Comparison to nazism draws strong reaction in divorce debate
There were strong reactions during a divorce debate this evening when the views of the 'no' lobby on 'the common good' were likened to the views of the Nazi Party and, later, when the introduction of divorce was linked to the introduction of abortion and same sex marriage.
The sharp exchanges were made during a Today Debate on Divorce, which was chaired by Roger de Giorgio.
The reference to the Nazi Party was made by former Labour MEP candidate Marlene Mizzi, who said that the Nazi Party used to hold that the common good came over individual rights, a view which, she said, was similar to the view of those who opposed divorce.
Austin Bencini, who opposes divorce, objected strongly to reference to the Nazi Party being made in this context, and said the argument did not apply. He said that in Malta, individual rights were protected in the context of fundamental human rights. Divorce, however, was not a fundamental right.
Later in the discussion, Joyce Cassar, who also opposes divorce, asked if minority issues should be tackled in the same way as the possible introduction of divorce was being considered. Would minority issues such as abortion and same-sex marriages also be considered in this way?
Deborah Schembri, chairman of the Divorce Movement, said the issue was about the introduction of divorce, which had absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
Those taking part in the discussion also argued about the provisions of the Divorce Bill, particularly the concept of 'no fault divorce'.
Ms Cassar said that had the Bill been different, providing for consensual divorce with valid reason or consequences for the spouse who caused a marriage to fail, she might not be campaigning in this way.
Dr Schembri said she agreed with the 'no fault' concept as it was not fair that somebody could prevent somebody else from getting divorced, just out of pique - holding on to the illusion of a marriage which had broken down for more than four years. Still, people who got divorced would still have the option not to re-marry, if they wished.
Marlene Mizzi said divorce would benefit the children from the second marriage, giving them stability. She said that children born out of wedlock were sometimes bullied and stigmatised
Dr Bencini said it was not legal to discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate children. Caselaw also said there should not be such a distinction.
Dr Schembri said the law still made distinctions in some case, such as inheritance in the case of a parent not having a will.
The discussion also heard several comments from the audience, many of them pointing, emotionally to the problems they faced after their marriage broke down and they could not remarry.
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...
35 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Ms Chai Mai Xiang
Apr 21st 2011, 05:44
Hello -- I am writing an article about the proposed introduction of divorce into Maltese law. I am particularly interested in what sociologist or psychologists have said regarding the subject. Does anyone out there know of anyone or many people or have written on this subject? I am interested in the notion of disembedding-- the removal from one's social context.
Thank you -- I appreciate anyone to write to me at chm_xiang@yahoo.com
Mr Dr. Geoffrey Schembri Adami Med. Vet.
Apr 15th 2011, 20:32
Part 3.
Continues......
We Christians are an anvil, and not the hammer. If the anvil is strong, firm and solid enough, so it will last much more than the hammer, and when the hammer is out of use, the anvil will still be in use to give form to what needs to be forged. To be forged now are all those who are marginalized and ridiculed for having spoken and defended the truth. They suffer unjustly and without fault, for having defended boldly God’s Commandments and the Teachings of Christ, without compromise and unconditionally. When the hammer will certainly hit them hard, when they are attacked for being on the side of the truth of Christ, it will injure them deeply, but God will surely assist them to sustain them and their faith in Him and in His Word.
Have you, or I, the right to infringe God’s Commandments, and to displease Him immensely? The Good Lord has given us Christians the task to call what is white white, and what is black black. Any state law that is contrary to God’s Divine Law with regards to human dignity, life, family and the indissolubility of marriage..........
Continues........
Mr Dr. Geoffrey Schembri Adami Med. Vet.
Apr 15th 2011, 20:31
Part 2.
Continues........
....... or out of fear of others, we agree with what is sinful and evil, and displeases God who loves us and whom we should love, and to stain our conscience in order not to be different than the rest, especially to gain or serve the favour of others, common mortals, who although in contradiction with God’s Commandments and the Teachings of Christ, appear to be strong and powerful, but in reality, their strength and power is not destined to last very long. Let us defend Christ and His Teachings! Let us defend what belongs to God and what is His alone! Let us, with Peter, tell Jesus: Etiam omnes ego non - Lord, if all are ashamed of you and abandon You, I will not!
