Updated - Lawyers raise questions on Divorce Bill provisions
Updated - Adds Divorce Movement reaction - Divorce will reduce marriage to a simple civil contract, weakening the bond to the point that people may start questioning the need to get married in the first place, lawyer Robert Tufigno argued today at a conference organised by the anti-divorce movement today.
“Civil contracts are not annulled by those who are at fault or unilaterally by one party. The Divorce Bill allows the guilty party to dissolve the marriage contract by asking for the divorce. Furthermore, the guilty party can use his fault as grounds for the divorce,” Dr Tufigno said.
This, he added, would create a culture that rewarded those who renege on their commitment.
Dr Tufigno acknowledged, however, that the 'no-fault' concept already exists for marriage separations.
“Divorce, like separation, can be requested by any one of the partners even if the other person does not want,” lawyer Kevin Dingli said.
Dr Dingli and Dr Tufigno gave a critical legal overview of the Divorce Bill presented in Parliament by MPs Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo.
The Prime Minister’s wife, Kate Gonzi, was in the crowd of about 150 people.
The two lawyers were introduced by the movement’s chairman Andre Camilleri.
Tackling the key aspects of the Divorce Bill and the referendum question, Dr Tufigno said that his legal interpretation was that the four year time lapse for a separated couple to be able to get a divorce “may not be a necessity”. He asked whether this period also applied if divorce was contracted by mutual consent, since in such cases the court could simply take note of the agreed declaration.
Both lawyers questioned the safeguards for children in the Divorce Bill and said the court was not obliged to guarantee maintenance, custody and access to children.
“The fulcrum of the Bill is to safeguard the rights of the couple and not the children,” Dr Tufigno said.
Maintenance could not be guaranteed, he added, because re-marriage after divorce would create a new reality and additional exceptions the court would have to entertain.
Dr Tufigno also pointed out that the Irish divorce gave weight to the standard of living of the people concerned and the income derived by third persons in the second marriage when maintenance was calculated.
“Why did the Divorce Bill proponents, who used the Irish law as a model, leave out these two elements from their law?”
Dr Dingli said that a divorced person who re-married lost the right to maintenance from the first marriage apart from arrears.
He also disputed the use of the word “guarantee” in the referendum question since the law only spoke of “adequate maintenance”.
Lawyer Austin Bencini said one was led to wonder why the pro-divorce lobby was not explaining what the law was all about. He urged the people to consider the impact of the Bill as a whole and not limited only to the referendum question.
DIVORCE MOVEMENT REACTION
In a reaction, the Divorce Movement said the divorce being proposed is a responsible type of divorce because it gives ample time to the spouses to get back together if they so wish before they become eligible to even apply for divorce. This is important in order to have moral certainty that the marriage has in fact really irretrievably broken down.
"Those who try and put doubts in peoples’ minds that the four-year period is not a must, or that maintenance, care, custody and access to children are not dealt with in the law are out to mislead. All of these aspects are taken care of in a divorce decree as per law, either when the spouses had been legally separated or when they apply for divorce without having separated beforehand."
The movement noted that a claim was also made that people who remarry will not have enough money to maintain two families.
"The anti-divorce lobby forgets that this is the same situation in which people who cohabit after separation now find themselves and whether one cohabits or remarries is therefore irrelevant in this respect. The only real difference is that in the case of remarriage the second wife would have the right to be maintained by her husband whereas a cohabiting female partner does not have this right – an injustice that is redressed by remarraige after divorce."
The proposed law stipulates that when calculating maintenance, the court needs to look at a number of factors. It makes sense that such criteria are limited to the former spouses and not to third parties since third parties have no obligations towards former spouses, the movement said.
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...
87 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Mar 25th 2011, 19:05
The common good is a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all members of a community. However the good that is common between A and B may not be the same as between A and C. There are some things such as the basic requirements for staying alive: food, water, and shelter - that are always good for all people.
Another definition of the common good, as the quintessential goal of the state, requires an admission of the individual's basic right in society, which is, the right of everyone to the opportunity to freely shape their lives by responsible action. The object of our legislators should be the free choice of means for creating these conditions.
david debattista
Mar 25th 2011, 17:02
@ Edward Bartolo The issue is about the right to divorce and remarry. not just living together or getting laid !
@ Joe Grima Brussels ,, Who in his right mind is against a health happy marriage ARE YOU MAD!
@ Dr Francis Saliba What is your point. Eddie has no business what so ever with regards to divorce he is totally incompetent since he is not, nor has he ever been exposed to such issues
Try telling some of his totally irrelevant statements to a wife who goes home to a husband who compulsive adultery is a way of life. Or a man for that matter. As for the rest of your statements We all live on the same plant .
M.Pule'
Mar 25th 2011, 14:06
Marriage is not a contract. Two people or more, sign a contract to buy SOMETHING but marriage is a vow between two adult HUMAN BEINGS to remain loyal forever, till death. So you can think twice after signing a contract but not after vowing to give oneself totally to the other party in marriage. That is why, it is very essential to make a right choice before going into a married life.
