‘Divorce would increase civil rights in a secular state’

The choice before the electorate in the May 28 referendum was that of increasing civil rights through the introduction of divorce in a secular state without imposing personal beliefs, values and morals, Labour MP Michael Falzon said on Wednesday.

In an ideal society there would be no need of separation, annulment or divorce but reality in dictated that 10 per cent of the adult population – amounting to more than 30,000 people – were living in a relationship beyond marriage. Faced with this reality, legislators therefore had an obligation to increase this civil right.

Dr Falzon said that one had to distinguish among separation where, though estranged, the couple remained married, annulment where the marriage was considered null and void and divorce where the first marriage remained valid for its effects but gave the chance to the couple to enter in a second marriage contract.

Parliament was to legislate on a civil right within a secular state and therefore the debate had to be detached from the religious argumentation. Malta had been recognising responsible divorce from other countries since 1975. Parliament should no longer be servile in giving this recognition but denying this right to its citizens in Malta. He added that in secular Malta , Parliament was also being servile in legislating for the courts to accept and be bound by marriage annulments given by canonical tribunals.

Marriage was essentially a contract between two sides where each side had to have the right to rescind the contract. There were many factors which led to cases of separation. These included economic burdens such as paying of house loans over a 40-year-period, economic hardship and lack of services in certain areas. All these problems left their mark on children. One should not therefore use this pecuniary aspect to oppose divorce.

Dr Falzon said that the no-fault argument was already being applied in the separation regime where there were grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

In presenting the motion, the opposition showed that it was united, consistent and responsible. On the contrary the government had made a number of U-turns and showed inconsistency on the issue even making obstacles for the issue to be debated in Parliament.

The opposition also showed that it believed in the freedom of conscience and tolerance when giving a free vote not only to its MPs but also to the electors.

The motion presented four conditions under which divorce could be granted, including the guarantee of maintenance and protection of children.

During the last 40 years, Malta had recognised responsible divorce granted in other countries. It did not recognise divorce granted under the Muslim rite or of the type of divorce. Putting a “yes” or “no” question to the electorate meant opening the door to the recognition of such divorces.

Dr Falzon said that the question to the electorate should reflect what legislators would be discussing in the ensuing Bill. It did not make sense to ask people to decide on something when they did not know what the details of the Bill would be.