Why does the wording of the question make such a difference?
What happens when the flame of love has been extinguished? Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi
The referendum question being proposed by the Labour Party is “so skewed and biased” that anti-divorce Labour MPs must find it difficult to justify their support, according to media studies lecturer Fr Joe Borg.
He was asked to react to The Sunday Times survey which found that 58 per cent of respondents would vote yes if such a question, based on the Private Member’s Bill moved by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo, were put and that 43 per cent would say yes if they had to indicate whether or not they agreed with the introduction of divorce.
Fr Borg, a blogger, said he had predicted such overwhelming support for this type of question because at face value it could be “mistaken as a reasonable one” but on closer analysis was really just a “sham”.
The pro-divorce lobby, he pointed out, was harping on the right of battered, or abandoned women, to get a divorce. But the question’s premise was that anyone could divorce after just four years, even if one of the partners was “unwilling”.
“(The anti-divorce lobby) has to persuade people that the referendum question is for irresponsible divorce,” Fr Borg said, pointing out that people seemed to believe that Labour’s motion could guarantee maintenance and care for children but this “cannot be the case”.
Fr Borg said the survey showed younger people were more likely to be in favour of divorce, indicating that divorce was not the main issue being debated.
“Divorce is just a symptom of a culture that is privatising relationships in line with the libertarian ethos and in contrast with communitarian ethics. The young are the natives of this generation.”
On the other hand, history professor Henry Frendo said the survey showed people made a clear distinction between a type of divorce that “gives marriage a chance” and a quick-fix divorce typical in places like Los Angeles.
Many, he said, were against divorce but in favour of a “last-resort divorce”, only applicable when all else failed.
“This is why the question based on the Bill presented in Parliament seems safer and more respectful to the citizens... because you’re not just telling them ‘Divorce: yes or no’. You’re offering divorce conditional on the fact that a marriage has been a disaster for at least four years.”
However, he said his own views were much simpler: “Divorce is a civil right. Period.”
He questioned the accuracy of surveys such as that conducted by The Sunday Times and other forms of polls because of Malta’s insular peer pressure, which prevents people from freely speaking their mind. He said a secret vote in a referendum could provide surprising results.
According to education professor Kenneth Wain the result is still wide open and loyalties can shift as the campaign continues, especially after a decision is taken on the question.
“The question is crucial,” he said, adding he was not surprised by the fact that results varied depending on the question asked.
“I think the broader question is too open and people would be afraid it would create a permissive climate where people would start divorcing left, right and centre – a Las Vegas kind of situation.”
On the other hand, if divorce is contained through a specific and restrictive Bill, people will be reassured.
“I think it’s very unfair to put a general question because that is not what is being proposed to Parliament. So if people should be consulted, they should be consulted on what is being proposed: a restricted and controlled type of divorce legislation.”
This explained why there were fewer undecided individuals when the question was specific (nine per cent) as opposed to when the question was generic (15 per cent), he said.
Reacting to another finding in the survey – that Labourites were more likely to favour divorce than Nationalists – Prof. Wain said this had a lot to do with the radically different examples being set by the two leaders.
The pros and cons of a referendum question
As if the debate on whether divorce should be introduced was not controversial enough, the parliamentary motion on what question should be asked in the referendum is divisive in itself. David Schembri tries to break the pros and cons of the question based on the Private Member’s Bill as presented by the two sides. The question proposed in Parliament on February 23 is: “Do you agree with the introduction of the divorce option in the case of a married couple which has been separated or has not lived together for at least four years, and where there is no reasonable hope of reconciliation between the spouses, while adequate maintenance is guaranteed and children are protected?”
Con – Moviment Żwieġ Bla Divorzju
• The question conditions the voter to think about the kind of divorce that should be introduced, even before s/he has decided whether marriage should remain indissoluble or not.
• The question fails to show that divorce may be obtained by one party, even though s/he may be the party at fault and even though the innocent party objects.
• It gives the misleading impression that rights and interests such as maintenance may be guaranteed when experience has shown that in separation cases there have been many cases of maintenance not being honoured for one reason or another.
• Divorce cannot ensure children are cared for. Their pain is ignored, which, after a separation, is further aggravated by having to adapt to a third party who takes the place of one of their parents.
• The question hides the fact that divorce may be obtained for no reason and all it takes is for a spouse to walk away, live apart for four years and claim the marriage has been irrevocably broken down. This is irresponsible.
• Divorce, with this legislation, could be imposed on a spouse who might want to stay married for reasons such as the children’s interests.
• The divorce law, as proposed, does not set any limit on the number of marriages one can go through. In effect, one can marry, divorce, remarry, divorce repeatedly.
Labour Party
• A referendum on such a delicate subject requires a specific question and not a simplistic one which is seemingly being proposed by the Prime Minister.
