No place for ifs and buts

Marriage is indissoluble. This is a fact. This holds good for both civil and religious marriages. In both cases, the parties promise love, understanding, respect, fidelity and trust till death do them part and not till divorce do them part.

I tend to be very categorical when it comes to a lifelong commitment such as marriage. What we have to understand is that marriage is a bilateral contract, which, unlike other contracts, has effects not only on the two parties to it but also on their offspring, on their extended families, on their friends and on society as a whole. There is, thus, in my opinion, no place for ifs and buts.

I find it very hard to understand how people who say they believe in marriage can also say they are in favour of divorce. This, in my humble opinion, is a contradiction in itself. If I knowingly and freely enter into a marriage I am presumed to know all of its obligations and implications – first of which is its indissolubility.

Thus, isn’t it a contradiction if, on the one hand, I am promising “till death do us part” and, on the other hand, I am acknowledging that divorce can bring an end to this promise? Doesn’t this imply the marriage vows are taken lightly and that their real significance is ignored?

So, again I ask, how can one be in favour of marriage but also in favour of divorce? Shouldn’t a person who does not believe in the indissolubility of marriage refrain from marrying? I think it is not only illogical but also dangerous for a person to enter into marriage and promise to love and honour the other party till death do them part while, at the same time, having the “peace of mind” that such promise can be rendered meaningless by opting for divorce.

I am sorry but I am not happy knowing that in 20 years’ time my children will have this option when preparing to set up their own family. I would like my children to enter into marriage knowing this is a lifelong promise, a promise that will bring them tears of joy and tears of sadness but which is interminable. I want them to look at marriage with optimism but also with a sense of sacrifice and humility and faith, faith in God and faith in themselves so they may overcome all the difficulties in their marriage.

Divorce is anything but free from problems of its own. Maybe some of them are obvious and apparent but other underlying problems are seldom mentioned in divorce discussions. What about all those separated parents whose mind is today at rest knowing that their separation contract or court judgment contains those reassuring words: “no third parties are to be present in the presence of the minor”? Have we thought that all this will have to end with the introduction of divorce and consequent second marriages?

And what about those couples who were separated and rediscovered each other and were re-united after maybe five, 10 years of separation; who maybe also had another child to crown their reunion? These situations will become rarer and rarer when divorce and remarriage become possible.

And what about those minor children? Why should they have to endure the break-up of a parent’s second or third marriage? Because that is exactly what will happen – recognising that, just as we may give up on first marriages, we may also give up on any subsequent marriage. That’s what divorce is all about. And second and third marriages will bring about more children who have to go through the trauma of one or multiple parental breakups.

So I ask: Is this what we really want? Is this the society in which young couples planning their marriage and future want to bring up their children? Are these the situations parents wish for their children and grandchildren?

Why not consider the situation in Europe and the United States while we’re still in time? Why are we ignoring the fact that in America half of all American children witness the break-up of their parents’ marriage and half of these also experience the break-up of a parent’s second marriage? That 40 per cent of American children are being brought up without their father? That in neighbouring Italy the divorce rate rose by 74 per cent in 10 years, between 1995 and 2005?

Is this the society we augur to ourselves, our children and our grandchildren? Instead, why don’t we start off by working and thriving to strengthen our families; to help young couples overcome financial difficulties? To support working mothers by creating family-friendly structures and working environments? To speak to our children and teach them that marriage requires patience, respect, unconditional love, commitment and self-sacrifice? To prepare our young couples to be able to find a balance between their conjugal life, their children, their work and their house? To help them use their finances wisely and make do and be thankful for what they have? To tell them that marriage is fun, self-fulfilling and rewarding? And, most importantly, we need to set the example.

Wouldn’t this joint effort provide much better results than an easy-out option? Yes, with no ifs or buts.