‘Proposed referendum question should be clear’
Affirming that he strongly believed in marriage and the importance to strengthen the value of the family, Nationalist MP Fredrick Azzopardi said the proposed referendum question was trying to sell and promote the idea of divorce when it should be a clear and one which did not conceal reality and which could offer a distinction between those who were in favour and those against divorce. The introduction of divorce would be a vote of distrust in the institution of marriage.
The proposed question also portrayed divorce as a concept which would benefit society. In reality, the decision was not as simple and one had to analyse the consequences divorce would have on society as a whole. The question should offer a distinction between those in favour and those against divorce.
Mr Azzopardi said it gave the impression that divorce would not be easy to obtain. Yet, upon examining the question, one realised that all spouses who had not been living together for four years could present a contract to a judge who would almost always grant divorce.
It was important to evaluate the consequences brought about by divorce in foreign countries, he said. In the United States, 50 per cent of children were living in divorced families. Such countries had realised that divorce came at a social cost and were thus promoting the idea that families should be protected.
Mr Azzopardi said divorce brought with it great financial repercussions to couples and this increased the burden on the government. Moreover in such countries, the rate of married couples had decreased even though the fact that people could marry more than once should have seen an increase in marriages. In the past few years, marriages in the United States had decreased by 50 per cent, mainly due to more cohabitating couples. This further showed that divorce did not offer any solutions.
One had to recognise that there indeed were failed marriages. However, divorce would not improve the situation. Countries which had introduced divorce had not seen a decrease in family problems. One could not condemn failed marriages. Society, politicians and the Church should work together to help reduce these problems.
Divorce had a negative impact on children. The proposed question said that divorce would only be granted if it could be guaranteed that children would not suffer. Experience showed that such guarantees were often not honoured.
Concluding, he said that in foreign countries, divorce had not offered a solution to family problems. Divorce had an effect on society as a whole and Malta should thus promote the values it truly believed in.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
J Gatt
Mar 5th 2011, 08:19
@M Borg
Glad to make you smile, Joe Zammit is a sweet old guy and he makes me laigh really.
The subject matter is very serious indeed, and the issue here is more important than what it seems.
It is all about freedom of choice, the minority rights and Democracy.
A marraige should have meaning, once a marriage has broken down without prospect of reconciliation, take away these factors, love, respect, fidelty, what are you then, left with?
A few signatures on peices of paper, a contract nothing else.
What is so sacred and meaningful with peices of paper, it is similar to paper money, that looses all its value, when confidence in that particular currency fades away.
It is but a business deal, pure and simple.
J Gatt
Mar 4th 2011, 17:52
@J Zammit, I shall say this only once, so listen very carefully, Marriage is the union of two persons, a man and a woman, for life. The two characteristics of marriage are: Unity and Indissolubility. If one of these is missing, it is no marriage at all. If unity is missing, it is bigamy; if indissolubility is missing, it is cohabitation. Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed! This is a prerecorded message, this tape will self destruct in a few seconds
MBorg
Mar 4th 2011, 19:43
You did manage to make me smile with your " I shall say this only once " alla Rene'. But when you realize that what we are writing about over here can change the face of marriage in Malta forever the smile quickly disappear. The issue of divorce is no laughing matter and when one tries to make a joke out of it ,it shows how little people know of the ugly side of divorce.
Joe Zammit
Mar 4th 2011, 16:32
The pro-divorce movement has no one single valid argument in favour of divorce. So what do you expect them to say? Just nonsense.
Marriage is the union of two persons, a man and a woman, for life. The two characteristics of marriage are: Unity and Indissolubility. If one of these is missing, it is no marriage at all. If unity is missing, it is bigamy; if indissolubility is missing, it is cohabitation.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Joseph Vassallo
Mar 5th 2011, 00:01
@Joe Zammit: Salam oh great Christian ayatollah.
Paul Barrett
Mar 5th 2011, 01:00
Quote: The pro-divorce movement has no one single valid argument in favour of divorce. Unquote.
Totally correct, the pro-divorce movement has several valid arguments in favour of divorce. OK if you want some examples how about:
Freedom of choice.
and for those that wish to opt for a civil marriage:
Social cohesion.
Legal security.
More stable relationship for the children.
Legitimate children rather than illegitimate children from the union.
The anti-divorce movement has no valid argument against divorce that does not equally apply to legal separation which may or may not be followed by cohabitation.
Paul Barrett
Mar 4th 2011, 13:29
Agreed, the majority of people do not want divorce and indeed are against divorce. That is excellent news and one can only hope that they never need divorce.
However there are many dead marriages, all-be-it a minority and it is time to give the people the freedom of choice to actually call it a day and move on.
None of the so called problems in this article are made any worse from the current situation and indeed, divorce legislation may indeed encourage one or two of the cohabiting couples to legalise their relationship in a civil marriage should they choose to do so.
That marriages will continue to break down and people will continue to cohabit is a fact of life. Preventing any chance of a second chance is nothing more than malicious spoliation and interference in the private lives of those in need.
MBorg
Mar 4th 2011, 15:27
Now you've said it !