Pro – Moviment Iva Għad-Divorzju, Iva għaż-Żwieġ
• The question should be one which reflects the Bill before Parliament.
• The present question refers to a specific type of divorce, which is not “Las Vegas style” but “far more responsible and achievable only where there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation”.
• A generic question can pave the way for a quick fix divorce.
• It’s untrue that a specific question “conditions voters to think of what kind of divorce they want when they still haven’t decided on the principle” as people would have decided on that beforehand.
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...
78 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
N. S Tanti
Mar 11th 2011, 10:22
Part 3
And please all these ridiculous statements by Joe Zammit about battles and so on are doing more harm than good. If this Zammit wants someone that cares about what he's saying he should give facts and reasonable basis for his comments and not fantasies. Battles, his statistics and so on are just the laughing stock of these pages. Sometimes I wonder how much the times should be annoyed checking the same comments over and over again.
N. S Tanti
Mar 11th 2011, 10:22
Part 2
Also, in one of your comments you said "infidelity, cheating, violence, abandoning one's own children". May I remind you that these are all very good reasons to get a divorce and not to become tollerant towards a partner. All these things you mentioned destroy the marriage and not vice versa. There is no tolleration that can be applied to such acts therefore that marriage needs to inevitably end once and for all. In such situation the partner (especially the one with no fault) should be given the opportunity to re-create his/her life because everyone has the right to be happy just like you.
I am not married but I want divorce to be here because I have suffered a violent boyfriend and know what it's all about. If at that time I didn't had the opportunity to leave probably today I wouldn't be commenting here. My parents have been married for 35 years but they want divorce even if they know that they will never use it. This is called respecting other people's needs Joe Grima. That's all about.
N. S Tanti
Mar 11th 2011, 10:21
@Joe Grima Brussels - Part 1
I promised myself I wouldn't comment on such issue with people like you and Joe Zammit around. All your comments are quite absurd to me. However I would like to ask you a question: If you are so proud of Malta not having divorce, why are you living in another country that has divorce? You have left this country (since you say Brussels) therefore why do you want to impose something on us? This is like the argument where australians come to vote for our elections. They contribute to elect maybe a wrong government and they they go back to their country leaving us in all the resulting problems. If you are not living here, therefore don't bother to give your opinion and force on us your argument.
Gerry Cowie
Mar 9th 2011, 21:48
@Wally Vella-Zarb - Please fully justify your remarks to Mr Grima. Do you consider what you have said to be fair? Who are all these people who might wish to sue him and why?
@ Everybody - I am constantly amazed at the contributions cropping up in this important debate which seem to detract from the core issue and really are not very constructive.
Everyone should recall the words of the PM, some months back, who asked for a sensible and reasoned debate on this issue. All the sniping and point-scoring, the sarcasm and snide comments in general do nothing for either side in this debate, or indeed any other. All those indulging in such behaviour should search their own consciences and ask themselves if they are entirely without fault.
The wording in any referendum is always a point of conflict. Therefore it should not contain a bias, whether or not hidden, in any direction.
Joe Zammit
Mar 9th 2011, 20:19
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!
victor pulis
Mar 9th 2011, 18:33
The pro-divorce lobby, he pointed out, was harping on the right of battered, or abandoned women, to get a divorce. But the question’s premise was that anyone could divorce after just four years, even if one of the partners was “unwilling”.
Why anyone would want to continue living with a partner who wants a divorce is beyond me.
MBorg
Mar 9th 2011, 19:19
Fr Borg is right the referendum question is so biased it is surprising that many are being tricked by it.
The pro divorce are using battered or abandoned women to get people on their side. What they are not saying is that they are getting divorce for everybody not just for these women. Infact it is very simple to file for this " reponsible divorce " all one has to do is live apart or be separated for four years. If they follow the same rules that they have in Ireland you can be classified as being separated even if you live in the same house. It could not be easier.You can be divorced even if you do not want a divorce.
There are differnt reasons why one would not want a divorce.. A wife with young children would want to remain married for the sake of her children. A husband who might be the best husband and father in the world would not want ot lose custody of his children. It is not often that mothers loses custody. A business man might put his business at risk if he had to split everything with his wife. Reasons are various
David Buttigieg
Mar 9th 2011, 18:21
Dear Joe Grima Brussels,
The sheer and utter arrogance is imposing one's views on others!
Yes to me any book with magic is a fairy tale, and if it offends you then tough but no offence meant! Do not well over two thirds of the world's population see it the same way?
Ofcourse anybody who divorces (and re-marries) is not Catholic ... duh! Mur obsor!
Any true Catholic will never re-marry.
I take it you live in Brussels, divorce is available there, how does it affect you?
You actually chose to live in a place with the horrors of divorce present?
R Borg
Mar 9th 2011, 15:36
Some relationships are very toxic,not every body is lucky and some marriages fail,those unlucky without divorce will have to cohabit so a vote for divorce is a vote for marriage.Simple very simple.