Godfrey Camilleri
Mar 25th 2011, 12:43
How can we say no to divorce legislation when we already accept divorces obtained abroad with just a six month lapse! What one should argue is whether we can legislate in favour of divorce, something that is not accepted by the Catholic Church, when according to our constitution the Roman Catholic Religion is the religion of Malta. One needs to modify the Constitution prior to considering any divorce law.
B. Cachia
Mar 26th 2011, 09:15
Our Constitution recognises the place of the Catholic Church in Maltese society but does not give it any legislative powers or even any veto over legislation.
Tommy Vella
Mar 25th 2011, 12:09
@ Ramon Casha
Can YOU give us an example of another lifelong contract that gives life to other human beings who must be taken itno consideration? Marriage is a unique form of contract.
Joseph Cauchi
Mar 25th 2011, 11:57
I am utterly disappointed by our members of parliament for abdicating from their duties in not debating the divorce bill prior to calling a consultative referendum.
These “honourable” MPs should have had the decency of discussing this divorce legislation in parliament before presenting such a proposal that is riddled with all loop-holes imaginable!
Firstly, we should have been presented with a Bill as approved by Parlaiment and then We, the People would then be asked to decide in an ABROGATIVE referendum, whether we approve the bill or not; but no, our “honourable” members of parliament wanted to pass on the buck as they obviously lack the courage of their convictions.
Cowards and nothing else but COWARDS – SHAME, SHAME and SHAME!
I find this behaviour of our MPs disgraceful and deceitful and therefore as a sign of objection I would either vote NO or ABSTAIN in this consultative referendum.
JC.
Raymond Bezzina
Mar 25th 2011, 11:34
The referendum question about divorce is deceiving and full of anomalies as it is.
Hereunder, I have put it in my own words, but without changing its general structure.
Do you agree with the introduction of divorce where marriage would become a temporary
union; where one would obtain the right to abandon as many spouses as one could; where
adequate maintenance would only be given if the spouses would have the finiancial means,
and where children would not be protected from abuse by the new spouse or spouses?
Sander Depasquale
Mar 25th 2011, 11:25
No fault Separation and no fault divorce....
So if we have no fault separation, why shouldnt be there no fault divorce?
Why dont we make a clause on both laws that the faulty party will have to pay damages to the innocent party? This would be a great opportunity for lawyers to make more money!
I prefer to have no fault seperation and no fault divorce, we are a western country not like some countries where adultery is punished by stoning!
jane camilleri haber
Mar 25th 2011, 11:24
4. the third party has no obligation towards the former wife, but when calculating the financial state of the husband in order to stipulate how much maintenance the first wife should be awarded one has to include in the calculation the new community of acquists which will be enjoyed by the husband as well as his second wife, otherwise a man might not be ordered to pass on a penny to his former wife on the pretext that he is unemplyed while he runs a shop in his second wife's name which renders thousands a month. that's for justice! this law as proped will create second class families, second class children( even in the same' family ) and second class women. it will see people falling into poverty, people unable to pay off loans and house requisition by banks, and children sufferieng the aftermath of it all. if the pro divorce are genuine in their empathy with the suffering side, then they should amend this bill to exclude further suffering by these very same people they are hiding behind to get their way. the proposed question is a sham because it is not even supported by the bill itself.
Paul Barrett
Mar 25th 2011, 17:14
Yes, yes, yes - quite agreed although please do remember that it is not only the female that can be left high and dry but the opposite can also happen when the woman (or her new partner) has all the money and income and the male is left with nothing.
However, having agreed that, you are still missing the wood for the trees. All that you have mentioned can and do also happen either with annulments or legal separations. The only thing that divorce legislation can bring to the table is the freedom to choose and the right to obtain a civil marriage in a new relationship.
There is no "milk and honey" associated with annulments or legal separations so why should divorce legislation be any different - it is just a certificate acknowledging that a relationship from the civil law aspect is dead.
jane camilleri haber
Mar 25th 2011, 11:14
1. the four year period does not start from when a couple decides to divorce but include such time as the couple would have had a bonaria separation even if they still reside under the same roof. the law as proposed does not stipulate clearly how the couple will prove that they were trying to reconcile such as the appointment by court of a lawyer to mediate with the aim of reconciliation
2. care, maintenance and access to children are not regulated in the proposed law and the children's interest do not feature anywhere not even mentioning any presence of a laywer to see to the interests of the children during the divorce preoceedings such as is appointed in separation cases. when you say these aspects are taken care of as per law you mean they are not taken care of at all cause the law does not provide for such measures
3. so it has been expressed even by the pro divorce movement now that divorce will not improve the financial situation of the 'woman' only now the second woman for whom the husband would have forfeited his vows will take precedence over the deserted party
David Gatt
Mar 25th 2011, 11:09
Wow, some people's arguments are really out of this world:
@Vince Peresso
are you saying that you are giving up on your own individual rights just because the parliament hasn't yet discussed it?