Who wants to give to the people and to the state, values that are different than those that originate from the Teachings of Christ, defying these values as though God and His Commandments do not exist, is out of the true faith of Christ. Conscientious objection to what contradicts God’s Commandments and the Teachings of Christ should lead to their refusal by Christians who want to remain faithful to God.
Continues........
Mr Dr. Geoffrey Schembri Adami Med. Vet.
Apr 15th 2011, 20:30
Part 1.
Ms. Mizzi and all those in favour of the introduction of divorce who liken those who defend the indissolubility of marriage with Nazism should reflect the following words of BLESSED CARDINAL CLEMENS GRAF VON GALEN (1878-1946), known in history as ‘The Lion of Munster’, whom Hitler considered him as his greatest and most dangerous enemy as well as that of Nazism too, and vowed that once the war would end Von Galen would pay a very high price:
“Christianity asks to be unconditionally faithful to God, but also to serve men, created in His image. This is what the saints did, and some of them even shed their blood to remain faithful to God’s Commandments and the Teachings of Christ. The martyrs confessed with their blood the Truth: that is to love and serve God comes before anything else, even if this may displease and cause discomfort to certain people. It is necessary to obey God before obeying men. Our conscience does not belong to anyone else but God. So, also to us, who wish to love any serve Him before anything else, may God give us wisdom and fortitude that never, for selfishness, ..........
Continues........
Mr Robert Gatt
Apr 15th 2011, 20:21
D. A. Agius: Your point by point reply simply demonstrates a weakeness inherent in all arguments being brought forth by the pro-divorce movement. Your definition of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is, by NATURAL law, for life. I am emphasizing "by natural" to stress that natural law does not reflect any Christian Catholic belief. On the contrary, it's the Christian Catholic belief that reflects it. This is the clearest proof that it is absolutely an untruth that Christian Catholics against divorce are imposing their beliefs on others. For you and others who may disagree with this, get your definitions right, before you criticise.
I do not need to quantify or quote any statistic. What do you expect? Even if there was ONE single case of a spouse on whom divorce is imposed by the other spouse (which I'm sure that there are far more than that), yet one single case already disproves the claim stated by the referendum question that divorce is "an option". It isn't. It is neither a civil right. Divorce is not a question of giving rights to minorities. If it is legalised, it means that the definition of marriage is shattered. Marriage on the other hand has a precise meaning based on permanence, indisollubility and procreation.
It is no Christian love to vote in favour simply to give unfortunate couples the right to "re-marry". You yourself admitted that separated couples are still "technically married". The truth is that divorced couples are by all means still married in their first marriage, and it is merely the civil law which recognises the "second" "marriage".
You may criticise my argument in all ways possible. But there remains one fact: We are not in this world to turn it into a supermarket of civil rights. We have to shed responsibility for our actions. Admitting that marriage has failed is no responsibility, unlike what you say. Living a legal lie is not in safeguarding a marriage even through turbulent times, but exactly in the opposite, that is, in availing oneself of the responsibilities of that marriage in deeming it as having "failed", and in "re-marrying" by civil law if divorce is made legal. THIS, is living a lie. No marriage fails unless either spouse, or both, want it to, which means that marriage never fails, but it is our attitude which fails.
Mind you, I do not agree with the stance taken by some anti-divorce proponents, who are trying to make a crusade in stating that divorce is a sin. This is not my argument. Whether one is sinning or not, this depends entirely on his/her conscience before God. I dare say one may even be misguided in voting against same as much as misguided if voting in favour of divorce, particularly if voting against simply because of the fear of damnation, as some, are farcially stating. On the other hand, I have myself verified with a Maltese bishop, who stated that the bishops have themsleves avoided using the term "sin" in referring to divorce. Let us not resort to scaring people. Let us, on the other hand, inform people of the definition of marriage. The latter is not even clear for many!
Mr Victor vella
Apr 15th 2011, 20:05
I ask Austin Bencini Do you know when the church in Malta acted worse than Hitler`s Nazism? When the holy church used a derelict place in the Adolorata cemetery and used it as a landfill to bury those who believed in socialism or better sided with Mintoff. This time his government and the church stayed numb because the issue of divorce was instigated and triggered by the holy of the hollies PN regime under Gonzi. If the divorce issue was an invention of the Labour Party the hypocrisy of the church and the PN had raised sky high and till now they could have raised crusade after the crusade making the churches` pulpits as a broadcasting units. Where were your fundamental rights were protected Dr Bencini? If divorce was not a fundamental right why you and your hypocrite regime and the church have not made crusade after crusade as you did during the labour era. People will speak on 28th May.
