Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi yesterday opened a fresh line of attack against divorce, warning that the referendum question proposed by the Labour Party would pave the way for no-fault divorce.
“This means you can get divorced even if you are at fault... even if you are the cause (of the breakup)... and there will be no consequences at all (for you),” he told The Times after a political activity, as one of his middle-aged supporters jokingly asked him if he should get a divorce to leave his wife for a 25-year-old.
During the activity, Dr Gonzi had said he was very worried about the referendum question being supported by the pro-divorce lobby but he would reveal his reasons at the opportune moment.
Deborah Schembri, who chairs that lobby, reacted to Dr Gonzi’s fears, saying that since divorce would only be possible after four years of legal separation, “it really does not make sense to attribute blame at this stage”. (She explains her reasons on page 4.)
Dr Gonzi was addressing supporters at the Nationalist Party club in Attard – the constituency of backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who is campaigning for divorce legislation and who said he would support the question proposed by the Labour Party. Dr Pullicino Orlando was sitting in the front row at the event and although he clapped during some parts of Dr Gonzi’s speech, his face turned bright red whenever the Nationalist leader spoke strongly against divorce.
Early in his speech, when talking about employment, Dr Gonzi spoke of the socio-economic turmoil being experienced in Ireland and the fact that country had also discussed divorce and introduced it by referendum.
“(In Ireland) they also spoke about divorce and approved it in a referendum... However, today they are not talking about divorce or the family but about a financial crisis that has crippled them. Today, I am proud that my country is not in that situation,” he said, adding that Malta’s recent economic successes were thanks to the fact that the government did not heed the advice of the Opposition.
Later, Dr Gonzi said Labour leader Joseph Muscat had refused his invitation to meet and agree about the question to ask at a divorce referendum.
Dr Gonzi wants this to be a simple “yes” or “no” to the introduction of divorce but the Labour Party is unanimously sticking to its original question which is based on the Bill presented by Dr Pullicino Orlando: “Do you agree with the introduction of the option of divorce in the case of a married couple, which has been separated or living apart for at least four years, when there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation and where adequate maintenance is guaranteed and children protected?”
Dr Gonzi said asking this question did not make sense unless there was a Bill already approved by Parliament, because otherwise such parameters could be changed at parliamentary stage, making such conditions irrelevant.
He also said it did not make sense for Malta’s highest democratic institution not to have its say on divorce.
Dr Gonzi then went a step further and gave two alternatives to the question he proposed: “So far, marriage in Malta has always been permanent. Someone is now saying this should no longer be the case. No matter how much you can sugar-coat it, the question remains this: Do you want to reduce marriage to the state of being engaged (għerusija)? Do we want to reduce it to a loose tie (rabta ċoff)?”
“I vote no,” he added enthusiastically to loud applause, before adding that he respected those whose opinion differed.
Dr Gonzi also told supporters that the reason Dr Muscat was so insistent on having a debate quickly was because he feared the referendum would be held the day after Our Lady of Sorrows. “(But) this is such a serious matter for our families that I would not play any such games,” Dr Gonzi said. Meanwhile, Parliament is on Wednesday expected to begin discussing the Labour Party’s divorce referendum motion, which is said to enjoy the support of the majority of MPs. A House Business Committee meeting is being planned for early this week to refine details of how the debate will proceed.
No-fault divorce ‘makes perfect sense’
The legislation proposed by MPs Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo introduces the concept of no-fault divorce but, according to pro-divorce lobby chairman Deborah Schembri, this makes “perfect sense”.
No-fault divorce, which is commonly practised around the western world, basically means that a separated couple can get a divorce without having to cite particular reasons, except that their marriage has irrevocably ended.
Reacting to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s comments, Dr Schembri stressed that it did not make sense to attribute blame at a stage when the couple would already have been legally separated for four or more years, as is being proposed.
She said Malta already had legal no-fault separation so it would be counterintuitive to follow this with a fault-based divorce.
“We have looked at alternatives but even countries which initially had fault-based divorce felt it wise to introduce no-fault divorce.”
In cases where separation has not yet been obtained but the couple has been living apart for the stipulated time, the proposed law enables fault-based divorce since the couple would be getting separated and divorced simultaneously.
Dr Schembri added that it did not make sense to punish the person at fault by preventing either spouse from remarrying.
“Wouldn’t this be the same as locking up an abuser in one cell and the abused in another, thus unjustly punishing the victim with exactly the same punishment as the perpetrator?
“In the case of annulment, the spouse who is to blame is not punished by being stopped from getting married, so why should this be the case in a divorce scenario?
“Should we also stop someone who has been the cause of a marriage breakdown from remarrying even if his/her spouse dies, just in case they do the same thing to their new spouse?”
Dr Schembri added that a fault-based divorce would make the situation worse for children since it would create more unnecessary animosity.
“Studies show that what really gets to children in a broken marriage scenario is conflict rather than separation, which they feel is inevitable and sometimes desired.”
Dr Schembri wondered if Dr Gonzi agreed with anti-divorce campaigner André Camilleri who was recently quoted as saying that divorce should not be given in cases of domestic violence since it would also allow the abusers to abuse their second spouse.
“This argument does not make sense since one cannot stop the so-called abuser from having other relationships outside marriage through cohabitation or otherwise, and therefore, not giving the right to divorce would not solve anything. It would just give the spouse who is not to blame no choice but to cohabit and have children out of wedlock.”