MBorg
Mar 9th 2011, 18:49
You have been writing this over and over., many have unswered you but it seems that you do not want to change your view.
" without divorce will have to cohabit so a vote for divorce is a vote for marriage, simple very simple. "
No wrong very wrong. It has been proved that where one can find divorce the number of couples who cohabit goes up not down every year. The number of marriages in these countries goes down every year. It is the very opposite of what you wrote. A vote for divorce is a vote against marriage. Divorce kills marriage, those who say that it does not are living in a world of thier own. The facts in our real world are very different.
Dominic Chircop
Mar 9th 2011, 15:25
Is this Joe Grima from Brussels some agent of Opus Dei >
There is no mispront. He uderstoos correctly. Iam against divorce but will vote for it in the referendum. Unlike him ( we do not even know if he is married), I will not impose my views on others.
I would have preferred tat our parliamentarians voted divorce into the statute book.
But according to his tone, he is a perfect His Master's Voice (and I am here referring to an earthly master),
It is a pity he arrived on earth some 300 years late.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 9th 2011, 16:17
For your information, I AM married, NOT 40 for years, I must admit, but getting on in years. But unlike you, I BELIEVE that true love, devotion to duty, sincerity and a little humility can lead to a successful marriage. So I'm more in favour of taking steps for avoiding breakups, and helping those who need a helping hand. What I don't understand among some others among the bloggers, is the fact that whenever anyone mentions these options, they try to ridicule, and state that they don't work. As if giving them a trial is not worth it, and they want divorce at all costs.
A Vella
Mar 9th 2011, 17:15
@ Joe Grima Brussels,
Iva, li tghin huwa tajjeb. Ma nahsibx li x'hin jidhol id-divorzju l-ewwel problema li tinqala` imorru jiehduh. Int bhala ragel mizzewweg u ghandek zwieg felici, li hekk ghandu jkun, ma tistax titkellem ghal min mhux bhalek. Jekk ghandek zwieg tajjeb, l-ebda ligi ma tista tkissru. Jekk ikollok zwieg hazin, ma narax ghalfejn jigu nies bhalek u jimponuli u jghiduli trid toqghodu mal-partner tieghek bil-fors. Nisperaw mintx kontra il-koabitazzjoni ukoll! Jekk int kontriha ukoll, jiddispjacini nghidlek li mintx tghix f'dinja u ma tafx min xiex jghaddu certu nies li jitkisrilhom iz-zwieg. Jekk partner ma jkunx irid ikompli, l-ebda persuna m'ghandha dritt tghidlu ibqa' fiz-zwieg bil-fors. Id-divorzju jmissu li dahal f'pajjizna zmien, mhux fl-2011 ghadna nitkellmu x'ghandna naghmlu.
j Gatt
Mar 10th 2011, 00:52
@Mr Brussels
I BELIEVE that true love, devotion to duty, sincerity and a little humility can lead to a successful marriage.
It takes two to Tango Mr Brussels. What if the other half decides to Cha Cha instead?
What would you do if it happens to you, I should not think you`d Cha Cha yourself?
That would be against your principles, would`nt it?
How cool it would be, if everybody could win the Lottery, some seem to have lady luck always smiling at them.
Yet, some think they are in heaven, but at times, what you do`nt know won`t hurt you, unless you find out.
Philip Hili
Mar 10th 2011, 01:20
@ Joe Grima Brussels,
Tati minn dak li ghandek, ma tistax tati minn dak li ma ghandikx!!!!
martin saliba
Mar 9th 2011, 15:02
Whatever the outcome of this divorce debate one thing is certain, divorce will be in malta sometime or other. It is very much like death , you can cheat it once, twice thrice and so on with the help of medical advancements and in some cases some may even say miracles but death will come one day or another as will divorce.
l fenech
Mar 9th 2011, 13:53
Biex in-nies ikun jafu xi fisser divorzju u ghal-xix ikunu dehlin, x'rid " trid te iva jew le" minghajr ma tkun taf x'fieh.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 9th 2011, 13:52
David Buttigieg. (3 hours ago) '...the Bible: i.e. a long, boring fairy tale...' The sheer guts, and utter insolence, of many pro-divorce campaigners, to INSULT the Holy Book which is treasured by thousands of Maltese (often icluding their own parents!). Mr Buttigieg, you're a very lucky man to be living in a Catholic enviroment! Had you been living in a Muslim country, you wouldn't have had the guts to insult THEIR Holy Book.