@James De Giorgio
you say divorce doesn't 'guarantee maintenance'. OK. but could you please tell me how in our current system (i.e. with seperation, annulments and divorce from abroad) we are guaranteeing the maintenance you're so fond of?
@Joe Zammit
You used to guarantee us that the majority of the PN and the PL were against divorce if i remember correctly... what about that? how can we believe anything you say now?
joe falzon
Mar 25th 2011, 10:53
@JCC
Are you serious in your comment when you say that the whole world is looking at us and laughing or as you put it 'as Malta being the laughing stock of the World?
Are you living in the same World? Do you really believe that the World is watching and laughing at us when it is almost falling apart with social unrests, wars, economic crisis, injustices, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. Do you really believe that Malta so important in the World that we caught all these people attention? I do not think that we are a laughing stock when we gave and still giving our humanitarian aid to refugees to alleviate them from their suffering!
By the way, even if everyone in the World is pro-divorce we are not blind followers of other people's decisions. In Maltese we say, 'ahna m'ahniex bhan-naghag ta' Bendu! Dawk jaghmlu l-istess biex jikkopjaw lil haddiehor.' Is this the kind of intelligence that you are promoting?
Gino Galea
Mar 25th 2011, 10:16
Educationm not neccessarily academic, prepares one and all for the future. With all good intention of the educators, at one point they have to let go. The parent, educator and all others involved have to let go at one point. If the education was good, the chances of success are bigger.
A bad educator is afraid to let go.
Teach us the beauty of marriage, invest there. DO not waste our time showing us what negative protecotrs you are. Educate us as to how make our marrigaes work, but do not show us paternalism at it's worse, It is is your responsibility as good christians, to educate but education is not imposition.
When christ mentioned divorce in 'one' of the godspels it was recorded that it was not acceptable by God, but the choice of divorce was not taken away. He guided us but not impose. He did not state that the law of Moses was going to be abolished.
G. Mangion
Mar 25th 2011, 10:04
Min jagħmel xi liġi jew iġib ruħu kontra l-liġi ta' Alla, qatt ma jista' jagħmel it-tajjeb imma dejjem, dejjem dejjem dak li hu ħażin. Tgħid il-leġiżlaturi ta' llum huma daqshekk bravi, u aktar minn Alla? Min ma jifhimx dan, ma nafx x'jista' jifhem! Forsi meta jkun tard wisq jara b'għajnejh u jħoss il-konsegwenzi. Il-bnedmin kollha tasal is-siegħa tagħhom u jissejjħu għall-ġudizzju: mhux ġo Hague tafux.
m vella
Mar 25th 2011, 09:51
Although I am happily married, this did not mean others in a different situation had to bow their heads and accept their predicament; everybody should have a second chance.
P Pace Balzan
Mar 25th 2011, 09:38
As stated by Dr Tufigno - “Civil contracts are not annulled by those who are at fault or unilaterally by one party. The Divorce Bill allows the guilty party to dissolve the marriage contract by asking for the divorce. Furthermore, the guilty party can use his fault as grounds for the divorce."
What if the guilty party still wants the marriage to exist?
What if the guilty party entered marriage in an untruthful manner for untruthful purposes?
Marriage as seen by the courts is based solely on a signatures and witnesses - which involves minimal costs.
Annulments & separations cost mega loads and can take decades.
This, at least in my eyes, implies untruthfulness.
Dr Tufigno, as per this article and with his reasoning, has convinced me to vote in favour of divorce.
Saviour falzon
Mar 25th 2011, 09:35
I believe , that every Maltese Citizen , has the RIGHT, to live his life how he likes.
This divorce thing issue is disgusting from certain called MPs .
“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.”
Sigmund Freud
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”
Thomas Jefferson
“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
Thomas Jefferson
RESIST OR SERVE!
J Farrugia
Mar 25th 2011, 09:13
NO to divorce. It destroys families and our society. Those who are lapsed in all ways cannot have it their way. The minority must not impose its vulgar ideas on the majority. And the pro divorce movement has been having it good for quite a while now. Enough is enough. their perverted ideas must be thrown to all corners of our country so that their selfishness and arrogance be displayed to one and all. They have to accept the fact that we will never allow a tiny minority to destroy what our forefathers did to our country. The family a strong family is the perm of our society and we are proud of it. The few here and there who are vociferous and arrogant with those who dont want Divorce should hide their faces in shame.
Paul Barrett
Mar 25th 2011, 08:49
DIVORCE MOVEMENT REACTION:
Quote: The only real difference is that in the case of remarriage the second wife would have the right to be maintained by her husband whereas a cohabiting female partner does not have this right – an injustice that is redressed by remarraige after divorce." Unquote.
This is rather one sided and sexist - Women are now also the bread winners in some families and it is the husband that should also be protected by the right to be maintained by the wife if applicable.
a pace gouder
Mar 25th 2011, 08:38
Now go and preach this THEORY to the rest of the whole wide WORLD !
Tommy Vella
Mar 25th 2011, 08:38
"He also disputed the use of the word “guarantee” in the referendum question since the law only spoke of “adequate maintenance”."
