Divorce debate focuses on benefits or otherwise for society
The arguments for and against divorce were discussed at a poorly-attended AZAD debate this morning, with the arguments focusing on if and how society could benefit.
Austin Bencini, who opposes divorce, underlined the need for the people to be properly informed of the issue before the referendum takes place on May 28.
He argued that the focus of society and the state should be on strengthening the family, as the pillar of society. No one was denying that some families were going through problems, but how would divorce solve them? If social problems were causing families to break up, what the country needed was solutions for those problems.
Clearly, he said, more support was needed for families in order to help the marriage bond.
He criticised the Divorce Bill currently before parliament, particularly the concept of 'no fault divorce' where any of the spouses could seek and be granted divorce, despite what the other spouse felt. The law, as proposed, would make it easy for spouses who broke up a marriage to walk out without consequence to them.
It still had to be shown, Dr Bencini said, how divorce helped society.
Martin Scicluna, who backs divorce, said everyone was in favour of strong families, but what happened when marriages broke down? The state currently did not allow divorce, but allowed legal separation, where all the heartache that came before divorce took place. Divorce would allow people whose marriage broke down to be able to start again.
Society, he said, paid a price when couples broke up and ended up cohabiting because they could not remarry.
Joyce Cassar, who also opposes divorce, insisted that problems needed to be tackled before they led to a marriage breaking down. Cohabitation too was not healthy for society. She said she would also oppose legislation which would serve to promote cohabitation and not marriage, but she agreed that the vulnerable need to be protected and a framework to protect human dignity is necessary.
Deborah Schembri, who heads the divorce movement, said no one ever said that divorce was a solution to broken marriages, but it was a way how people could start anew. In the ideal world, marriages would not break down, she said, but breakdowns would continue to happen and people should be able to form new families.
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...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
12 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Ray Briffa
Apr 9th 2011, 17:20
It is thanks to comments from the likes of Mr Joe Zammit that I am becoming more and more convinced that the people will vote YES to divorce.
Marco Cremona
Apr 10th 2011, 20:53
I agree. There is nothing worse than fundamentalism, wherever it comes from.
Joe Zammit
Apr 9th 2011, 16:07
Conscience is reasoning.
No conscience can contradict the express and clear words of Christ about the evil of divorce: What God has joined together let no man put asunder! No conscience can genuinely go against this clear commandment of Christ on the necessity of the indissolubility of marriage and the intrinsic evil of divorce.
A conscience that suggests divorce to anyone is diabolical. The devil is pleased with divorce. God does not want divorce. This is the clear teaching of Christ and the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
If your conscience tells you something against the infallible teaching of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, do not follow your conscience. Your conscience is not infallible. Your conscience is subject to the teaching of Christ and his Church.
If you follow your conscience in disagreement with the Church, you are grievously stubborn and proud. Your stubbornness and pride will lead you only to hell. All those in hell appeal to their conscience for being there ... for ever... without any hope of redemption... there for ever!
Conscience is reasoning!
Jurgen Borg
Apr 9th 2011, 17:26
When god, the devil et. al. enter the equation, it's no longer called 'reason'- it's called 'faith'. Don't words have meaning any more?
Paul Barrett
Apr 9th 2011, 18:10
Thats all very well but back to reality - have you any reason for denying the freedom of choice for other people to decide whether they wish to live a hell on earth now or a hell later on instead of your heaven.
Mr Robert Gatt
Apr 13th 2011, 23:42
Joe, before cutting and pasting such comments, try at least to find, from official sources, the meaning of SIN, CONSCIENCE, FAITH, and REASONING. You got all definitions wrong. Your last sentence ("All those in hell appeal to their conscience for being there...forever") reminds me of Rifki from Midnight Express. He always used to take pleasure in seeing his fellow inmates suffer. Try to follow your own religion (as I try to do), and 1. DON'T judge others or you will be judged yourself by the same measure. 2. Understand that SIN is strictly a theological concept, and no religious scaremongering will ever change its definition. 3. Try to be (at least, try) a little bit more compassionate to those who differ in their opinion with you. I hope these didn't sin for doing that :-) Lucky was the sinful woman in the Bible who found Christ at her side who saved her from being stoned to death. I can't imagine you in His place! I am against divorce, by the way. But for very different reasons than yours. Perhaps the only point where I agree with you is in stating that divorce is not a civil right. I agree, since if it really were a civil right, it wouldn't have been surrounded by so much controversy, and moreover, if it were a civil right, it would have been a disservice to the country had it not been introduced at all costs. This is yet, not the case with divorce.
carmel tonna
Apr 9th 2011, 15:46
The introduction of divorce is nothing more than normal social change due to a continually changing environment. Morality, conscience and God has nothing to do with it. If it is not today it will be introduced tomorrow. We are not some godsend gift to mankind. We are a society like all others around the world.
Hope Al Jazeera does not make a monkey out of our divorce debate. Worse still if this is taken up by the European media
MBorg
Apr 9th 2011, 17:19
" Hope Al Jazeera does not make a monkey out of our divorce debate."
If we start saying all the anti-democratic things that go on in Muslim countries we will have enough monkeys to fill a zoo. Our one monkey will feel lonley next to their many.
G Borg
Apr 9th 2011, 17:24
'Morality, conscience and God have nothing to do with it.' Even for murderers, rapists, and other criminals, 'morality, conscience and God have nothing to do with it'. It all depends on one's character and values. If one's character and values are questionable, EVERYTHING one does has 'nothing to do with morality, conscience and God'!
Paul Barrett
Apr 9th 2011, 14:41
The only people that can strengthen a marriage are the two people that are married. Trying to induce the State to "strengthen a marriage" is basically pie in the sky. All the State can do is to have a pro-marriage policy regarding tax and financial incentives for child maintenance - both of which it already does. To expect the State to do more than that is gross interference in the private lives of the individuals.
There is a great fear regarding divorce which is totally unfounded in fact. Marriages break down and will continue to do so, probably in line with the rest of Europe at an ever increasing pace. All divorce legislation will do is to allow the very few that have managed to put their lives together again in a new relationship, the choice to legalise their position in a civil marriage.
The alternative to divorce legislation is increasing social disorder with couples in cohabitation without any outlet or freedom of choice to legalise their position.
Muscat Pat
Apr 9th 2011, 14:27
Everyone is in for strong families, but when things go wrong, society has to give remedies for unhappy families; everyone has a right to be happy.
Marriage was an institution in years gone by; today its a relationship. No one can be forced to stay in a relationship if,love has withered away. We must move ahead with times and have enough compassion to give people a second chance ; Malta must not remain the only cruel exception.
Kurt Waschnig
Apr 9th 2011, 14:09
When a marriage breaks up is it always a disaster for the whole family. Especially children suffer from a break up a lot.
A divorce can cause anxiety, traumas and psychological disorders that are difficult to treat and to overcome.
Human beings shall decide by themselves to get divorced or not. There are often problems within marriages which cannot be solved and marriages can be a hell for people.
When a marriage is unbearable there should be the legal right to get divorced. It would give both genders the possibility to fall in love again and to remarry and to start a new life.
Of course I agree every step should be done to avoid a divorce.
The Catholic Church and social institutions should try to solve heavy problems within marriages and in cases where a solution of the problems is not possible and one of the partners wish to get divorced divorces should be accepted in Malta and a bill shall be passed in parliament.
No democratic, liberal and open society can avert the demand of the majority if they wish that divorce is legally possible.