Ms Rob Huber
Apr 15th 2011, 15:43
What a sad world. Some people seem to think that being religious is being naive. Being catholic is a way of life and not an opinion therefore any choice made is inspired by our truth of life. We are not imposing but we have made our personal choice.
Sorry but some of us are against this confusing concept called divorce.
Mr Matthew Grima
Apr 15th 2011, 17:50
The sad thing about this world is that you want to get in the way of others who do not share your beliefs.
Mr M Borg
Apr 15th 2011, 20:16
No one is forcing you to believe, but do not try to impose your beliefs , or shall i say your unbeliefs , on us. We are against divorce because we know that it does not solve anything.
You are fre to vote yes , no one is going to stop you. But can you really think that there is any good in divorce ?
The real " sad thing about this world " is that some can think that marriage is something one can just discard when one feels like..
Mr Andy Farrugia
Apr 14th 2011, 17:57
I must say i am impressed by the erudition, sophistication and profundity displayed by one of the speakers of the divorce movement in coming up with the Nazi analogy.
Ms jeneba caruana
Apr 14th 2011, 16:40
haha how funny!! these arguments makes me go to vote more YES than ever...and if it will not pass now, it will pass 10years more....
Ms Pamela Borg
Apr 14th 2011, 14:00
Well said Ms I Zammit.
I understand that the 'older' generations that are brainwashed by the parish priest since in the old days, there was war & poverty & the church saw the opportunity to kick in. People needed hope that things would change & get better so who better than the church would lie to these poor people, giving them hope. Not that it's bad to give hope to someone but to actually brainwash people into paying the priest so that he prays for them so they can go to heaven & the story goes on. Everyone knows what happened.
Passing on to the younger generations, who thankfully are much more open minded & we can see this in how many of them are not religious. But what about those who are in these church 'cults', who are weak so the only option is the 'guidance' of a priest who tells them how many children to have, whose husband hardly ever spends quality time with his children because this is what God wants according to the priest.
Open your mind young people, you still have the chance to change Malta. Let Dr Gonzi know that it's the government who is supposed to make decisions for this country & not the church & the people who have fallen for it's scams
Giancarlo Refalo
Apr 14th 2011, 19:36
Dear Ms Borg,
Are you implying that it is a good thing that many young people are not religious? Does being "not religious" in your warped mind make them more open minded?
Does being religious, in your mind, involve obeying chapter and verse what a priest says? Do priests, in your opinion, tell husbands to avoid spending quality time with their children?
Lady, please take a good look at yourself. I'm 25 years old, Catholic, living abroad, and intend flying to Malta to vote NO in the upcoming referendum. I've seen first hand what divorce has done to other societies. God forbid that ever happens to our society.
Also Ms Borg, the 'older' generations whom you sweetly referred to as brainwashed are none other than the most experienced members of our society.
Madame, your superciliousness disgusts me.
Mr Matthew Grima
Apr 15th 2011, 11:25
Mr. Refalo,
I am not a religious person and yet I agree with you, as Ms Pamela Borg here wanted to generalise people under two umbrellas.
That being said, you are Maltese, you do have a right to your vote, but you'll be coming here to vote for something which will not be affecting you, as you'll be leaving again, to a place which has divorce. This argument stands whether you are for or against divorce.
Giancarlo Refalo
Apr 15th 2011, 11:58
Dear Mr. Grima,
although it is true that for the immediate future I shall be residing abroad, I have always held, and will always hold, that my real home is Malta, and it is the place I intend going back to eventually. I therefore feel that yes, this matter will be affecting me, and all future young couples who intend to get married.
Mr Neville Borg
Apr 15th 2011, 12:34
Giancarlo - I think Pamela Borg's (very well disguised) point is that divorce isn't really a religious issue at all. Catholics such as yourself are presumably strong enough in their faith to live their lives according to their religious beliefs. Although I think that you'd find that the answers to most of your questions are 'yes'. I too am 25, live abroad and have seen the effects of divorce in other societies - a good portion of it consists of people rebuilding their lives within a new family a few years after finding themselves in a loveless and/or abusive marriage.
Great use of the word 'superciliousness' though.