Why was the word guarantee put in the referendum question when the law says adequate maintenance? A question of misleading the electorate? If the opposition (for the motion was theirs, carried with the help of two government members) is trying to mislead people while still in opposition what will it try to do when and if it is the governing party?
Paul Saliba
Mar 25th 2011, 08:35
These are really stupid points raised here because the divorse is an "add on" on what we already have in separation today. What is good today? having two people living together without marriage? Having children outside marriage? No body is forcing anyone to take divorse. It is there for those who need it. If you do not need divorse yourself, good luck to all of you. I do not need divorse myself today but my children might need it. Those who are opposing the divorse are people who does not need it so how come you try to deny divorse to others who wish to regulise and start themselves in a new life.
Ghalmenu jispiccaw jghidu fuq in-nies ghax dak jew dik qedin pogguti!!
Finally these people are asking for something which can be found in the rest of the world. IN OTHER CIVILISED COUNTRIES! mhux hekk nghidu ?
Halluhom hbieb ghax min qieghed ibati jaf xi jfisser divorse ghalieh jew ghaliha.
Andrew Zammit Manduca
Mar 25th 2011, 08:35
The joke is that the prime minister let one of his own party members take him for a ride. If the lawyers believe divorce should not come in as a law they have full right to voice their concerns. Yes divorce is most probably going to reduce the meaning of marriage and the concern of the nationalist party was always to consolidate families. Pity the prime minister did not stick to what his party believed in because it has gone to show that he is not good to lead our country anymore.
patrick zammit
Mar 25th 2011, 08:34
This article is very misleading. I personally know a couple whose marriage broke down following which, the wife decided to take residence in the UK. They applied for divorce in the UK and one of the problems they had to overcome before the divorce was to come into effect was the maintenance, custody and access to their children. Only when these were settled by means of a legal contract could the divorce be issued.
Also, Malta has provisions in its laws to enforce Maintenance Orders (Chap 48 & 242) issued through divorce in other countries against persons (both Maltese and foreigners) living in Malta and vice versa. That means (for example) that an ex husband who married in say the UK but decided to come and live in Malta has to honour his divorce conditions as regards maintenance to his ex wife/children living in the UK. This also applies to persons who had married in Malta, but now, one of them lives abroad. That is, these laws are reciprocal.
http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/LOM.aspx?pageid=27&mode=alpha&char=TQ==
To suggest or imply that divorce laws do not take in consideration the rights of children or ex spouses is utterly flippant and misleading.
R Borg
Mar 25th 2011, 08:31
With this divorce issue its like we discovered the wheel,remember that divorce is all over the world ,even in Malta( divorce obtained abroad is recognized in Malta) for the rich,every body is wrong and we are right hahaha. ARROGANCE!!!!
Charles Zammit
Mar 25th 2011, 08:27
We should get more of this information to help us see things in their proper perspective.
J. Borg
Mar 25th 2011, 07:52
I don't know why anti-diorce lobbyist keep on saying that no can guarantee maintenance. So, why don't they come out with proposals so that these guarantees can be legislated.
Also, it was said that if the divorced marries, they lose the right for the maintenance. What does one expect, that the ex-husband/wife continues to pay the othr whilst being married with someone else. This maintenance should continue in favour of the children until they reach maturity age or start working.
E. Psaila
Mar 25th 2011, 07:44
I don't know who entitles these people to make decisions for other people's lives. And I really cannot stand the hypocrisy of the church. When there were the accusations of priests abusing of children they defended them and nothing was ever said by other priests during masses. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the people who want to divorce and cannot should take the Maltese state to the European Court and have divorce being forced on Malta by this court.
Why shouldn't a person have a second chance?
Charles J. Buttigieg
Mar 25th 2011, 07:34
Pinning the fault on a particular member of the partnership, in practical terms, has no intrinsic value on the end result. If one party is totally innocent, wants reconciliation and full of good intentions the guilty party, with or without the divorce, would still desert his\her spouse. It’s the old adage, ‘You can take a mule to the water but you can’t make it drink.
Dr Francis Saliba
Mar 25th 2011, 07:15
"Stop government from interfering and deciding what people do with their lives". (Joseph Carmel Chetcuti)
Wake up to the real world around you. Governments exist specifically to pass laws that interfere with what people would selfishly want to do with their lives regardless of everybody else. For governments, the common good takes precedence over the selfish interests of individuals be they thieves, murderers or marriage wreckers. The ultimate result of this divorce bill would be to reward marriage wreckers for their misdeeds at the expense of the well-being of society that needs stable and durable marriages.
V.Cassar
Mar 25th 2011, 16:28
"governments exist specifically to pass laws to interfere with what people would selfishly want ......."
Ha ha ha!!! In the context of divorce, governments of the world (except Malta and the Philippines) have passed legislation that recognizes divorce and do not act as the holier than thou big brother in fighting to preserve an ideological diktat.
