Christine Galea
Putting divorce statistics aside
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.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
18 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr david debattista
Apr 15th 2011, 18:08
No MR Caruana , I have touched on this issue in the past, the psychological suffering on all concerned in a dysfunctional marriage. No MR Caruana they will not stay together under such condition, the day will come when one of the spouse will move out. Yes you are right , its is damaging for a child not having an experience of seeing adults living in a loving relationship. But what is most painful and psychologically damaging is the fact that one of the spouse may find true love, which may rectify the psychological consequences of that spouse, and child if such is the case, and are not given the opportunity to do so. TO MARRY, because we have no divorce. This happened in my childhood thanks to the church, and the politicians of those days. Let me ask you a question. Considering the tactics by those against divorce, how far would you go in revealing some harsh facts regarding married life when we have literally sabotage the whole issue. For the sake of the argument you and my people deserve to know some facts in the hope that it will shed some light on this difficult topic. This is specifically for Ms Christin Galea, all those against and those Pro divorce. A, I come from a one parent family, my father having divorced. B, yes I was psychologically abused and a Latchkey child, and WORST.
C, Yes I am a divorcee having had two children from my first marriage. I am now married again to a German woman and have been together for the past 24 years. You may ask about my children. I have a girl and a boy , One has a full time job the other part time, while still attending university studying in electronics engineering. Still one year to go, I wish him all the luck. D, You may ask what would it have been like, had I stayed with my children.................. I would have destroyed both of them, for the simple reason that I was destroyed myself having gone through hell myself as a child. I HAVE NO PSYCHIC BLUE PRINT IN MY BEING as to what a loving relationship is between parents. I only meet my father at the age of 26 with four children of his own from his second wife. Two years later her was dead at 48 years. My mother died a year before at 49 years. I hope my step brothers are OK. E, As I said I have been with my second wife for 24 years, and NO a situation like mine one will never recover from his scares. I still have to watch myself. No I have no criminal records nor am I on drugs . So to all of you out there who say NO divorce, do you really know what the hell you are talking about . This is just the tip of the ice berg, the reason for their broken marriage is for professional personal only, so are the psychological effects which can be very painful and will put the church in a bad light considering the specifics of this case, sorry but facts are facts. the bad mistakes of the past and you know what , you are still doing the same mistakes even now. To conclude I wish my children all the best of luck , and would like to salute the heroes in all this, My first wife for doing such a great job with our children, and my second wife for being always there ready to help. As for the rest of you out there caught in such a mess I am very much aware of your pain and suffering , this letter is especially for you all and your children. You have my respect and admiration and we must at all cause push on.
Mr Carmel J. Caruana
Apr 15th 2011, 05:43
The most important argument in favour of divorce keeps getting lost: "It is psychologically damaging for both partners to be forced to stay together if for some reason or other it is not possible for them to live harmoniously together any longer. It is even more damaging for their children as they never have an experience of seeing adults living harmoniously together."
Every country in the world has recognized this simple fact ages ago. Divorce is there to make it simpler for people to correct a mistake they have made in their life and find psychological health and peace again. Divorce also shows children that even adults make mistakes and mistakes are nothing to be ashamed of. We all make them.
The NO-to-divorce lobby simply wants to make this as difficult as possible.
Ms Christine Galea
Apr 15th 2011, 14:04
I think we would do better to teach our children that when they make a commitment, they should honour that commitment.
Mr Andy Farrugia
Apr 14th 2011, 17:36
I like your use of paradox, Mr Camilleri. First you suggest that Maltese married couples are far more responsible than what some commenters give them credit for, then you embark on a litany of irresponsible behaviours in marriage - infidelity, incompatibility, whims, arrogance, indifference, and worse. Can you make up your mind?
Joseph Camilleri
Apr 15th 2011, 10:52
@Andy Farrugia
No contradiction at all – it’s a matter of semantics. Let us take one of the ‘irresponsible’ behaviours you refer to – infidelity. The spouse who cheats on the other is a mature adult who is responsible for his/her actions. In fact, it is called ‘irresponsible behaviour’ precisely because the person is a responsible adult who, therefore, knows that he/she should not act in this way. Still, while there are civil responsibilities to carry, the unfaithful spouse (and even more the innocent spouse) should not be ‘punished’ for the rest of his/her life by being denied the right re-marry, if so desired. Or would you rather go back to the good old times when adultery was not only an ‘irresponsible behaviour’ but a criminal act punishable by imprisonment? By the way, thank you for your reference to my paradox. A paradox is an apparaent contradiction which has much underlying meaning. I don't think you meant that, though!