Ms I Zammit
Apr 14th 2011, 12:51
Are we living in 2011? Unbelievable! It makes me want to cry! And people taking about conscience! Or infallible teaching of the church ... which is made up of people...and these people have admitted to making mistakes! Oh come on! I hope the referendum proves that the Maltese society is much better than this! And why are we assuming that all Maltese believe in the church or are ready to sacrifice anything for the church! We have been brainwashed since we were young by the church . . . people go and read and learn! Or are you afraid to discover the truth! I voted yes for the EU because I thought Malta was going to move forward but it seems that we were just fooled! Please do not argue using religion because you are just imposing your values! If there is divorce and you do not want it or your conscience tells you ‘no’, even if you are living in hell, do not use it! But can anyone tell me what the holy people are losing if divorce is legalised and they do not use it? I don’t understand...or are they afraid that their spouses might use it? I am very happy in my marriage and I do not intend to use divorce, but I am living in the real world, were not everyone is as lucky as me! Why should I stand in the way of someone’s living happier! People, this is not killing....this is accepting the reality! Stop catastrophising! Please wake up from your daydream and face reality!
Mr M Borg
Apr 14th 2011, 15:52
@Ms I Zammit
We are living in 2011 and you are right you must cry if you only stop ," read and learn " of the consequences of divorce.
Divorced couples in England, Ireland Italy etc were not " brainwashed by any parish priest " and are now reaping what they sowed.Many wish that divorce never entered their country.
What makes you think that the coming of divorce will " make Maltese society much better ?"
If you need to ask what " people will lose if divorce had to be legalised " I am afraid that it is you who have been brainwashed by the pro-divorce movement. Read and learn that where one finds divorce legislation couples do not remarry but cohabit with the number of single parents and children born out of wedlock increasing every year. Women , who usually get custody often fall below the poverty line. I do not think that they would agree with you that divorce made their society any better.
No one is forcing you to follow the Catholic faith but how dare you " impose your values " on us ?If you think that going against the church is modern I think differently..
I am modern and strong enough not to let anyone play with my conscience. I will vote no for divorce. I believe in God and His sacraments.
Ms I Zammit
Apr 14th 2011, 16:47
Mr. Borg,
I have lived in the UK and have not met a single person against divorce! Where have you read this? Even people of different faiths (thought of as being more fundamentalists then the Maltese) find it weird that divorce is illegal in Malta. Who are these ‘many’ who wished divorced never entered in their countries? My experience of living in a different country is that very one minds their business! The consequences of divorce are no different than that of annullement and separation! Or is this not a reality for you!
I never said that divorce will make society better. I said that it will make some people’s lives happier! Mr. Borg, people in the rest of the world do remarry if they have the opportunity! May be you need to get out and travel more!
I am not imposing my values! With the entry of divorce no one will impose on other people to get divorce! Just as with the entry of the EU, Maltese citizens have the right to work in any EU country, but one is imposing on anyone to leave our country. However, people who wished to make use of this right were free to do so. The same goes for divorce. If your god tells you that you cannot divorce, then no one will impose on you to use it. How is this imposition? Please do illuminate me! If other people use this right, it is their business! And who am I to judge them?! It seems that most people are purer that the most pure to throw the first stone!
Mr Matthew Grima
Apr 14th 2011, 17:49
Mr M Borg has a strange habit of spouting intangible data just for the sake of winning an argument.
And even if people are not happy that divorce entered their country, it is their problem and not others' as divorces should not be affecting them.
Mr M Borg
Apr 14th 2011, 18:43
@ Ms I Zammit
I am surprised that a person who has lived in the UK can say that she has never met a single person who is against divorce. Beside "going out and travelling Ms Zammit do you read or realize what is going on around you ?
While in the UK didn't you ever read that the British Government is trying against all odds to make couples marry ?
Do you know that divorced and separated couples are costing the UK Government £ 24 billon yearly. You can take the British Prime Minister as your one person who is not happy with the divorce situation in his country.Take it form me neither are the British who are being taxed to pay for them.
" People in the world do remarry if they have the opportunity. "
Wrong again, where one finds divorce legislation most will not remarry although they are free to do so. Marriage will seem a waste of time, money and energy when one can get divorced at will.
That is why 1 out of 5 women in the UK choose to cohabit. Living in the UK as you said you did, I am sure you would have realised that most of the people around you were either divorced or cohabiting.Could it be that while you were living in another country you were" minding your own business "so much that you failed to see what was going next to you ?