If your rational, together with Camilleri, tufigno, Dingli - not to mention Joe Zammit's comments below - are all the anti-divorce campaign has to offer than the yes campaign has little to fear.
Charles Sammut
Mar 25th 2011, 07:13
"...........people may start questioning the need to get married in the first place........"
The contempt of these people towards the general public's intelligence is shocking. It is exactly the other way round, people are NOT getting married because they consider it too big a risk should things not work out. As matters stand it is a recipie for cohabitation.
CFarrugia
Mar 25th 2011, 06:29
the lawyers should not complain at all!!!!!!they will be the ones earning a lot of money from divorce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!divorce is a very costly thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!a lot of friends of mine got a divorce in germany (they were living there, not maltese) and it cost them a hell of a lot of money. the courts and the lawyers charge a lot of money. will tsomeone please instruct us how much on average a divorce will cost in malta if it is introduced??? it will be a big business for the lawyers, they should be promoting it not raising questions about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!also please instruct us how long the whole procedure will take!!!!!!!!!!
Carmel Cilia
Mar 25th 2011, 06:26
Immissu jghid Dr. Gonzi u il- partit Nazzjonalista li halla il-free vote. Qieghed jaghmel min kollox biex id- divorzju ma jidholx. Jimponu biss jafu dawn in- nies basta viva l-Ewropa. Xabbajtuna.
Kenneth Cassar
Mar 25th 2011, 06:00
Here we go again, with the "us vs them" mentality. No matter whose "fault" it is, if a relationship is dead, it is dead.
And has it not occurred to Dr Tufigno that in punishing the "guilty" party by denying divorce, one would also be punishing the "innocent" party by also denying divorce to him/her?
And yes, Dr Tufigno, civil marriages are civil contracts. You are free to live your life as your relgion or conscience tells you. Others may have different beliefs. The time of religious imposition is over. Deal with it.
tony fava
Mar 25th 2011, 05:47
@ all these lawyers and Ms Gonzi. Please could you please explain to me why does our Government accept divorce obtained overseas ? In view of this what is all this pandemonium for ?This reminds me of the times when we could not buy Mars and other chocolates and we had pilgrimages of Maltese going over to Sicily to buy it. So what do you want ? all this deja vu ?
Ramon Casha
Mar 25th 2011, 05:20
Using their legal expertise, can these lawyers give us another example of a lifelong contract that cannot be broken in any way, not even if both parties agree?
As regards the wording of the law, as has been pointed out this can still be debated and altered in parliament once the referendum passes, so if they have concerns about the wording of the law and whether this provides sufficient safeguards, these can be addressed by the MPs.
Tommy Vella
Mar 25th 2011, 11:37
How can the MPs guarantee maintenance by means of the law, are they, as someone has already suggested, going to fork it out themselves? I know of cases, in separations, were maintenance was granted by the court, yet the mother never received a single cent.
Charles Grixti
Mar 25th 2011, 03:46
That Marriage is a Civil Contract, is elementary and no lawyer worth their salt should even question this. Divorce has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Marriage is first and foremost a Civil Contract, nothwithstanding how you manage to dress it up - whether as a Catholic Sacrament, a Hindu or Muslim ceremony, or any of the traditional ceremonial permutations that mark this milestone in life.
Joe Zammit
Mar 25th 2011, 02:20
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; a bigger YES to the indissolubility of marriage.
Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation
Robert Spiteri
Mar 25th 2011, 11:27
So the person has to be human? hahahaa silly man
David Caruana
Mar 25th 2011, 11:58
Marriage + Annulment = EUR800 to the Curia's coffers
David Gatt
Mar 25th 2011, 12:48
Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation
Can you explain how you came up with this equation please? I think it makes more sense if it read Marriage + Separation = Cohabitation
Joe Zammit
Mar 25th 2011, 02:18
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!
Paul Barrett
Mar 25th 2011, 11:36
If love is missing it is a dead relationship.
If the relationship is dead it is not a marriage and therefore should be de-registered as such.
David Caruana
Mar 25th 2011, 12:01
The anti-divorce movement has no one single valid argument against divorce. So what do you expect them to say? Just nonsense and the usual superstitious mambo jambo.
Live and let live dear Joe!
Emmanuel Attard
Mar 25th 2011, 01:44
Probably its just less money for the Lawyers!!!!
M.Pule'
Mar 25th 2011, 13:57
You do not know what you're talking about! Divorce legislation is a tsunami of money for the lawyers.
Paul Barrett
Mar 25th 2011, 00:59
With a bit of expertise you can pick faults and probably fine loopholes in almost any legislation. However this does not detract from the necessity for Malta to have divorce legislation for those that need it. It is then for the lawyers either in mediation or in Court to sort out the minutiae of the deal - that is why they get so much money and probably the largest incentive for not getting married in the first place and/or people cohabiting rather than going through the expense of a second marriage.
From the article I can find no point that is any different from the problems to be faced in annulment or legal separation.
CA Miller
Mar 25th 2011, 00:58
Dr Dingli and Dr Tufigno:
Welcome to the world!!
