Is there a third option on divorce?

In a Utopia two people will make a commitment. Through marriage, or maybe even foregoing it, they will stay together through thick or thin for as long as they live. Unfortunately, some people get married for shallow and/or the wrong reasons. One need not list any as there will always be one more to add.

I must admit that I have not read or heard all that is flying around about the upcoming referendum on the introduction of divorce. What I have read and heard makes me wish that there was a third choice.

The arguments against the introduction of divorce have brought the Constitution, abortion, euthanasia, illegitimate children, fears of second and third divorces and a few other issues I might have missed. The sanctity of marriage is, of course, high on the agenda.

The pro-divorce group want to paint a more sympathetic picture of having a second chance at happiness, a family and all that will contribute to some form of good mental health. What puzzles me is the four-year separation period. I don’t know how this has worked out in Ireland.

It’s fine to believe that marriage is a lifelong commitment. Everyone who enters into it with a firm and clear view will want this. The challenge arises when one partner does not share the same commitment. Whether it’s a civil or a Church marriage there should be some mechanism to try to avoid this. Part of the marriage contract should include a clause to make mediation or counseling mandatory if either spouse deems it necessary. This could save a marriage and preserve a family. Refusal could be a good reason for a legal end to a marriage, through annulment or divorce, if introduced.

The four-year wait proposed in the referendum presents some different scenarios. Are families left in limbo? Judging by how the rest of the court system moves, how long will it take to settle matters? In answer to the first question the couple will have to be civil and reasonable, for their children’s sake, and come to some agreement about financial and property matters.

Alternately, go into a separation agreement until they qualify to get divorced. A double traumatic experience for the children.

Practicality, or circumstances, might dictate that the husband and wife live under the same roof but separately for the four years. This might be even worse for the children and maybe even a problem when the four years are over. Getting a divorce might even be a lengthier process than getting a Church annulment. There will be only two main differences if one leaves the moral issue aside. Divorce court is only interested in the agreement on division of property and the welfare of the children before granting the divorce. The Church Tribunal uses a longer process with allowance for appeal and reapplication if there is an unfavourable decision.

One has to question what happens if and when divorce becomes legal. We know that the Church will not recognise any divorced person who remarries civilly. Unless I missed it, nothing has been said about the state accepting a Church annulment. I know that in some countries, maybe all or most, a Church annulment must be accompanied by a decree of divorce before a marriage licence is issued.

One cynic, in need of a grammar lesson, remarked that divorce is the past tense of marriage. The contrarian assures us that marriage is the cause of annulment and divorce. In light of all that is being banded about regarding the upcoming referendum, one might wish that there was a third option.