That is why I am against divorce. Divorce breaks the backbone of society. It is like a virus once in it kills marriage.
Mr Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
Apr 14th 2011, 11:43
@POPLU MALTI U GĦAWDXI: KULL PERSUNA L-EWWEL LI TRID TRRISPETTA HUWA LILL-KUXJENZA FFURMATA TAGĦHA PERSONALI.
KULL-PERSUNA LI TRID TGĦIX FIL-KWIET U FIL-PAĊI MAGĦHA INFISHA GĦANDA TKUN PAĊI MALL-KUXJENZA TAGĦHA U MHUX MA DAK LI JGHIDULA TAGĦMEL N-NIES!
META JIEN IMMUR QUDDIEM IL-MULEJ LI JIEN FIĦ NEMMEN, X'SER NIRRISPONDI, GĦALL DAK LI TGĦIDULI BIEX NAGĦMEL INTOM TA’ L-IVA, LI JMUR KONTRA L-PJAN T’ALLA?
GĦIDULHOM LIN-NIES LI D-DIVORZJU IMUR KONTRA L-PJAN TA’ALLA, U MINN JIDDEVORZJA MA JISTAX JERĠA JIŻŻEWWEĠ BIL-KNISJA!
GĦAX FUQ KOLLOX IL-KUXJENZA HIJA JEKK INTIX TONORA U TIMXI MAL-PJAN TA’ ALLA DAK LI ĦALQEK
JIEN BĦALA NISRANI DAK LI NEMMEN, LA MA NAGĦMEL XEJN LI JMUR KONTRA L-PJAN TA’ ALLA, U GĦANDI DRIT NESPREMIĦ U MA NĦALLI LILL ĦADD JEĦODLI DAN ID-DRIT!
NOQGĦODU ATTENTI MA NIĊĊAJTAWX MAL-KUXJENZA TAN-NIES BIEX NASLU GĦALL-ISKOP TA' MOĦNA, EJJEW NIRRISPETTAW IL-KUXJENZA TA' KULL PERSUNA!
Mr michael sammut
Apr 14th 2011, 15:25
int lilek min qallek li alla kattoliku? gifieri kif qed titkellem int, kif xi ruh tasal quddiem il kancelli tal genna, ha tkun qisek dhalt mater dei - colour coded departments?? jew queue lines u tistenna hemm skont liema religjon tkun haddant f hajtek??
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 14th 2011, 11:20
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!
Mr Marius Zulgis
Apr 14th 2011, 10:45
Austin Bencini states that "Divorce, however, was not a fundamental right." Let's look at this in more detail shall we - what exactly are " fundamental rights"? Well in the rights universally recognised as fundamental in the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights include:
1. Right to equal protection under the law; how does prohibiting divorce safeguard this fundamental right?
2. Right to freedom of thought; does prohibiting divorce aid freedom of thought?
3. The pursuit of Happiness; does prohibiting divorce, barring unhappy spouses from finding happiness with another partner do this?
4. Liberty (cf. freedom, free will, personal liberty); how the prohibition of divorce promotes this fundamental right is mysterious.
5. Right to freedom of association; with whom can we associate, exactly, and how?
6. Right to freedom of contract (the freedom of individuals and corporations to form contracts without government restrictions) is a fundamental right certainly not granted Mr. Bencini!
Mr G Vella
Apr 14th 2011, 10:17
Joyce Cassar’s argument that if divorce is seen as a right then every single request made by a minority becomes a right is absolutely nonsensical. An individual has the right to do as he or she will, provided that in the exercise of that right he does not cause avoidable harm to another individual. The NO campaigners have failed to prove that divorce is not of benefit to the separated couple who gets divorced. So they often have had to hide behind the nubilous “common good” argument. However, here again they have failed to show that a divorce causes some small but measurable harm to lots of other individuals that somehow or other overwhelms the benefit to the divorced couple.
Adriano Spiteri
Apr 14th 2011, 09:33
How pathetic.
What can be said is that Malta missed the opportunity to integrate with Britain BECAUSE of divorce.
Years later - we're still stuck.
No wonder we've got some opposing divorce - circa 10% of our population makes use of anti-depressants.
Mr Carmel J. Caruana
Apr 14th 2011, 06:22
The most important argument in favour of divorce keeps getting lost:
"It is psychologically damaging to the partners and their children if two persons who for some reason are not in a position to live harmoniously together any longer are forced to do so. One cannot force people to love each other."
