Pros and cons of divorce raised in first televised debate
For and against - Deborah Schembri and Bernard Grech during the divorce debate.
The first head-to-head debate between the movements for and against divorce was held on TVM this evening.
Representatives of the Divorce Movement stressed that divorce would give a choice for those whose marriage broke down, while opponents of divorce warned that the law as proposed would impose divorce without reason and erode Malta's "heritage" of long-term commitment in marriage.
Family lawyer Deborah Schembri and family therapist Charlie Azzopardi, spoke for the Divorce Movement while medical doctor Anna Vella and family lawyer Bernard Grech spoke for the anti-divorce movement.
Dr Grech spoke out against the concept of no fault divorce, saying spouses could walk of a marriage without reason or control. They could then enter into a series of marriages, rendering marriage a loose tie.
Furthermore, it was a falsity for the Divorce Movement to claim that one could not remarry before four years of separation. The proposed law did not even say how the four years would be calculated.
He also argued that divorce did not replace cohabitation. Indeed cohabitation had increased in every country where divorce was introduced.
Dr Azzopardi accused opponents of divorce of being "heartless" and ignoring the plight of those whose marriage broke down. Divorce was being portrayed as being evil, yet its effects were effectively the same as separation and annulment. It was not divorce which caused trauma, but the actual process of a marriage breakdown, of which divorce was only the last stage and an opportunity for a new start. No one should impose on what people whose marriage broke down should do.
Dr Vella said divorce would increase the suffering of passing through marital breakdown.
"When you live abroad, like I did, you realise that divorce is contagious... If your sister divorces, you have a bigger chance for divorce," she said. Studies abroad showed how many marriages would have been saved had there not been the divorce option.
On the maintenance guarantees, Dr Vella asked how a husband who did not keep his marriage commitment would instead keep his maintenance commitment.
She added that divorce would create a "new form of real poverty" in Malta because people would not be able to afford to pay two electricity bills and home rents. There would, therefore, be a divorce of the well off.
Family lawyer Deborah Schembri said divorce would not deny any rights for those whose marriage was strong but it would give new rights for those whose marriage had broken down and, after separation and failed attempts at reconciliation, wished to start afresh with somebody else. Why should people whose marriage had broken down be forced to cohabit when they could remarry – with the responsibilities it brought with it?
Remarriage would also regularise the legal position of children who were currently born out of wedlock. She said the maintenance guaranteed in separation proceedings would remain in force in cases of divorce.
The debate was organised by the Broadcasting Authority.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
No appeals board for first part of power...
63 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr C Briffa
May 13th 2011, 07:17
I forgot that even the family therapists will have a part of the cake if the divorce is introduced.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 13th 2011, 11:01
Family therapists already have some cake to eat, with separation.
Ms D Galea
May 15th 2011, 13:38
Family therapists AND psychiatrists and psychologists , together with divorce lawyers will be making a mint thanks to the introduction of divorce legislation.
In the meantime, the same people who claim on national tv that CHRIST WAS WRONG, are quite comfortable at selectively quoting Him when it suits them.
J. Borg
May 13th 2011, 01:04
Divorce & Club Memberships:
We may indeed have valid concerns about broken marriages. Ideally, we need to prevent marriages from reaching this state. However divorce only tries to cure and not prevent this problem. As it is a complex issue, I think that those readers who are members of the Catholic club, need to be guided by the rules of that club they themselves decided to join and follow. Otherwise, they may as well leave the club 'Catholics'. Clubs have rules. In summary, Catholics have clear rules on divorce : For all Catholics, it is a NO for many reasons given in the Bible. You cannot be a member of a club and very consciously go against its rules..... in that case, leave the club.
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 20:24
Just hear the news.What a shame !
Are the pro-divorce so in dispair that they now are saying that they know more than Christ ?
Do they have to go so low to try to get their message across ?
Does being a menber of the IVA give one the right to act as a judge ?
Do they think that they are now so modern , so superior that the can judge Christ ?
Does Dr. Azzopardi realize that what he said sounded very much like blasphemy ?