Anyhow, I wasn't that amazed that such an insult towards the Holy Bible came from one of the pro-divorce ring! I think that showing lack of respect to the Bible is quite common among them. No wonder, since many among them treat their 'beloved ones' just like something to recycle! 'Paljazza', in Maltese, David! Your comment give a clear indication of the attitude towords religion, marriage, and duties, many in the pro-divorce campaign adhere to!
wally vella-zarb
Mar 9th 2011, 15:33
"No wonder, since many among them treat their 'beloved ones' just like something to recycle! 'Paljazza', in Maltese"
Really, Mr Grima? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and name some names instead of making snide remarks from behind a keyboard? I assure you that there would be many who would not hesitate to sue you for all you might be worth (not much if your ethical standards are anything to go by). If you do represent the typical catholic, I am not surprised that so many are 'lapsing' and going to other religions or even to no religion at all.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 9th 2011, 16:10
Mr Vella Zarb. Don't you think that those who want a VERY quick fix divorce, ESPECIALLY those who intend to use it more than once, treat their 'beloved' as something that can be recycled? Those who feel offended are those who want divorce as something to play with, and NOT those who are in a desperate situation!
A. Grech
Mar 9th 2011, 16:12
Dear Mr. Grima,
kindly refrain from alluding that everyone who is pro-divorce has a hidden agenda or is irresponsible. And why mention Muslim countries, the issue is here in ours, its enough that people are including in the debate religious beliefs, this is a civil law being discussed, it has its pros and cons, like anything else in this world. The faithful should not worry since they just have to opt not to divorce, whilst others will have what they believe is their right, a right to re-marry or to terminate a bond with a no longer wanted spouse.
And with the holy bible issue, i fail to see where the insult was. Was it because he referred to it as a fairytale? That means that for the person its just another story, why consider it an insult? If i am not mistaken even Einstein referred to it in the same manner in some of his letters. You insulted many more people with your judging comments saying that people who walk away from the church fall for vice, do you know everyone? I walked away from the church when i was a teenager and never found reason to goback.
wally vella-zarb
Mar 9th 2011, 16:57
Mr Grima, as usual you are twisting words. Your insinuations were directed at those who are pro-divorce. Slimy contortions of what is written by people who do not share your views will not get you anywhere. Your attitude and the paucity of logic and ethics in your contributions only serve to attract well-deserved contempt. May you, eventually, proceed to your ‘paradise’; I and many others are glad not to share such a place with beings such as yourself
.
Alfred Muscat
Mar 9th 2011, 13:41
The question is important...as well explained by Onor Vassallo in parliament yesterday...the referendum is a consultative one . Hence MPs would be free to vote according to their conscience even if the majoritry says yes to a consulktative question.......It was a question twisted by PL to dislead the public and to put try and tie the hands its own MP's who are against divorce. So I would call on these MP's to respect their conscience and vote against any bill which comes before them in Parliament asking to endorse divorce. In this way PL has managed to spoil a referendum which now I think is going to be waste of money
C Gatt
Mar 9th 2011, 14:12
@PBorg "Do not put words in others without being said." wow is this Google Translate?
Re: "In no case one was imposing one's morals, or religious belief....on the contrary ..... my point... (was when)...a party...decides, for any reason, to terminate one's marrage and opt for divorce the other party (victim or not) is obliged to take that path notwithstanding his/her morals or convictions?.... I would be glad if someone would answer that point!"
I am not even sure I understand the question. First and foremost after claiming that he was not imposing morals or religious beliefs , Mr Borg then goes on to impose moral and religious beliefs.
Secondly divorce has no effect on the person who does not believe in divorce any more then the death of a partner. He or she will opt to remain single, a situation which would already have been the case anyway as even without divorce the couple's marriage is still broken, the partners having become strangers to each other. It still takes 2 to tango. This is the sort of mendacious thinking one has come to expect from Fr Joe.
saviour deguara
Mar 9th 2011, 12:22
@joe zammit quote "Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed! "
does this mean that your god has lost the battle in the whole world except tiny malta and the phillipenes??
if divorce is introduced in malta and in future in the phillipenes what does tis make of your god??
these kind of arguments make no sense at all..
why do you feel that you can impose your beliefs on others that don't share the same beliefs as you?
your argument sucks and you seem to repeat it in every article that comes up on divorce..
doesn't your god also tell you to be tollerable??
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 9th 2011, 13:58
'These arguments make no sense.' What makes sense, Saviour? Infidelity, cheating, violence, abandoning one's own children? Divorcing one's wife because of livelier bird?
'Doesn't your God also tell you to be tollerable (tolerant)?' It doesn't seem that those in favour of divorce are VERY tolerant, as they are trying to find a quick way of getting rid of their duties
Robert Calafato
Mar 9th 2011, 12:10
Someone once said that marraige is a great institution, but then, who wants to live in an institute?
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 9th 2011, 13:59
Mr Calafato. Nobody suggested that you should live in an institution! Some would rather live in a brothel! It's YOUR choie!
