce, they should be allowed to vote on anything, and while they are at it, they should be allowed too to have sex with anyone of any age they fancy!
Allow me to remind our MPs that they did not give us a referendum for the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. No, there was no electoral mandate. Yet they felt it was right to vote and rammed the EU Constitution down our throats unlike it was done by the MPs of Ireland.
Stop these games! Stop these excuses! Just go to Parliament and do what you have to do! This is your job and your responsibility. That is why the Nation trusted you with your seat.
Dr Francis Saliba
Feb 12th 2011, 06:55
Our MPs are NOT shying away from their obligation to vote. They are responsibly ascertaining the public mood prior to exercising their obligation to vote instead of cowardly submitting to the pressure from one pressure group.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Feb 12th 2011, 07:14
I fully agree you. Whether for or against divorce, they should vote for it or against it in parliament, end of the matter. Then if the electors do not like what they did, they should throw them out at the next election. Stop the nonsense about referenda. Show some leadership, the kind of leadership we find in Australia. After all, you carry on about how damn European you all are. European my a+s!
Paul Barrett
Feb 11th 2011, 22:14
Quote: All four argued that divorce would erode the concept of a marriage for life and that it would create more social problems than it would solve. Unquote.
So - annulments and separation don't erode the concept of marriage for life and divorce would create more social problems than it would solve - totally muddled thinking. Divorce will not of course solve all problems but it will help solve some problems for some people and have no effect on those that do not wish to accept it.
Quote: She said that children might accept cohabitation, however grudgingly, but divorce was harder on them because it was a more permanent split. Unquote.
The above quote is unbelievable - to advocate for bed hopping rather than a permanent civil marriage being less hard on children is inexcusable. How does a child describe the current but ever changing cohabiting partner - my current step-boyfriend or step-girlfriend? A divorced parent can at least offer some stability with a civil marriage.
C. Mizzi
Feb 11th 2011, 22:10
I dont expect better from Jason Azzopardi and Charlo Bonnici both belonging to a conservative and demo-christian party. But I never expected the conservative attitude expressed by the so now called "progressisti" Marie Louise Coliero and Carmelo Abela ! Does anyone know any labour party in the world which did not take a position in favour of divorce ?
J Borg
Feb 12th 2011, 12:47
Mr Mizzi, you should have sent an open letter to all MP's telling them WHAT to say, so that they all act according to YOUR wishes.
A. Vassallo
Feb 11th 2011, 22:05
As I already had the chance to comment on this blog, holding a referendum on the introduction of divorce for me means that parliament is abdicating from its responsabilities. This subject should be treated like a any normal legislation.
I believe that, since no political party has included the introduction of divorce in its electoral manifesto for the election held in 2008, all political parties should as from now declare who will be including the introduction of divorce in their 2013 election manifesto. In this way both pro and contro divorce candidates can easily regulate themselves on which party ticket they should contest the next general elections.
As for the geneal public, we will know exactly for which party to vote for according to our concience and beliefs regarding the introduction of divorce.
Victor Galea
Feb 12th 2011, 02:49
@ Mr Vassallo,
you are completely wrong when you keep saying that no political party has included the introduction of divorce in its electoral manifesto for the election held in 2008.
This shows the poverty we are living regarding political pluralism. You you and others it seems as if 'one is either blue or red, or back or white, or with us or against us'
What a sad society.
mario Bonnici
Feb 11th 2011, 21:30
Very progressive Hon Coleiro Preca and Hon Abela
MFarrugia
Feb 11th 2011, 21:29
Well done Marie-Louis and Carmelo. Joseph is showing what a great leader he is, pronouncing himself in favour and giving space to a minority inside his group to speak according to their conscience. This country needs a leader who is sure enough of himself as to allow diversity.
At the same time, when the time came on showing who is on top of the situation, Joseph Muscat brought together all Labour MPs to ALL renounce the repulsive increase to MPs.
That is called leadership. That is called leading by example.