Joseph Camilleri
Apr 14th 2011, 14:25
The advocates of the anti-divorce lobby base their opposition to the legalisation of divorce on fear. First there are those, like Mr Zammit, who think they can frighten people with dire warnings of hell-fire awaiting those who divorce or vote for divorce. Then, there are others, like Ms Christine Galea, who try to frighten people by saying that the legalisation of divorce will result in many couples opting to divorce. These people do not have a high opinion of the sense of responsibility of Maltese married people. In their patronising tones, they suggest that these ‘immature’ couples need to be protected from themselves. If they are given this toy (divorce) they will like it. So long as there is no divorce, they will be more likely to lump the infidelity, incompatibility, whims, arrogance, indifference, and worse, of their spouse. That is why these advocates talk of duty (which can be enforced) but never of love (which cannot), of indissolubility (which is a legal matter) but not of fulfillment in marriage (which is a personal matter). Their stance is simple: it does not matter if you are in a loveless marriage so long as it lasts until death – gives you some relief!
Mr David Buttigieg
Apr 14th 2011, 18:50
Ms Galea,
I fully intended not voting in this referendum on principle. I am in favour of divorce legislation, true, but this referendum is a farce, not least because there is a referendum over something like this, which is extremely undemocratic, plus the question itself is ridiculous.
However people like you change my mind and push me to vote, yes obviously, if at least just to nullify YOUR vote!
Ms Christine Galea
Apr 14th 2011, 12:00
@David Debattista
Re your comment "Are you suggesting that under such situations the couple should be forced to live together"
I never suggested that the couple should remain together - especially when the situation between the couple is intolerable. I merely brought forward some reasons why divorce can never be a solution to their problems; rather in some cases, it puts the victims at a further disadvantage. Legal separation exists for those cases where for some reason or other, the couple cannot remain living together in the same household.
Re your comment "GIVE THEM A SOLID FOUNDATION LOVE , SECURITY, A SENSE OF BELONGING"
I agree totally with you that children deserve all of the above and more - divorce certainly does not contribute to a solid foundation.
Mr david debattista
Apr 15th 2011, 10:18
@Ms Christine Galiea
Divorce certainly does not contribute to a solid foundation.
IT CAN, and it is a question of circumstance. Christine I am Maltese living in a country with a population of over 82 million. So such issues are common day occurrence given the population . I will tell you this much . Educate them about marriage as early as possible the psychological aspects of it . You should also consider today's lifestyle. What I saw in certain part of Malta were the young meet ,I have not seen here in the past 20 years.. Lifestyle is an educational issue also, yes it starts at home but in most cases it is in the school environment were we can first spot them and act accordingly, manning that in most cases the cause of the problem is at home! This will influence a marriage as you can imagine... CHRISTINA. This is especially for you, Do not be afraid of divorce,, I have faith that we do have the capacity in Malta to tell what is a genuine case or not, and in some cases with some professional help, might even save a marriage. If such is not the case then, BE VERY CAREFUL, VERY VERY CAREFUL WHO THE CUSTODIAL PARENT WILL BE UNDER SUCH SITUATIONS . Financial status is important, but is not as strong as we imagine a factor, when it come to the nurturing of the child under such conditions. This is as important as the divorce issue itself as you can imagine. In the past we made some very bad mistakes. Good Luck . Ps 700 separations in one year is high we are doing something wrong and we have no divorce! WHY ! Perhaps we should consider ........Ockham's Razon!
Perhaps.
Mr david debattista
Apr 14th 2011, 00:23
@ Mr Andy Farrugia If such is the case Mr Farrugia then prove them wrong!
Mr Andrew Causon
Apr 13th 2011, 20:15
That's a bit of a biased hypothetical case-study isn't it! This is why statistics are generally given more importance. Whilst extreme scenarios make great magazine reads, they're not exactly highly representative, are they?
I also wonder about people who would want to stay married to someone who so badly wants to end the union... it's a bit beyond me.
One last thing ... You may want to avoid statements such as "Once divorce becomes embedded into our legislation", in an anti-divorce debate.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 13th 2011, 19:44
Divorce tears marriage apart. It desolates both husband and wife. It leaves the children not only in tears but also in misery. We do not deny that there can be serious disagreement between husband and wife, but divorce is not the solution. When husband and wife have a disagreement, they should reflect, pray, sit together and discuss. Accept fault where you are wrong, ask for pardon, or consult a priest or other spiritual adviser, but do not divorce.