Adrian Borg Cardona
Mar 9th 2011, 14:42
Don't you know the other one about marriage? "Marriage is not a word - it is a sentence" (Oscar Wilde)
Dominic Chircop
Mar 9th 2011, 12:07
This year I will celebrate forty years of married life.
I am aginst divorce, but will vote for it in the referendum. I do not expect to use it in future.
I will furthermore punish those politicians, come election time, who spoke as if they were the defenders of the faith. My vote will definitely not go to elect modern day Savonarolas.
I also do not agree with having areferendum on such a matter of conscience. But since both parties fail to lead the people because they fear loss of votes, we have been lumped with it.
And the contention that they have no mandate is sheer hypocrisy. Usually they "doth bestride the world like a Colossus", and comment on anything under the sun.
All liberal minded voters should keep in mind all those who have behaved in this shameful charade, and refrain from giving them their vote any more.
l fenech
Mar 9th 2011, 13:56
@ Dominic.
Prosit well put I agree completely with your argument it makes sense, I too will not divorce but I shall vote for it as I do not wish any politician to decide for me.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 9th 2011, 14:03
'I'm against divorce, but will vote for it in the referendum.' Mr Chircop, I think there is some misprint in the text. Otherwise, how can one vote for something he does not believe in?
Your forty years of married life do not seem to have convinced you YET that true, devoted, sincer love IS POSSIBLE!
Karl von Brockdorff
Mar 9th 2011, 15:41
Sur Grima, is nobody allowed to do as they please anymore? It's his choice not yours. Please try and have your own opinion in matters instead of just doing what the priests say. Your obsession with anything catholic springs to mind the mindboggling question of why you yourself didnt adhere to a life(job) in the church.
John Agius
Mar 9th 2011, 11:59
Quote (from the article above):
"Fr Borg said the survey showed younger people were more likely to be in favour of divorce..."
Professor Henry Frendo “Divorce is a civil right. Period.”
Simply a matter of time where the anti-divorce movement is simply using delaying tactics - procrastination. What else!
I wonder why when so many are suffering!
edwin formosa
Mar 9th 2011, 11:47
Moviment Żwieġ Bla Divorzju presented 7 powerful points. No equal arguments against are yet visible.
Daniel Zahra
Mar 9th 2011, 12:38
And I am waiting for 7 powerful points against cohabitation and another 7 against the illusion of annullment. Guess we both have to wait a bit more :(
A.Grech
Mar 9th 2011, 13:25
Seriously?!
well, if so, check all comments again, maybe they're haven't been posted yet when you checked for comments.
David Buttigieg
Mar 9th 2011, 13:46
Really, which ones?
Joseph Cauchi
Mar 9th 2011, 11:41
The institution of marriage in Malta will, by the introduction of divorce, be severely prejudiced to the detriment of the family as we know it today.
Hard as we might try to paint a positive picture for divorce, the situation will still remain the same and that is that divorce weakens the institute of marriage.
Admittedly, there are individual cases that need rectification and how!; but would a surgeon amputate a leg if this leg just requires plastering?
JC.
wally vella-zarb
Mar 9th 2011, 12:47
To continue your analogy, would any sane person opt to have his leg amputated when there is a chance that the leg "just requires plastering" and all will go back to normal?
Anti-divorce people seem to be putting forward the idea that everybody and his sister will flock to get a divorce, simply because the option will be there, regardless of whether they need it or not. This is as realistic a scenario as one where people would seek a transplant - or an amputation, as in your analogy - when their organs are not beyond surgical repair, simply because the facility is available.
I find their attitude deceitful and wicked to the extreme!
Charles Sammut
Mar 9th 2011, 12:55
Dear Joseph, let me use the very example that you chose to use.
Should we ban leg amputations if many people can be cured by 'plastering', some people choose to live miserably with a bad leg and only some people really need amputations? I think that your example was an unfortunate one.
Whichever way you put it, drastic as the 'cure' might be, divorce is often the lesser evil.
Paul Barrett
Mar 9th 2011, 11:40
Although I agree in general with the referendum question, there is one part that should be amended which would assure a number of people in doubt.
The question: “Do you agree with the introduction of the divorce option in the case of a married couple which has been SEPARATED OR HAS NOT LIVED TOGETHER for at least four years, and where there is no reasonable hope of reconciliation between the spouses, while adequate maintenance is guaranteed and children are protected?”
The part in capital above should be deleted and amended to read: LEGALLY SEPARATED.
This amendment to the question would assure people that the separation has been properly overseen by the Court and that financial and child support matters have been looked into. It would also nullify many of the anti-divorce arguments against divorce legislation.
There is never any absolute guarantee of "adequate maintenance" for any spouse as this will always depend on individual circumstance of the ability or willingness to provide such maintenance. This actually equally applies to legal separation - if the one ordered by the Court to provide has actually no income or other assets, it is difficult to apply the Court order.