Anyone can break a contract - it is up to the courts to settle cases where the parties cannot agree on a resolution. Marriage is no different. Divorce is NOT the annullment of a marriage contract.
Manuel Mangani
Mar 25th 2011, 20:35
But in the vades of divorce as it is being proposed, the breaking of this praticular contract (or of the contractual aspect of marriage) will be automatically endorsed by the Courts and by the State. Now that is what is so unique about this kind of divorce.
S Borg
Mar 25th 2011, 00:08
Divorce would cause greater problems rather then solving them.
Alex Ciantar
Mar 24th 2011, 23:44
And when one spouse wants to break away from a marriage and go his own way what exactly is stopping him? nothing at all!! neither the family, the state, the church or any lawyer for that matter.
Presently how exactly is the law and state protecting the victims of broken marriage? (in this case separated or annulled since we have no divorce yet.).
So, with or without divorce will it make a difference if the present laws apply just the same?
Divorce is there for the victims to start afresh and not for the culprits who couldn't careless so I suggest that lawyers rather then being negative towards such a delicate issue as this should start more proactive by contributing on how to introduce a divorce that protects the victims !!
E Pavia
Mar 24th 2011, 23:10
The whole world has a problem because of divorce...no one is getting married anywhere anymore except for Malta because we do not have divorce in this peaceful, religous island!!! We're the perfect happy island by the way...
I cannot believe that lawyers can honestly raise such questions as in this article???
Let people decide and do not put more chaos and confusion in people's mind with lies and stupid articles. Let's not repeat stupid mistakes in the past. Divorce is everywhere and it is a human right.
James De Giorgio
Mar 24th 2011, 23:05
FInally some sense and eye-opening on this divorce bill.
Contrary to what most people seem to be thinking at first glance, the proposed bill DOES NOT adequately safeguard the rights of the children involved, since the provision only states that:
"where maintenance can be guaranteed"
What if maintenance and care CANNOT be guaranteed? Oops, there's a loophole.
A responsible vote would be a clear all-round NO.
Charles Sammut
Mar 25th 2011, 09:59
The only guarantee in life is death. So harping on about this notion of guarantee is unrealistic. What guarantee is there that if you get married, you will have a happy life? So by your logic, since you insist on guarantees on everything, people are doing the right thing and not marrying but cohabiting.
To err is human and even with the best intentions, a marriage can sometimes go awry. Divorce seeks to rectify those unfortunate cases. It is not being imposed on anyone. If your religion tells you to continue living in married misery and offer your miserable life (and your spouse's and children's) for the 'glory of god', you are free to do so. But do not impose your mores on others because others do not impose theirs on you.
J.J.Borg
Mar 25th 2011, 10:35
James, you obviously have no understanding of the current situation without divorce.
Currently our separation 'maintenance guarantee' is already is in existence as proposed in the divorce legislation. If you read the article closely you will note that it is clearly implied that maintenance is catered for under the separation NOT divorce provisions.
Maybe you are also against the right of couples to separate as well???
A clear attempt of pulling the wool over people's eyes by the anti divorce campaign.
James De Giorgio
Mar 25th 2011, 22:57
Nah I think it's a mistake to try and paint divorce as some kind of happy solution. This bill is not going to solve anything, it will only facilitate matters - but not solve them.
More people will be encouraged to take marriage lightly and enter into marriage as if it were just a contract - "if it doesn't work, we'll divorce". AND before you all start saying four years wait bla bla, remember that this divorce bill will be followed by further amendments leading to Las Vegas style divorce.
Vince Peresso
Mar 24th 2011, 23:04
By the look of it I am getting the impression that parliament is after all asking the electorate to vote for the Divorce Bill rather than on whether the elctorate agrees or not on the introduction of divorce. Since parliament has cowed away from having a full and open discussion on a bill presented before it, I will vote NO as it is clear for me that the parliamenterians do not want to go through a parliamentary discussion. By voting YES I would give them the go ahead to pass a bill which they have shied away from.
emmanuel zammit
Mar 24th 2011, 22:38
Prosit Joseph
I could like to invite people to go to the family court and to see with there eyes.
Just go and you wil see. very slow process and allot of time you go for nothing since they only call 2 or 4 cases from 60 .
so imagine people how much they are suffer.
divorce will push to have less people suffer.
Manuel Mangani
Mar 25th 2011, 09:51
If you believe that the introduction of divorce means that there will be less family litigation, or that it will be less complicated and less acrimonious, you have another think coming. Nothing will change in this respect, except one thing: there will be more of it in in the future
George Portelli
Mar 24th 2011, 22:35
Il-fundamentalisti u l-konservattivi issa kollha qed jinghaqdu biex jaghtu palata lit-talibani. Nitbellah nisma' argumenti li min jaf kemm professuri u nies ta' stoffa aktar minn dawn, diga' ghaddew minnhom u gharbluhom fil-pajjizi kollha tad-dinja - naturalment minbarra Malta u l-Philippini - fejn dahal id-divorzju. Possibbli jahsbu li huma aktar bravi minn kulhadd?!
