Over the past few months, several statistics have been cited in order to lay claim on the pros and cons of the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta. Although it cannot be denied that statistics are a useful tool, the argument must also be studied from a different angle – that of the stakeholders themselves. It is my opinion that even when one puts statistics aside, the position being taken by the Moviment Żwieġ Bla Divorzju – that the introduction of divorce legislation will be to the detriment of the Maltese people – still holds extremely strong.
Let’s take a look at a couple of arguments that are bandied about in the debate.
One of the major claims of the pro-divorce lobby is that the Moviment Żwieġ Bla Divorzju is trying to restrict the personal freedom of those who wish to divorce and remarry. This is an important argument because personal freedom is a value that should be respected by all and sundry, more so by the state. Yet, as in the case of justice, personal freedom is not absolute; neither is it without limits.
With respect to the proposed format of the Bill, which grants the option of a unilateral divorce, how can it be claimed that this allows every person to exercise personal freedom? Although there could be some situations where both spouses are in agreement over the dissolution of their marriage, what about those cases where divorce is imposed upon one of the spouses? Is this not limiting the personal freedom of that spouse?
Although the yes campaign is claiming that divorce is a civil right, it is not. Even if it were, what about the rights of the other party? Does that party not have a right to insist that s/he does not want to be divorced? One could also argue that if divorce becomes readily available, then it would be so much simpler to dissolve a marriage rather than try to save it. Does the second party not have a right to defend his/her marriage with the underlying support of the state?
A second statement the pro-divorce movement is making loud and clear is that the opportunity of remarriage will be to the advantage of the “victims” – those who have been abandoned. To begin with, it is a mere assumption that, following the introduction of divorce legislation, most separated/cohabiting couples will choose to marry. The situation of some other countries has shown this is not to be taken for granted. But for the purpose of the argument, let’s take a hypothetical case of a divorced couple where the husband has remarried and established another legally reconstituted family.
If we evaluate the position of the first wife, the following scenario could well emerge. As is the norm in quite a few Maltese marriages, the wife would have shelved her career – which might also have been a non-starter in the case of couples marrying at a young age – and put her job or her profession temporarily on hold to bring up the family. Meanwhile, in the ensuing years, the husband would have become firmly established in his professional life and advanced quite high on the salary scale. Their family now enjoys a comfortable standard of living and the spouses are able to reap the benefits of their combined efforts.
Granted, when the couple separate, the law stipulates a division of the communion of acquests and tries to ensure that all adequate maintenance obligations are safeguarded, even though it remains an undisputed fact that women and children fare economically worse than men after a family disruption. In all probability, the first wife shall be compelled to join the workforce to better support herself and her children, more often than not earning a minimum wage. Besides this, again in all probability, within the span of her working years, she will not accumulate sufficient national insurance contributions, with the result she will receive a diminished pension.
By remarriage, a new community of acquests will be established, meaning the new wife will gain legal right over half her husband’s earnings and possessions (and vice versa) including the benefits from her spouses’ future pension (she will even be entitled to a widow’s pension, if he dies). The children from the first marriage become legally bound to share their father’s inheritance with his new spouse and children. To add insult to injury, any children born out of the new union will not only benefit financially over and above any amount of maintenance their father is contributing to his children from the first marriage but they also enjoy his continued presence and nurturing in their daily family life – something his other children are sadly denied. So, in such cases, is justice being done in respect of the “victims”?
Of course, no couple should remain together merely for financial stability but one certainly cannot say that divorce is to the economic advantage of the “victims”. Not to speak of the happiness and well-being of children whose parents choose to remarry.
The pro-divorce movement is claiming that children are likely to be happier if brought up by married parents, even if one spouse is not a biological parent. Are they taking into consideration situations where psychological or physical damage is inflicted upon children who are abused by a step-parent? Indeed, incidence of abuse in second marriages is higher than in biological families, which offer more protection and security. By nature, parents are more likely to favour their own biological children; this could lead to more conflict and disputes in reconstituted families where there are children from two separate families sharing the same living arrangements.
My final argument rests on the premise that whereas the pro-divorce movement is claiming that people in “bad” marriages have a right to a second chance is the introduction of divorce legislation not indirectly imposing upon “good” marriages? It is a psychologically established fact that, as humans, our behaviour and attitudes are often influenced by those around us.
Once divorce becomes embedded into our legislation, then the chances are that more and more troubled spouses will opt for it. They will take a cursory look at those around them who are already divorced and remarried and choose to take the easy way out rather than strive courageously and hard to save their sinking relationship.
These and several considerations are the reason why the Moviment Żwieġ Bla Divorzju is opposed to the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta. I think the message being propounded by the pro-divorce lobby, that the introduction of divorce legislation will make things easier, is totally misconceived. Things will be no easier than they are at present: genuine, intolerable relationships have to be ended with as much dignity and lack of distress as the system can manage but no amount of legal formalities can obscure the pain, suffering and effects caused by divorce to all those involved, who will remain as scarred as ever.
Ultimately, the Maltese population is free to make up its own mind but, in taking this important decision, it cannot ignore those situations of persons in Malta today for whom divorce would be a scourge rather than the salvation it is being painted to be.
The author is a member of the Diocesan Commission for the Family.