Lawmakers could add more conditions on divorce – Vella

Although the question to be asked to the electorate in the divorce referendum made a number of conditions for seeking divorce, more conditions to those seeking divorce could be added by legislators as long as these conditions were based on reason and showed compassion for those who were suffering, George Vella (PL) told Parliament yesterday.

He declared that the opposition had been clear on the issue of divorce from the beginning. It was not fundamentalist and gave its MPs freedom of expression and conscience on the issue.

The opposition was unanimous on this motion, even though there were parliamentarians who opposed divorce. But all MPs had certain obligations: while taking cognisance of their conscience, they had to shoulder their responsibilities towards the community.

Dr Vella called for a responsible discussion on the issue in the House, claiming that it was unfortunate that the opposition was being accused of intellectual dishonesty, quoting from various sources but not applying the same analysis on cohabitation. This was sheer hypocrisy. The common good was harmed when there was bad governance with measures which harmed the family and not through divorce.

Dr Vella declared that the Labour Party had always been in favour of the family, believed in strengthening the family and believed in giving children the best environment. In principle it was against divorce but was concerned for the people who suffered when marriage broke down. In government it had taken measures which favoured family stability, through housing, welfare, education, health and other measures.

In his medical career, he said, he came across a large number of cases where children and spouses were suffering because of marital breakdown or separation. Children always passed through traumas when their parents’ marriages failed.

Legislating in favour of divorce meant giving married couples, whose relationship broke down, the chance to start a new life. No-one should continue to live in desperation and in suffering. This was not available to those who believed in Catholic marriage, but there were people who were non-believers or belonged to other religions. It was dishonest and condemnable to equate divorce with abortion and euthanasia.

The Labour Party had repeatedly declared itself against abortion, and there was a lot to discuss about euthanasia.

Dr Vella said he opposed the type of divorce as advocated by the government in putting a simplistic question to the electorate in the referendum. The question as put in the motion was loaded because it qualified the type of divorce, also giving the message that there should be more preparation for marriage. More education was needed to make people more responsible in deciding to marry.

Annulment of marriage was an absurdity because every couple had to know all facts before entering into marriage. Everyone sought the facts before entering into a simple contract, let alone marriage. This meant that those who had the means could get an annulment as if the marriage never existed, when the couple had children as a result of that union.

Dr Vella said it was wrong for the state to abrogate its sovereignty on the right to decide on civil annulment in favour of the Vatican. The state had a secular mentality where there were believers and non-believers. It was therefore just to give this right even to a minority. There were people who were not ready to enter into cohabitation, but would consider a second marriage if they were divorced.

The state of family breakdown was not the result of a divorce mentality but the result of the pattern of modern life. There were more marriages which broke down through such means as social websites like Facebook and mobile phones than by other means. This did not mean that one should stop technology, but that families should be assisted because children suffered from the first day that the marriage relationship cracked.

It was right that the people were to be consulted through the referendum. Electors had to be given the chance to listen and every side had to be given the same chance to voice its arguments.

MPs were obliged to provide education on these issues which at present were not tackled in the curriculum. Young people had to be made conscious of their responsibilities and enter into marriage as a bond of love. Young people had to be educated on the great benefits which resulted from a united and stable family, and pass these values to their children.