V.Cassar
Mar 24th 2011, 22:32
Utter nonsense that is just the case of scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Keep this sort of coverage up please - it really helps the Yes cause!!!!!
jvictor abela
Mar 24th 2011, 22:18
Your comment is a blunt insult to the entire Maltese people. Irrispective of the Maltese people whether they are pro or against divorce, the decision is going to be taken by the PEOPLE in a referendum. Do not try to paternalize to show that you are some sort of progressive alien in this regard. Everyone is free in Malta. Only your illusion is dictating otherwise. Freedom of expression gives the right to everyone to express himself in a CIVIL way.
Malta is not a laughing stock of the world. Even if it were, do not forget that people have different opinions. We do NOT want anyone to call names to others for the simp[e reason that others look different. No one wants to be called a laughing stock no matter his ideas, beliefs, or personal condition!
Paul Montalto
Mar 24th 2011, 22:05
Everyone should question the need to get married.
Like everyone should question every big step and major decision they take in life, that is what responsible sane adults normally do.
Why the big hubbub about introducing a long over due and needed divorce law in Malta?
Other countries have had it for centuries and they have not gone to hell in a hand basket.
And if maltese citizens can get divorce abroad that is recognized in Malta then what is the problem here?
This sounds like a control issue.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Mar 24th 2011, 21:47
Get over it. Stop government from interfering and deciding what people do with their lives. Why do you continue to make Malta a laughing stock of the world? Divorce will neither add nor detract from marriage. People do not stay together because the country does not provide for divorce. This is about human relations. If the Church and government are serious about strengthening marriage, then let them take some positive action instead of always being negative. Do you really want two people who can't stand each other to remain together simply because Malta does not have a provision for divorce? Grow up, Malta. Enter the civilised world.
George Frendo
Mar 24th 2011, 22:03
@Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
agree 100%
Jason Borg
Mar 24th 2011, 22:40
Do you need to be so insulting (or desperate) to try to prove your point?
Sandro Agius
Mar 24th 2011, 22:48
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti....l-argumenti li gibt huma argument fiergha. Ma naccettax l-argumentazzjoni tieghek fuq bazi li d-divorzju minnu nnisfsu huwa haga negattiva u ghalhekk ma nistax nifhem kif tista titkellem b'mod pozittiv fuqu. Jekk iz-zwieg jispicca bhal ta Elisabeth Taylor...8 divorzji...qisna qed nilghabu drafts hemm nuru kemm il-pajjizi hekk imsejha civilizati m'huma civilizzati xejn. M'ghandkomx dinjita taghkom infuskom...dik hi l-imhabba li toffrilna d-dinja civilizata...ferkaz nippreferi nghix fil-gungla milli man-nies civili. U dik ta l-4 snin, min hu sidhom il-politici (dawk li laqghu l-kurcifiss meta hadu l-mandat) li d-divorzju jaghmluh bhal tal-pajjzi "civilizati".
Kif ha ssahhah il-familja bid-divorzju, ghax din hija l-mistoqsija l-kbira? U t-tfal x'ha jaghmlu...joqghodu jsafru? Mhux bizzejjed intom l-ghorrief qridtulhom tfulithom lit-tfal u z-zghazagh....fl-ahhar anke d-divorzju biex zgur tivvendikaw ruhkom miz-zghar...kemm tifilhu tkunu ipokriti u nies ta qalb iebsa. L-egoizmu taghkom wassal ghal istat li qeghdin fih illum.
Jekk vera tridu lil uliedkom ituhom futur sabih tuhom soluzzjoni u mhux titfghu il-problemi taht it-tapit. Qatt ma xtaqt deni li ghajri, ghax kif ghallem San Gorg Preca: "Gid lil kulhadd u deni lil hadd" u ghalhekk ha nivvotta LE ghad-divorzju, bil-motto li JPO kien jirrepeti ta spiss..."Ghalina, ghal pajjizna u ghal uliedna".
Joseph Calleja
Mar 24th 2011, 23:07
No dear, this is not simply about human relationships: it is also about children, an honest debate about the in and outs of a bill who will change loads of things. One of them is that if you do not work for the success of your relationship, you get a reward and a free ticket out of that marriage. Get over it Joseph ... start thinking in just terms.
Manuel Mangani
Mar 24th 2011, 23:38
It is essential to oppose the undermining of the of the institution which lies at the basis of social structure. The formalisation ( i.e. official sanctioning) of intimate human relations goes beyond the merely private into a very public sphere. The Church and all those who cherish the common good would be highly irresponsible not to defend the permanence of marriage, thereby indirectly promoting further ego-centric behaviour which places individual rights above all other considerations and ignores social wrongs. If the rest of the world wishes to laugh, let it. The guffawing might drown out temporarily the sound of crashing structures, and distract from the social confusion which is part and parcel of life in societies which have all but lost a sense of community - the inevitable result of social changes ushered in and catalysed by misplaced individualism- but the effects will not last.
