Michael Falzon’s Opinion (February 4) that “The divorce issue is not whether divorce strengthens the institution of the family but whether the lack of divorce is undermining the very concept of the ‘family’ and ‘order’ in our society”, set me thinking about some of the similarities and differences between the pro and anti-divorce stands.

Both lobbies agree that the divorce issue should not be decided upon religious grounds. Żwieg Bla Divorzju is in fact not taking any religious stands. In a secular state, Parliament should take cognisance of different views and should not legislate as though voters were exclusively practising Catholics. The state is however duty bound to ascertain the effects of divorce on the whole of society. If the “common good” approach leads to a conclusion which coincides with the Roman Catholic position on divorce, that in no way implies that one is imposing morals. By the same token, the state is not imposing morals just because its position on “taking thy neighbour’s goods” is similar to that of the Church.

Both lobbies appear to value the “family” and apparently both uphold the “common good” approach. Identical values however are invoked to justify diametrically opposed stands, so where does the difference lie?

Differently to the pro-divorce lobby, Żwieg Bla Divorzju is not of the view that the state of marriage breakdowns is so widespread that divorce is required to restore order to an otherwise disorderly society. On the contrary, this movement is of the view that while the introduction of family centric policies can mitigate further marriage breakdowns, divorce will, in the prevailing circumstances, merely aggravate matters.

The pro-divorce view that divorce is necessary to rehabilitate relationships which have no legal recognition assumes that persons in extra-marital relationships will in fact marry if divorce is introduced. That assumption cannot be made across the board. What is certain however is that divorce will change the concept of marriage, not only for divorcing couples, but for the whole of society. If divorce only affected divorcees, the decision to introduce divorce, as least from a “common good” perspective, would have been easier. The truth is that by requesting a right to remarry, pro-divorce lobbyists are calling for a change in the concept of marriage for the whole of society. Divorce law prescribes a marriage with an option to exit, for all. Marriage with an exit clause is hardly distinguishable from regulated cohabitation.

Another oft quoted pro-divorce argument is that an anti-divorce stand negates civil liberties. There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to divorce or remarry. No international convention on human rights contemplates it. In any event, no right or liberty is absolute. Every right is limited by common good or societal considerations. Unless matters of fundamental rights are at stake, the balancing act played by politicians in reconciling differing “interests” is not uncommon. In deciding to introduce divorce, we should be asking ourselves whether the family will be strengthened and whether society will be better or worse off. The benefits to society of successful second chance marriages have to be weighed against the negative effects of transforming our concept of marriage and increasing marriage breakdowns.

One fundamental difference between the two lobbies is the primacy or prevalence of rights. Whilst the pro-divorce view suggests that individual liberty should prevail, regardless of the long-term effects of divorce on society at large, an anti-divorce view is motivated by the conviction that divorce, besides being a private remedy, is prevalently a public concern and it is overall detrimental to the family and society.

The tragedy of this debate is that as policy makers and commentators quote statistics and invoke different arguments to justify their stands, the real life situations where spouses and, above all, children are suffering as a result of marital breakdown are undoubtedly on the increase. I have no doubt that both the anti and pro divorce lobbies are driven by the desire to provide workable solutions to a worrying situation and to reverse this trend or at least keep it at bay. Both lobbies hold the “family” at heart and now, it appears, also the “common good”. The objectives of both lobbies are strikingly similar, the means towards achieving them, so fundamentally different.

Mr Galea Salomone is chairman of the Malta Stock Exchange.