Denise Vella
Mar 9th 2011, 11:18
Joe Zammit, when you talk about 'evil' 'condemnation' and 'God' in the same breath you don't do your religion any favours. If all you can offer as an argument are these creepy medieval notions, don't be surprised that more and more people are turning to the healthier, more honest secular point of view.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 9th 2011, 14:09
Apart from YOUR 'healtier,more honest secular point of view,' more people are also turning to drugs, suicides........ It's YOUR choice! It is true that many are abandoning the religion their dear, loving parents baptised them in. The truth is, that the void that is left, OFTEN is filled with drugs, drink......
Karl von Brockdorff
Mar 9th 2011, 15:36
So thats what they want you to believe now is it? Praise Jesus or result in suicide or an addict?
I might have you know that if you do not praise the Giant Spaghetti Monster and do as the great Book of Bolognese tells you to, your life will spiral into an uncontrollable mixture of debauchery and insanity, Mr Grima.
Prove to me that your religion is right and my spaghetti is wrong, if you can. Let me guess, "THE BIBLE SAYS BLA BLA BLA!"
God you're so predicatble.
James De Giorgio
Mar 9th 2011, 11:17
The way I see it, divorce in the question proposed by JPO (apart from being at first glance seemingly tailor-made to suit his needs) is deceptive for one reason:
It is being presented as a solution, something attractive. I mean come on, nothing is being said in the question what the negative effects of the proposal are. It is simply being presented as a "good for society".
Yet, we all know that this is simply the key which will open the floodgates to divorce, a la las vegas style in ten perhaps twenty years. Who are we kidding? We all know that will happend.
There will be no other referenda to extend divorce: these will be taken by parlamentarians, and guess what, each time it will be yet another relaxation of the rules on divorce.
So yes, this IS an opportunity for a 'Las Vegas' style of divorce coming in throught the back door.
Charles Sammut
Mar 9th 2011, 11:12
Joe Zammit and his ilk are the best assets of the Pro-Divorce Movement.
Dear Joe, if your victory is already guaranteed, why do you keep posting the same old fundamentalist hogwash? Besides, do you realise that there are other religions besides Catholicism, that permit divorce and that according to the Cathoilic Church itself, they worship the same god? If this god is just and merciful (he is, is he not?) why does he treat Catholics and Muslims differently? This religion business can get very convoluted, but I think that at the end of the day, that is just what it is, a business.
A.Grech
Mar 9th 2011, 11:12
the Moviment Zwieg bla Divorzju made many senseless points against divorce, the last thing they had to say is that divorce is the devil... but one point effected me the most :
"The question hides the fact that divorce may be obtained for no reason and all it takes is for a spouse to walk away, live apart for four years and claim the marriage has been irrevocably broken down. This is irresponsible."
Heeellloooooo!!! If one of the spouses moved out then it is clear that that marraige has ended, divorce or no divorce, spouses walking away from each other due to intollerable situations is a reality. Irresponsible is a government who does not allow for corrective measures in such situations, i.e. divorce.
If the spouses want to reconcile, divorced or not they will do it.
I wish i had more time to reply to the unbelievable comments made by the MZBD but anyone with a capability for independent thought may see that according to the MZBD an unhappy family (possibly abused) will have to endure all the suffering because of the choices they made. If anything divorce will encourage spouses to start treating each other more respectfully than before.
Anthony Mizzi
Mar 9th 2011, 11:06
Question: Why does the wording of the question make such a difference?
Answer: Ask any Lawyer!
AAzzopardi
Mar 9th 2011, 10:57
@ Joe Zammit - why do people like yourself keeping dragging in religion in all this. The current issue of divorce has nothing to do with religion as nobody will ever get divorced in church - so where does the church come in? Is this not a state divorce we're talking about?!?!?
To all those who are against divorce: what is a beaten wife, betrayed husband/wife, wife/husband of an abusive person supposed to do in their respective cases. Don't divorce because religion is interfering in something which has got nothing to do with, and is saying "No to Divorce". Is it fair on them? Would you Joe Zammit want to remain with your wife if she betrayes you with some other men, again and again?
Then again, divorce should be granted not only on how many years they have been living together, but the person (if there is a person at fault) at fault should not be able to re-marry. In addition once divorced some sort of records should be kept why this person divorced, so future partners he/she might have will know what they are going in for. Will I want to marry a woman who has divorced_2_or_3_times_after_betraying_all_her_previous_husbands____NEVER?
I_am_happily_married_but_am_pro_divorce_as_although_I_am_happy_doesn't_mean_that_everybody_else_is!
patrick zammit
Mar 9th 2011, 10:55
Do separations, annulments, divorces from abroad (and recognized in Malta) and any future cohabitation law "guarantee maintenance and care for children"? Of course not. So is Fr J Borg also against these options as well?