Every country in the world has recognized this simple fact ages ago!
Giancarlo Refalo
Apr 14th 2011, 09:20
Don't be ridiculous. If a marriage has failed NO ONE is forcing the couple to live together.
D. A . Agius
Apr 14th 2011, 10:50
OF course. It negates one the choice to have a new life though, in a legal way. Ever heard of issues between separated couples based on the issues regarding new partners, access to children form old relationship etc.?
Mr Cyrus Engerer
Apr 14th 2011, 00:11
Joyce Cassar asked whether we should also defend minorities who would also be in favour of same-sex marriages, among others. Hello?? Governments and legislators in a democracy should always safeguard the rights of minorities!
Mr David Farrugia
Apr 13th 2011, 21:08
The'minority issue' clause, so popular with the no front, is very dangerous reasoning. People seeking divorce might be a minority. However the no front must also remember that the disbled, cancer patients and immigrants are also a minority.
Another thing to remember...all these minorities are a burden on society. So please be careful how to put your arguments. Till now the no movement is one big farce.
Mr Paul Gauci
Apr 13th 2011, 21:41
Divorce is not an issue of minorities ... it is an issue which will surely effect the whole of society ... not just
those who will Divorce but the society at large especially the future generations.
Mr Robert Gatt
Apr 13th 2011, 23:23
Mr David Farrugia: Minorities taken as a whole do not necessariliy form a majority. It is not simply a question of numbers. It is one thing to speak while attentive not to hurt any minority, yet it is another thing to decide (as will be in the Referendum) on whether divorce is good or bad for society.
The No to divorce movement is one big farce? I'd rather say the opposite. The Yes movement is a far bigger farce:
1. How can divorce be described as an "option" or "choice" (as is misleadingly described in the Referendum question) when divorce is effectively an imposition in the case of a couple wherein one spouse wants divorce and the other spouse doesn't?
2. How can Yes to marriage and Yes to divorce be equated, when Yes to divorce effectively means a negation of a valid marriage?
3. How can the children's interests be ever protected, and what guarantee exists that in all cases, "manteniment" will be given? (as the Referendum question misleadingly, again, suggests).
4. How can the position against divorce be described as an imposition on those who do want to divorce? Everybody is free to vote according to one's conscience, and nobody's vote is to be seen as delimiting other people's choice. Period.
5. How can divorce be termed "responsible", and what is responsible with divorce, anyway?
6. How can divorce be described as a "civil right"? If it really were a civil right, there wouldn't have been any need to hold a referendum or any debate on divorce. Since when have we started debating civil rights? Divorce is (as has by far proven to be) a matter of controversy, and not a civil right!
7. How can the Yes to divorce movement assure us that divorce will only be used by couples whose marriage has "irrevokably" failed? This is simply not true, and no argument or statistic can prove that this will happen.
Isn't this a greater farce?
D. A . Agius
Apr 14th 2011, 10:48
@Robert Gatt
1. Quantify the number of such cases.
2. Is a valid marriage a question of whether they good married in good faith only? People change, unresolvable issues may arise. Yes, I get married on day one, change my mind a couple of years down the line and we don't live in a "marriage" for the rest of our lives. You consider that a valid marriage???
3. Same issue with separation or annulment.
4. If it's not legal, how can I choose to Legally end a marriage which already has ended, at least four years before?
5. A couple which instead of living a legal lie, they choose to admit that their marriage failed. That's responsibility. Not living how they feel like but still being termed as "married"
6. It means that it is an issue of civil order. Currently we have a mess. The idea is to reduce the mess for bona fide sufferers. For those who have been changing partners as much as they change their wardrobe it will make no effect. It also reduces "Bastards" born out of wedlock as a previously divorced couple may want to remarry in the civil society.
7. I don't think a happily married couple will want to go for divorce, right? If you care to read the proposed law, rather than simply repeating speculation, you'll see that there are measures to make sure there is no hope for the previous marriage. Amongst which is the four years period of separation. Read the full text here: http://www.iva.com.mt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81:emendi-biex-jigu-prezentati-l-parlament&catid=44:iva-official-documents&Itemid=81
The farce is that of thousands of separated couples, some legally, some not, who have still technically are married, even though they have new partners and lives and children, but they cannot be recognised at law.
7.