One of the common arguments used when discussing divorce is that the majority has no right to impose its will on a minority. This is what Kenneth Wain argues (The Sunday Times, February 20).
“If we do not wish our democracy to be simply such a tyranny (a tyranny of the majority) we should not, as a society, let these rights be decided by referendum, or submit them to the will of the majority”, and “though democracy is about the common good, that good is best served when people are left free to live their lives, to determine their good for themselves, not when a paternalistic state or an intolerant majority have the arrogance to dictate it to them.”
So also goes the reasoning of Lino Spiteri in his column in the same issue: “Those who do not need divorce legislation have no right to arrogate to themselves the power of imposing their will on those who live in the reality of broken marriages.”
Those who are directly affected by the absence of divorce legislation are those whose marriages have broken down. But to reason that those who are against divorce are simply imposing their will on the minority is not correct.
The principal reason why many of us are against divorce is because we want to safeguard the indissolubility of marriage. When looking at the good of society as a whole, we look at marriage as a covenant between the interested parties and God rather than as a contract that can easily be broken.
We want us to look at marriage as an institution that propagates the well-being of the family and the whole of society by its unconditional commitment.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the most complete realisation of the common good is found in those political communities which defend and promote the good of their citizens and of intermediate groups without forgetting the universal good of the entire human family”.
Opposing the introduction of divorce does not only affect those whose marriage has failed but also safeguards the liberalisation of the institution of marriage.
A society that treasures the family, values the indissolubility of marriage and believes that one’s commitment has to be binding at all costs (whatever the circumstances) is a society that believes in the permanence of marriage and in its ability to strengthen and support the family.
Though it is true that divorce permits those whose marriage has broken down to be given a chance to start anew, the repercussions on the institution of marriage and on society as a whole far outweigh the good of the minority.
It is this sense of common good that should guide one when rejecting divorce, and not the imposition of the will of the majority on a minority. Because we treasure the permanence of marriage which can only last through fidelity, sacrifice, selfless love and forgiveness, we keep on harping that the sacredness of marriage lies in its total and unconditional commitment.
Divorce undermines the fundamental meaning of marriage.
The question we should ask is not whether by voting against the introduction of divorce we are imposing our position on a minority but whether divorce would benefit a minority at the cost of jeopardising the institution of marriage and the good of society as a whole.