S. Sultana
Feb 11th 2011, 21:18
So sixteen year olds cannot drive a car. Nor decide who should govern them. Nor read certain "immoral" books in their school libraries. But some think its OK to let 16-year olds decide whether the state should force adults to stay married against their will? You couldn't make this stuff up!!
j gatt
Feb 11th 2011, 21:12
All wierd forms of union are now accepted some fully legalized, cohabitation will be encouraged. Living a life in limbo should be tollerated, broken marraiges are for ever, but the word divorce, God forbid,Welcome to Afganistan, or is it catholic holier than holy Malta
J Borg
Feb 12th 2011, 12:45
In Afghanistan, women are treated as an object, without any special rights. A man can take his wife in a public square, and beat her for doing something he didn't like. Holy, Catholic Malta, treats women as equal to men. With divorce, a man can get rid of his wife, when he is fed up of her, treating her like a 'paljazza.' I believe that YOUR idea (of introducing divorce', falls more in line with Taliban mentality!
J Gatt
Feb 19th 2011, 18:54
@J Borg
With divorce, a man can get rid of his wife, when he is fed up of her, treating her like a 'paljazza.'
You may be pretending to be naive, or just plain ignorant of the facts.....
With or without divorce, a man can get rid of his wife, a wife can get rid of a husband when he/she is fed up of him or her, treating her/him like a 'paljazza.'
With divorce both are free to rebuild their life anew.
Mario Zerafa
Feb 11th 2011, 21:12
The family should be protected at all cost where children are involved. This country has done nothing to prepare youngsters on the subject. I think that devorce should be introduced in cases where there are no children. In the mean time education should prepare young couples on what is marrage and what they should expect and how they should prepare for such an import phase in life. Marrage can bring a person into a happy life as much as in dispare and therefore society should cater for citizens whose marrage has failed. The social environment in housing and employment are responsible for many broken relationships.
Victor Laiviera
Feb 12th 2011, 09:11
Mr Zerafa thinks that "divorce should be introduced in cases where there are no children." Now there's a bit of brilliant thinking for you! Make sure that children of broken marriages are forced to live in a poisoned athmosphere where two people hate each other but are forced to live together.
I'm sure the children would have a wonderful life.
J Borg
Feb 12th 2011, 12:38
Victor, normally it's us adults who ruin children's lives, not the other way round. In divorce, we adults FIRST settle our future, then, if we have time, we see what the children's future is to be. Sometimes children are VERY USEFUL in divorce precedures, as them may be USED as a weapon to hurt the other party, or to getr a better economic deal!!
Charles Sammut
Feb 11th 2011, 21:10
How many of these anti-divorzisti have been through a marriage breakdown themselves? I bet none of them, the usual, I'm allright sock you Jack mentality.
These are the same sort of people that reason that before you criticise others, you must walk a mile in their shoes. Like that when you criticise them, you are a mile away and you have their shoes!
Joe Cassar
Feb 11th 2011, 21:06
Who would have thought that a socially-committed MP like Marie Louise Coleiro would ally herself with the forces obstructing change and progress?
How very, very disappointing.
J Borg
Feb 12th 2011, 12:33
So, supporting and trying to safeguard the family, for you is equal to obstructing progress!! Confusion at it's best.
Erin Ciantar
Feb 11th 2011, 20:34
How moderate and progressive of them.
J. J. Borg
Feb 11th 2011, 21:14
So true. Especially that scientifically-enlightened statement that apparently children prefer that separated parents should live with new partners outside of marriage rather than that those parents should divorce and re-marry.
j hili
Feb 11th 2011, 21:43
looks like now everybody is in a hurry for divorce. why? will there be any bonuses?
jcamilleri
Feb 11th 2011, 21:44
yes, they are.
David Borg
Feb 11th 2011, 22:55
A true moderate and progressive is in favour of stability in the family and not in favour of the breakup of the family.
d. borg
Feb 12th 2011, 10:38
@ David Borg
Everyone is in favour of a stable family and no one likes to see a family breaking up, but the reality is that some marriages fail irrevocably and these people must have the right to start afresh and continue with their life.
Please choose the reason of your report below: