Angele Deguara
Why I will vote yes for divorce
As a member of a society which claims to be a modern, secular, pluralistic and democratic EU member state, I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that in the 21st century, the divorce issue is still being hotly debated and that many arguments against divorce are still very much grounded in religious rhetoric and make use of scaremongering tactics.
It is unfortunate that we had to resort to a referendum to decide whether or not divorce legislation should be introduced in Malta since apart from Alternattiva Demokratika – the Green Party, none of the other two parties ever had the gall to put it on their electoral agendas for obvious reasons and certainly not for the reasons they quote, such as that of being against the common good or because our families are still strong. In a society which truly makes a distinction between Church and state, divorce legislation would simply be introduced by Parliament as a civil minority right.
I will vote yes in the referendum because divorce is a civil right which is being denied to thousands of people who are not in a position to obtain it from abroad. Malta is the only country in the world where divorce is not granted by the courts but where divorce obtained from many other countries is recognised by the state.
Therefore, some form of divorce legislation already exists in Malta but it is a law which discriminates against most of us.
I will vote yes because I have no right to stop those who would like a second chance at a happy marriage from having this option. I will vote yes because divorce is optional. Those couples who do not believe in divorce even if their marriage has failed may choose to stay married. I will vote yes because many people would like to end a marriage riddled with conflict, trauma and heartache. I will vote yes because my definition of the so-called “common good” is different from that of those with a parochial and confessional mentality.
Arriving at an objective definition of the “common good” is not easy. For me in this situation it means respecting the rights of all persons including minorities and giving people the space to make responsible choices about how they want to live their life. It is certainly not in the “common good” for the majority to take the moral high ground and impose its morality on everyone.
I will vote yes because adults have a right to make their own decisions about whether they want to stay single, to remarry or to cohabit with their new partner once their previous marriage has irrevocably failed.
I will vote yes because many of the arguments against the introduction of divorce do not convince me at all. I am not convinced by the argument that divorce will lead to marital breakdown since it usually happens the other way round. Many marriages are sadly already beyond repair and the absence of divorce legislation will not remedy that.
I am not convinced by the argument that divorce legislation will reduce commitment in marriage just because divorce is available. If I am committed to non-violence, I will not buy a fire arm just because I can buy it. Nor will I spend my days thinking about whether or not I should buy a fire arm. I also do not consider separated people to be still married. Marriage is a relationship based on love and respect and when these are absent, there is no marriage except in name. There is only a marriage certificate. Divorce legislation will only put a stamp on this reality.
Neither will lack of divorce ensure that children are not hurt when their parents do not love each other anymore. Children will always get hurt when their parents’ relationship is over, regardless of whether they separate, divorce, get an annulment or even continue to live together in an empty shell marriage. Furthermore the effects on children do not stop the Church from granting annulments or the state from granting separations. At least divorce legislation will facilitate the marriage of those who are forced to cohabit and to have children out of wedlock. As it is, one-fourth of children in Malta are born outside a marriage context.
Moreover, voting against divorce will not stop violent persons from abusing others as it has been suggested. Violent persons will abuse their partners regardless of whether they are married to them or not.
I simply cannot understand why so many people are obsessed with dictating how others should live their life when I am sure they would not like others to tell them how to live theirs. But then these people tend to believe that theirs is the only truth and that their conscience is inspired by God’s words and that gives them the right to pontificate to others. It is also unacceptable in a modern, supposedly democratic EU member state for some of our representatives in Parliament to claim that they will ignore the will of the people and will vote according to their conscience regardless of the referendum result. But then it’s not always easy to distinguish our parliamentarians from the mullahs of Iran or our presidents from our bishops.
The author is spokesman for social development of Alternattiva Demokratika – the Green party.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Paul Konti
Apr 3rd 2011, 12:31
@Kevin Cassar
It's clear from your comment that you are the one that is not very mature. And YES you ought to love me enough to make decisions for me (if and when necessary) so that I do not get hurt.
What does "Love thy neighbour as thyself" mean to you?
Valerie Visanich
Apr 1st 2011, 19:12
Clearly put!! I agree with you that it is all about believing in civil rights instead of adopting the more paternalistic approach of the anti-divorce movement.
Henry S Pace
Apr 1st 2011, 17:40
'I will vote yes because I have no right to stop those who would like a second chance at a happy marriage from having this option. I will vote yes because divorce is optional. Those couples who do not believe in divorce even if their marriage has failed may choose to stay married. I will vote yes because many people would like to end a marriage riddled with conflict, trauma and heartache. I will vote yes because my definition of the so-called “common good” is different from that of those with a parochial and confessional mentality. ' Common Good: Can Ms Deguara explains further what she means by 'Common Good' ? I do not know the lady personally whether she is (happily) married or she is single.. However, allow me to ask just a simple question to this lady. What would be her reaction if ever any of her children would one day walk into her home and tells her that they intend to get married to a divorcee. A reply would be highly solicited.
i.vella
Apr 1st 2011, 16:01
It's a sigh of relief to see some common sense once in a while on our newspapers. It's sad, however that it takes as little as some common sense to make me sigh with relief!!! Thank you Angele, for writing something realistic
Paul Konti
Apr 1st 2011, 14:39
You have every right to vote 'yes' and others have the right to vote 'no' - and that includes me! I simply cannot understand why you think that there are so many people obsessed with dictating how others should live their life. We are not dictating at all. Simply put: We love our neighbor and we do not wish to let anyone get burnt; our opinion, of course. Those of us who do not agree with divorce and yet vote 'yes' to accommodate others, are making a big mistake. For example, it would be very irresponsible of us to vote 'yes' in a referendum on the subject of dangerous drugs even if we ourselves do not take drugs. Why? Because we love our neighbor and because we believe that dangerous drugs are harmful. So, since I strongly believe that divorce is harmful, I will be voting 'no' regardless of what others may want. And I am not imposing nor dictating how others should live. Deep down I know I am protecting them from harm. That way, my conscience is clear.
Kevin Cassar
Apr 1st 2011, 22:04
It's clear from your way of thinking that you are not very mature so I guess by your "logic" I should love you enought to make your decisions for you. That is what you're saying in your comment.
J Farrugia
Apr 1st 2011, 14:24
Angele whether your lie it or not there is only one truth. either black or white there are no grey area. And only God has the truth. I am the way the truth and the life. Those that follow me will live forever. ANd then comes Angele telling us like Pilate what is the truth. Alas ANgele has not found the truth just to please the minority.
J Farrugia
Apr 1st 2011, 14:21
Those who are already lost like Judas Ischariot was, they are alas lost forever. and no amount of eye opening will heal them. Sad but true. We will offer prayers for these lapsed catholics who decided freely that they dont have anything to do with God, and that they are quite capable of solving things themselves without God's help. Off course we know that they are only fooling themselves, like someone said the foolishness of the wisemen. They are the experts of free love, no children and all the pleasures the world can give them. They drown themselves in drink and drugs and dont care about tomorrow since for such people tomorrow never comes. That's why they make life difficult for those they meet and work with.