Out of his infinite love for us, God has created us and has instituted marriage for love and procreation: procreation to have human persons enjoying the Divine Persons in heaven for ever. Out of his love for us, God ordered us not to put asunder what he has joined together. The devil, because he hates God and he hates all human beings, wants us to resort to divorce since that way he can lead us to hell for ever.
Whoever loves God speaks directly and explicitly against divorce.
Joseph Camilleri
Apr 13th 2011, 19:41
Ms Galea says: "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?" Wrong on all counts. Divorce is a civil right because it has been enshrined in the legal civil code of all countries and is therefore de facto a right enjoyed by all except a tiny minority of the world's population (the Maltese and the Philippines). Secondly, "if it were", human and civil rights cannot be denied because of their effect. The right to express your opinions cannot be denied because somebody does not like that opinion. And, thirdly, the case in point begs another. What if both spouses want a divorce? According to your line of argument, in that case, there should be no objection to the right of both to divorce.
Mr Andy Farrugia
Apr 13th 2011, 17:28
Excellent contribution to the debate, Ms Galea; a pity that others can only resort to mud-slinging, vilification and the most bizarre equivocations. Well done.
Ms Sabrina Borda
Apr 13th 2011, 17:15
I would still very much want a Divorce even after your biased concern and the foreboding warnings you sent out in favor of your movement.
Nothing you have said can convince any person to stay in a marriage they hate. The children see this too, more than you can possibly imagine, without even delving too far into the psychology of it in many cases, especially when the children are by the end of it, all grown up and long to breath easy too.
The Maltese government is encouraging more women to go out and work and this they do anyway with good educational backing today more than ever and also without. The more the government is pleading for women to get out and work, this more encouraging this is for women.
When you dare try to tap into very personal matters that you cannot possibly understand because you may have simply not experienced a certain type of claustrophobia, that one would prefer to starve or even die rather than be married to a hateful man or woman, you hurt more people than you may ever know. If these people need divorce it is right to help them get one.
Mr david debattista
Apr 13th 2011, 22:33
Well said MS Sabina Borda. It is sad, very say to think how some believe they can fool others when they themselves have no idea what they are talking about, above all the extent of suffering such people go through THEY JUST HAVE NO IDEA. eg What about those cases where divorce is imposed upon one of the spouse, Is it not limiting the personal freedom of that spouse. What the hell are you talking about Christine Galea Are you suggesting that under such situations the couple should be forced to live together. Are you serious or trying to mislead. DO you have an idea of the psychological effect on the child. living with parent under such conditions. STOP TRY TO COMPLICATE THE ISSUE. Any matured person will see that under such situation keeping your wife or husband in a marriage against his or her will is utter madness. GROW UP AND SEE THE LIGHT CHRISTINE , COMPLICATING THE ISSUE WILL NOT HELP A MARRIAGE NOR ESPECIALLY THE CHILD SAME GOES FOR THE REST OF YOUR STATEMENTS some out of context and unrealistic. ARE YOU A JEALOUS PERSON OR WHAT, It is all about the child, not your or his carrier, your profession or your wealth It will never help an insecured child . GIVE THEM A SOLID FOUNDATION LOVE , SECURITY, A SENSE OF BELONGING this is what every child needs not wealth. With or without their biological parent , but never in a dysfunctional relationship between parents. Forget all the rest, this is the ultimate priority for both parent going separate ways. Stop flooding us with technicalities and trying to rise the dead. WHEN IT IS OVER BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE , IT IS OVER AND THEY ALWAYS KNOW IT. IT IS NON OF OUR BUSINESS NOR HAVE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE OR SAY OTHERWISE .AS for the other points you have touched upon, It is a question of education. Educate them about marriage before they marry . NO I do not agree with your statement that if we have divorce it will be seen as an easy way out. I do not believe my people to be so stupid . They will know if there is a chance for their marriage to survive and they will both try to do so. If this is not the case then GOOD LORD do we have problems! But no I still believe that if there is still love ,there is the will, and were there is a will there is a way.
agains
Mr Paul Xuereb
Apr 13th 2011, 16:55
This is an excellent contribution. May I suggest to Ms Galea and other contributors on the subject of divorce to provide the points raised in their articles in summarised form at the end, making it much more convenient for readers who haven't the time to go through lengthy contributions.
S. Vella
Apr 13th 2011, 15:55
@ Ms Galea
Why did you not mention the children of couples who had an annulment granted by the church and state? Do they not suffer as well?