The truth which people like Fr J Borg are not saying is that in cases where a couple cannot continue to live with each other, problems with maintenance and the care of children always crop up and yes, presently, there are legal ways and means to enforce (never guarantee) court judgements or other official decisions/contracts. So why should divorce be any different?
Do laws against murder theft etc guarantee that you do not get killed or mugged or be adequately compensated? Same reasoning applies. But alas, reasoning is conditioned by indoctrination of young, innocent and easily manipulated minds!
Andrew Gatt
Mar 9th 2011, 10:46
@ Joe Zammit. You sound more and more like a brainwashed throwback to the good ole' days of Torqemada and his Inquisition every time you post a comment.
Keep it up. Comments like yours have exactly the opposite effect.
James De Giorgio
Mar 9th 2011, 11:19
Oh I dunno, sometimes I think Zammit is really a hoax by the pro-divorce lobby...
B. Cachia
Mar 9th 2011, 14:00
Haha, no, Zammit is the real thing apparently. He's been commenting in the religious columns since long before the divorce debate began.
David Buttigieg
Mar 9th 2011, 10:43
"But the question’s premise was that anyone could divorce after just four years, even if one of the partners was “unwilling”.
Fr Joe Borg,
I expect a bit more respect for our intelligence from you!
If a "couple" have been separated, for whatever reason for a lengthy period of time, what possible reason other than religious or vindictiveness would one not want "to be divorced" (in reality just not allowingyour ex's happiness)
If it's vindictiveness then tough luck!
If religious then it's a non argument because according to your church, a catholic who is divorced but continues to live a catholic life, i.e. does not marry civilly again, has committed no sin in the eyes of your church!
Ask any divorcee abroad (in western countries) how costly it is to divorce and how much alimony (in addition to child support) they have to pay and you will soon see how lightly people will take the decision to divorce or not!
R Degiorgio
Mar 9th 2011, 10:34
haha Joe Zammit is really one of a kind! At first I used to get really wound up by his inane comments but now I realise that one could use them to have a good laugh instead :)
Claude Lacoste
Mar 9th 2011, 10:30
At all the integrists of the catholic church who are opposed to the divorce bill en 2011in Malta,
have you, already, try making your genealogical tree ?
Knowing its origins is a very interesting exercise : for my own part - in the south of France -, I reach 1550 and, in my quest, I already encountered differents religions (catholics, protestants and cathars) and also natural children (born of unknown father).
But, I cannot go back further, except if I find a noble ancestor : my blood is made with the blood of all these persons and I don't disown them ... So, do you think what should be my religion, protestantism, catholcism, none or all ?
All this to say, even if your family goes back at year 0, to Christ's birth, who were they before ? Romans, Phenicians, Greeks, Jews ... and at the neolithic and prehistorical ages with Mother goddess ?
By searching your roots, you will learn humility and tolerance towards others who are unhappy and outlaw because of the breakdown marriage.
Anthony Borg
Mar 9th 2011, 10:27
re " even if one of the partners was unwilling ". Ma nifhimhomx certa ragunamenti. Jekk xi parti tkun trid tiddivorzja, l-parti l-ohra trid tifhem li l-imhabba versu lejh spiccat. Inutli tinsisti li tibqa koppja jekk parti minna assolutament ma tridx. Allura, wiehed ghandu ikollu l-opportunita' li jibni hajja gdida. Kif toghgob lilu ! ID-DIVORZU HUWA DRITT CIVILI. META WIEHED JIZZEWWEG MA JKUN QIEGHED JAGHMEL L-EBDA WEGHDA. IKUN BISS QIEGHED JIRREGOLARIZZA L-ISTAT TIEGHU CIVILMENT LI ALLURA GHANDU CERTA OBBLIGI. Zwieg bil-knisja huwa xi haga ohra, totalment differenti !
Manuel Micallef
Mar 9th 2011, 10:25
I know this is not the topic!!
May I please ask the Times editorial to tell us how much has the international oil price fallen in recent days? and whether NOW the government is going to lower the price of fuel to Maltese consumers?
Apprecaite this in the interest of transparency
Joe Zammit
Mar 9th 2011, 10:16
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.
Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation
David Buttigieg
Mar 9th 2011, 10:32
Yes, Joe Zammit,
The only arguments you put forward is the bible, i.e. a long, boring fairy tale!
Grow up!
r.borg
Mar 9th 2011, 10:49
can you please please stop spamming for a bit? ythe same message over and over again. don't you have anything better to do? your message is getting old and besides it has many logical flaws. so please stop posting the same message over and over again. surely you understand that you are annoying people, even if the times lets you post it, and your message is working against you in the long run. pathetic!
C.Vella
Mar 9th 2011, 11:02
J.Zammit. First of all; please stop writing the same 4 lines. We know that you are against divorce and all the god and evil thing now. So for the sake of patience please stop!!!!