By the way who says that "two people who can't stand each other (must) remain together simply because Malta does not have a provision for divorce"?
Daniel Laus
Mar 25th 2011, 00:04
@ JCC
Your argument is similar to this case: A group of youths 16 years old or so smoking and a youth one of them who never had a cigarette is his whole life starts smoking because he thinks that if he doesn't smoke like his peers he his kinda left out from the group. A.K.A Peer Pressure So therefore your argument regarding "...make Malta a laughing stock of the world?..." because we don't have divorce legislation is rather stupid and ridiculous. We should all expect better and valid arguments to encourage the Maltese suffrage to vote in favour of divorce.
david debattista
Mar 25th 2011, 01:03
Right on Joseph . Never in my whole life have I felt so sick with the church and some politicians .Much I fear I will leave the church. I am sick of all the abuse and brainwashing.
As to take positive steps They have no idea what to do or were to start . All they do is push down their religious believes down our throats and tell us we are baaaaaaaaaad.!
Stop this prostitution of the individuals rights by indulging in your dirty technicalities the people are very much aware of your tactics, or risk paying a heavy price! The time for us to stand up and be counted draws near. Much I fear some dirty play with dire consequences. Joseph Muscat hope you are following this because it is going to turn dirty!
Lewis Cini
Mar 25th 2011, 04:35
How true,couldn`t have said it better myself.
edward bartolo
Mar 25th 2011, 07:12
No government is telling us not to have an intimate relationship: that will always remain our free choice.
So, your comment is entirely unwarranted.
P. Farrugia
Mar 25th 2011, 07:14
No one is deciding what you do with your life. Marriage would be your decision but then a promise is a promise and destroying this concept should make us a laughing stock rather than the other way round. Thank you for recommending we grow up but try to do so yourself too.
Joe Grima Brussels
Mar 25th 2011, 07:16
So, according to you, the government and the church are 'negative', because they are in favour of a healthy marriage, faithfulness, responsibility, love, and peace. This means that for you, the POSITIVE things in life include violence, unfaithfulness, treachery, and confusion! Is this the 'civilised' world YOU prefer?
I prefer to be the laughing stock, but happily married, than the crying stock, and divorced, thank you.
'Do you want two people who can't stand each other...?' Didn't these two people choose each other themselves, probably being engaged for some years before making the final decision? Who'se fault is it if 'suddenly' they 'can't stand each other'? I hope you don't blame the government and the church for that? Love is something which needs nourishing to grow. It's the couple's rsponsibility to protect and nourish their relationship. No need to lay the blame on third parties.
L Camilleri
Mar 25th 2011, 07:44
Grow up JCC. Malta as it is has its place in the civilised world.
Tommy Vella
Mar 25th 2011, 08:16
"People do not stay together because the country does not provide for divorce."
"Do you really want two people who can't stand each other to remain together simply because Malta does not have a provision for divorce?"
Aren't you contradicting yourself?
C. Farrugia
Mar 25th 2011, 08:32
The problems of a divorces couple fall on all the Maltese people. Divorce is not an individual problem, but a national one. The social and financial problems comming from broken marriages fall on all the taxpayers. This has nothing to do with religion or individual rights. The psycological problems of children will have to be sovled through national health. The housing problems will fall on the Social Housing department etc etc etc.
Joseph Borg
Mar 25th 2011, 08:58
Being such a grown up yourself, Mr. Chetcuti, would you kindly explain how "two people who can't stand each other" got married in the first place? The government, nor the church does not prohibit a grown up to act as s/he likes (within the laws). People still choose what to do, irrelevant whether or not it is morally correct. And as both you and me have the freedom to voice our opinion, I think both the government and the church have their right to voice their opinion too.
Francesco Refalo
Mar 25th 2011, 09:50
Yes of course, enter the civilised world, make the same mistakes other countries have made. Vote yes for divorce, and say no to the problems of marriage. How can divorce help the family? By having the children calling daddy one, daddy two and daddy three? Or is it by living in a family which never really existed? The divorce bill proposed is not going to help the children, its going to help the parents escape problems they are scared to face.
David Caruana
Mar 25th 2011, 10:46
@ David Debattista:
"Leaving" the church is the most effective silent protest one can do - it's called self-excommunication. All you need is a baptism certificate and to write a letter to the Curia informing them that you wish to give up your baptism. Numbers speak volumes and if all those who had enough of the Church would excommunicate themselves, we'd have a clearer picture about the number of Catholics in Malta.
john vella
Mar 25th 2011, 11:32
@Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
You advised for us to: 'Enter the civilized world'. SO, Let me take the liberty to ask you, so I be aware who I am speaking to.
When you got married to your partner and was told to kiss the bride who was the bride?
That is really nice! Is this what you call a civilized world? Sorry mate I prefer to kiss a female bride when I get married.
Claude Lacoste
Mar 25th 2011, 11:44
The exterior world doesn't laughing ... he is, rather, crying to see the influence and intolerance of Roman catholic church in this debat concerning a civil law. Other religions exist, also, in Malta : the law is for all.