J N EBEJER
Apr 1st 2011, 14:17
BHAL DAK LI QALLU ID DIVORZJU ARGUMENT TAD DINJA MODERNA! MOSE' KELLHU ARGUMENT FUQHU TA' L INQAS ELF SENA QABEL KRISTU'! JEW GHAL MIN MA JRIDX JISMA BI KRISTU TA L INQAS 3000 SENA ILHU. hAWN SOCJETAJIET LI GHANDHOM ID DIVORZJU GHADHOM JEMMNU F LISKJAVITU! ALLURA NHGAMLU BHALHOM BIEX INKUNU MODERNI? DAN X ARGUMENT HU LI D DIVORZJU HU XI HAGA MODERNA, GDIDA, !?! U MIN QALLHEK LI TAGHNA HI SOCJETA LAJKA? GHAMILT XI REFERENDUM LI TGHIDLEK LI XI MAGGORANZA TRID TKUN LAJKA? MELA META TRID TIDHOL ID DEMOKRAZIJA U META TRID LE? lI JGHOGBOK TIDDETTA INT JGHODD -BHAL LI TRID SOCJETA LAJKA U BID DIVORZJU U LI MA TAQBILX MIEGHU TGHIDLU IMPONIMENT? DIN X DEMOKRAZIJA LI TEMMEN FIHA U L PARTIT TIEGHEK!?! IL FATT LI QED TIGGENERALIZZA, TAJJAR U TIPPROVA TWAQQA L ARGUMENT KONTRA LI TAHSEB INT BILLI TIRRIDIKOLA LILL MIN JGHID KONTRA BHALA JGHAMEL RETORIKA BISS, JEW JGHID HEKK MINHABBA RELIGJON ECC JFISSER LI MA GHAMILTX SFORZ BIEX TARA HEKK HEMMX EFFETT HAZIN WARA LI JIDHOL DIVORZJU - XI HAGA LI POLITIKU LI HU ANKE FAVUR ID DIVORZJU JGHAMEL BHALA SERVIZZ GHALL POPLU. DAN JIKXFEK X LESTA LI TAGHMEL BIEX TIMPONI L OPINJONI TIEGHEK.
Joe Micallef
Apr 1st 2011, 13:34
What a load of crap! Not that one would expect better after reading the first paragraph. This piece would make a good test case for a lesson of basic critical analysis. Multiple flaws but one in particular is so demeaning!
"Moreover, voting against divorce will not stop violent persons from abusing others as it has been suggested. Violent persons will abuse their partners regardless of whether they are married to them or not."
A question begs! Will voting for divorce have an impact on such abuse?
With politicians of such level, might as well go fishing!
Mark A. Sammut
Apr 1st 2011, 11:10
In my opinion, the arguments brought forth by Ms Deguara lead to a blind alley.
For example, she writes:
"I will vote yes because I have no right to stop those who would like a second chance at a happy marriage from having this option. I will vote yes because divorce is optional."
This kind of logic - i.e., having no right to stop others - implies a dangerous laissez-faire attitude.
Using the same logic, I have no right to stop others from using cocaine, because it is optional and can make people "happy".
I have no right to stop others from resorting to abortion, because it is optional and can make a woman happy.
I have no right to stop two males living together as a couple from adopting children, because it is optional and can make them happy.
And so on.
If the pro-divorce camp wants to attract more adherents, it needs to proffer a different, better logic than this.
----
Prof. Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici's book Il-Ligi, il-Morali u r-Raguni (distributed by word-for-word, Valletta) gives a good discussion on these points.
Kevin Cassar
Apr 1st 2011, 21:58
If everyone used you kindergarden analogies we'd be in real trouble. Fortunately a good number of people have a little more sense.
Mark A. Sammut
Apr 2nd 2011, 11:23
Mr Cassar
How would you react if you end up paralyzed because you were hit by a car driven by a cocaine-user on a high?
How would you react if your girlfriend decides to abort your child because she's not happy with the relationship with you?
How would you react if your daughter falls in love with a man brought up by two men rather than by a man and a woman?
The problem of laissez-faire is that it denudes individuals of their sense of responsibility.
Joe Zammit
Apr 1st 2011, 10:47
Christ was clear also on the evil of adultery and said that, if one divorces his spouse and enters another marriage, one lives in adultery. (Mk 10, 2-12; Mt 19, 2-9). In the first letter to the Corinthians, St Paul says: “Do not be deceived; neither … nor adulterers… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor.6, 9-10).
Since divorce is a grave sin, voting for it is equally a grave sin. Par. 1789 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church runs: “… One may never do evil so that good may result from it; …” Besides, voting for divorce makes you responsible before God for all the grave sins others will commit on account of your sinful and evil vote. If your conscience, i.e., your reasoning, tells you differently, do not follow it because otherwise you will surely be led to hell by your own conscience itself. Those in hell all invoke their conscience for being there!
On July 13, 1917 the Virgin Mary told the three children of Fatima that “many go to hell on account of the sins of the flesh”. Among the sins of the flesh there is adultery.