Now regarding the arthitmetic formula that your brilliant mind formulated. In my opinion it does not make any sens at all. Begining with; currently we do not have divorce and we still have a lot of cohabitation. Plus knowing a little bit of Math if you put Divorce subject of the formula it will be: Divorce = Cohabitation - Marriage, which does not make any sens. The formula should be:
Happy Marriage +or - Divorce + or - Cohabitation = Happy Marriage
Broken Marriage + Divorce = Happy Marriage for new couple
Broken Marriage - Divorce = Cohabitation
Paul Barrett
Mar 9th 2011, 11:09
@ C.Vella
Excellent mathematical answer - well done LOL
Emanuel Farrugia
Mar 9th 2011, 11:17
Broken Marriage + Separaition + No Divorce = ( Sinful ) Cohabitation .
Unmarried Mothers + Social Security = Unknown Fathers
R Borg
Mar 9th 2011, 11:50
@C.Vella,Prosit nothing to add.
victor pulis
Mar 9th 2011, 19:02
Joe you make God the father sound more like God the exterminator! An ever loving ever merciful God can never condemn someone to eternal, (do you know the meaning of the word?) damnation simply because of having loved someone. The threat of fire and brimstone is not doing your cause any good Joe. I for one was indifferent about what the church said. now after reading your cut and paste mantras I feel threatened by the church
Joe Zammit
Mar 9th 2011, 10:15
There can never be a responsible divorce. Divorce of any kind is evil, condemned by God for our own good.
We do not want divorce, any divorce. The great majority of Maltese and Gozitans want no form of divorce; so the vast majority will say NO to divorce.
It is a devilish deceit to try to qualify divorce. Divorce is the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage by a human person. No human person has the power, let alone the right, to dissolve a valid marriage.
A big NO to divorce; YES to 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!
Mark Brincat
Mar 9th 2011, 10:46
Join in the battle between Saruman and the Gandalf! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
For the Shire!
Paul Barrett
Mar 9th 2011, 11:06
Joe, you forgot to add:
This tape will self destruct in 10 seconds.
David Caruana
Mar 9th 2011, 11:36
Nel nome di Gray Skull!!!!!!
David Caruana
Mar 9th 2011, 12:17
Go go Power Rangers!
Charles Sammut
Mar 9th 2011, 10:04
". . . . . .even if one of the partners was “unwilling”."
It is this sort of (il)logic that is skewed and warped. If one partner is willing and the other is unwilling, you still have an irretrievably broken marriage.
Extrapolating this sort of reasoning, according to this media lecturer, we should be condoning forced marriages where one partner is willing and the other is unwilling. Perhaps Fr Borg is looking forward to his diversity utopia where we embrace cultures that approve arranged marriages and honour killings. And divorce by SMS.
In any case, it takes a very perverse sort of person to be willing to stay married to someone who does not want to. Or should I say vindictive? Not that it makes much difference in real life, co-habit and to hell with everybody's poking noses.
PBorg
Mar 9th 2011, 10:40
yeah right.... so if one party decides that the marriage is over the other party is forced up to gulp divorce (!)...
Moreover why is it that some quarters equate that separation naturally has to end up in divorce. Maybe one party, say for moral issues, is either not ready or willing to take that path.
.... wonder what the 'new' legislation is saying ... or has to say (after the referendum).
Charles Sammut
Mar 9th 2011, 11:33
@PBorg
If one party is hell bent on divorce, the other party has (fairly or unfairly) not much choice. The world is not fair, that is how it was created. To resist will be to the detriment of both parties. But then we know that some people are willing to cut their nose to spite their face.
You are confusing moral issues with religious beliefs. The two are sometimes poles apart.
And in any case you cannot force your morals or religious beliefs on anybody.
edwin formosa
Mar 9th 2011, 11:37
"If one partner is willing and the other is unwilling, you still have an irretrievably broken marriage."
If one partner for no reason at all is willing and the other is unwilling and innocent, you still have one irretrievably broken marriage. Divorce will give the guilty party another chance to break another marriage and the innocent one a chance to start again OK. So the divorce solution to a broken marriage will be 2 broken marriages against I new marriage.
Charles Sammut
Mar 9th 2011, 13:05
@edwin formosa
People have already found way to lessen the number of broken marriages. They do not get married in the first place, live together and everybody is happy. The couple are happy because if it does not work out they just walk away, the politicians are happy because they do not have to decide, and the Church, with its faithful, are happy because there is no divorce. Eureka Utopia!
P Borg
Mar 9th 2011, 13:28
@ Charles Sammut
Do not put words in others without being said.
In no case one was imposing one's morals, or religious belief, which I didn't mention, on others.. on the contrary that was my point wheres a party which decides, for any reason, to terminate one's marrage and opt for divorce the other party (victim or not) is obliged to take that path notwithstanding his/her morals or convictions?.... I would be glad if someone would answer that point!