" divorce legislation may indeed encourage one or two of the cohabitiing couples to legalise their relationship in a civil marriage ." So because of this one or two couples should we change the way we Maltese think of marriage. In Malta we have strong families and we are proud of this.
As you rightly wrote couples will still cohibit, so why open the flood gates to divorce and more much more , as has been proved worldwide, to cohabitation ?
Divorce breaks the social backbone of the nation and should be fought at all costs., there is nothing malicious about this.
Those who are in favour of divorce are only doing it because they know that they can get somthing out of this legislation. They do not care for the common good of the nation.
Paul Barrett
Mar 5th 2011, 01:21
@ MBorg
Quote: Those who are in favour of divorce are only doing it because they know that they can get something out of this legislation. They do not care for the common good of the nation. Unquote.
You are wrong about not caring for the common good of the Nation. Yes I do care not only about the common good but the individuals that are suffering, children living in a house of hell with parents at psychological or physical war with each other. These may be the minority of marriages but they certainly are not as marriage should be.
To alleviate the above situation we have legal separation. This is legal recognition that the marriage is not working. Naturally many separated individuals find partners and all divorce legislation does is to allow them the freedom of choice to opt for a civil marriage.
I am not separated, nor divorced and have nothing personal to gain from divorce legislation but I am very much in favour of people having the freedom to legally end a failed marriage and have another chance at happiness if they wish to. To deny people that freedom of choice does not strengthen a marriage.
l.theuma
Mar 4th 2011, 13:16
All catholics are against divorce. The reason is that Christ condemmed divorce. No authentic catholic can go against his Master's voice.
Joe Zammit
Mar 4th 2011, 11:28
The great majority of PN supporters are against divorce.
The great majority of PL supporters are against divorce.
The great majority of Maltese and Gozitans are against divorce.
All these majorities are positive people: in favour of the indissolubility of marriage.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Claude Lacoste
Mar 4th 2011, 12:46
continue, continue your copy-paste ... even, persons who are against divorce, will be for the divorce ... and "your devil" will be the winner !!!
Ramon Casha
Mar 4th 2011, 11:08
"Divorce had a negative impact on children."
No, it does not. SEPARATION has a negative effect on children. Incidentally, remaining together under one roof with an abusive or cheating spouse can have an even worse effect.
"The introduction of divorce would be a vote of distrust in the institution of marriage."
No, it would be a vote of trust in the individuals' ability to succeed on a second attempt.
"One had to recognise that there indeed were failed marriages. However, divorce would not improve the situation. "
It does. It allows the couple to live separate lives, and optionally to formalise their new, thriving relationships. It removes certain legal hurdles caused by a spouse who hasn't spoken to them for decades.
"Countries which had introduced divorce had not seen a decrease in family problems."
They never repealed it either. Incidentally, it's impossible to know whether the rate of family problems without divorce would have been better. We only know that, without divorce, Malta has the same problems.
edwin formosa
Mar 4th 2011, 15:48
Though divorce is not a human right some regard it as a human concession, a so-called necessary evil to cope with a culture that has undermined the institution of marriage. Yet you are so much caught up in the zeitgeist that you depict divorce as if it magically resolves all domestic internecine conflict that makes us immune against marital strife .
The dynamics of divorce are every complex. It is not just the issue of rights/non-rights of the minority It affects society as a whole because it destabilize marriage once its permanence character is removed by law. We are speaking about marriage here, the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Not just a couple who cannot control their attractions towards other people and fully focus just on one till they die . Who cannot be trusted in keeping their word, and faithfulness. A matter of minority rights yes, but it redefines a public institution for everyone. It is unfair for the majority if the minority hides its libertarian reasons under the guise of addressing a social issue. The something which did not work out as planned as some always argue, is adultery .
Ramon Casha
Mar 4th 2011, 19:11
@edwin formosa: The "permanence" of marriage is a fiction, and has never existed. Ever since the concept of marriage existed, there have been some which failed. That means that marriage is not permanent in itself. Even if 90% of marriages succeed, that doesn't make marriage permanent or "indissoluble". That would be like saying that you have a glass vase that's never been broken, therefore glass vases are unbreakable. Divorce changes nothing in the nature of marriage. Marriages have already been dissolved in our country through separation and through annulment. Yes, annulment. It's absurd to say that a marriage "never existed" five years after the wedding. The only realistic grounds for annulment that I can think of are marriages of convenience, where the couple didn't really want to get married but just get residency or work permits.
Ramon Casha
Mar 4th 2011, 11:00
"The question should offer a distinction between those in favour and those against divorce."
Wrong. That's like asking people if they are in favour of amputations or not. It's not a pleasant prospect, but there are medical situations that call for such a surgical intervention. We'd all like to be always healthy, never having to visit a doctor, and similarly we'd all like to have happy marriages that last forever. The truth is that sometimes people need a doctor, and sometimes couples need a divorce.
"Yet, upon examining the question, one realised that all spouses who had not been living together for four years..."
If they've been apart for four years and failed at every attempt to mend things, then the marriage is already over, and one might as well amend the record to reflect this, which is what divorce does.
"Society, politicians and the Church should work together to help reduce these problems."
Certainly, but even if these problems are reduced they won't be eliminated entirely, so there will still be cases where divorce is the right way forward.