What a shame, the only good thing out of this is that everyone who hears the news will know the IVAs hidden agenda.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 13th 2011, 11:06
Are the pro-divorce so in dispair that they now are saying that they know more than Christ ?
They could, and have every right to do so, for non believers, he was only human, just like you and me.
Do they have to go so low to try to get their message across ?
Why is that low exactly?
Does being a menber of the IVA give one the right to act as a judge ?
Aren't you judging others that want divorce, why is this any different?
Do they think that they are now so modern , so superior that the can judge Christ ?
Point 1 and 3.
Does Dr. Azzopardi realize that what he said sounded very much like blasphemy ?
Point 1 and 3.
What a shame, the only good thing out of this is that everyone who hears the news will know the IVAs hidden agenda.
You keep mentioning a hidden agenda, yet I fail to see one. Could you please point it out for us simpletons?
Mr M Borg
May 13th 2011, 13:32
If you read what I wrote carefully instead of just copying & asking questions, I am more than sure that you will understand.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 12th 2011, 19:41
Some are mixing up divorce with remarriage. Divorce is not remarriage. Divorce is the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage by a human person. In an annulment there is no dissolution because there is no marriage.
And here is the evil of divorce: you have a valid marriage in which the spouses have solemnly VOWED to remain each other's, to remain faithful to each other in that, and ONLY in that marriage, and then somebody who has no say in that marriage abuses by declaring that marriage invalid.
What God has united let no man, no State put asunder! This is the greatest argument against the evil and the superficiality of divorce. This prohibition applies to all marriages, religious or not. No person, no MP can vote for it without sinning seriously against God!
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it’s already guaranteed!
Mr Matthew Grima
May 13th 2011, 11:07
Might I ask, did god create annulment too?
Mr John Cassar
May 12th 2011, 15:02
@M.Borg
In reply to your question about the UK not having a no fault divorce, please dig deeper if you want the truth.
At present a "no fault" divorce can be obtained after two years, if both parties consent, or otherwise after five years. But two thirds of divorcing couples still opt for a fault-based divorce, whichcan be obtained in six months.
Thelma Fisher, chairwoman of the UK College of Family Mediators, said she was saddened by the decision as no-fault divorce was a "good background" to help couples resolve issues between them.
Considering Malta is proposing a 4 year separation / wait, I think we are more than conservative in respect to the UK.
A nice try at pulling wool over one's eyes nonetheless.
Alla prossima!
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 16:54
Sorry but I do not know what you mean.
You just wrote that Thelma Fisher " was saddened by the decision " ( in other words ) that no-fault divorce was put on hold , and you take that to mean that they have it ?
England does not have No-fault divorce and although you very much wish that they have it ,facts are facts.
In December 2000 The British Government announced that the Family law Act of 1996 which was about no-fault divorce would be postponed for several years.as it would encourage divorce.
Up to this date May 2011 no-fault divorce is not available in England. Fact
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 17:02
I do not have to " try at pulling wool over one's eyes "
I only write facts.
You are free no to agree with them but facts will remain facts !
Mr John Cassar
May 12th 2011, 20:06
@M.Borg
Fair enough my cut and paste did not work well by the looks of it.
At the moment, in order to commence UK divorce proceedings, one of five facts have to be shown; adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, two years’ separation which requires the consent of the other party or 5 years’ separation which does not require the consent of the other party.
Unless one of these facts can be shown to the court, the divorce cannot proceed. The two-year plus to five years’ separation facts do not ‘blame’ either party as such, but clearly there is a substantial delay between separating and being able to commence divorce proceedings when relying on either of these. This is in fact a no fault divorce still in the UK family law.
Considering that in Malta the wait is 4 years I think we are pretty much on the same lines. The points mentioned above (adultery etc) take place in our legal separation and if it is proven that one of the parties was to blame the court deciding the separation decree will take this into consideration when apportioning assets belonging to the community of aquests.
Therefore although we seem different we are pretty much alike.
Nonetheless there are officially 195 countries (becoming 196 next July) in the world. 193 out of 195 of those recognize divorce. I don't need to mention the two that still don't have divorce. Some of these countries dwarf the UK, such as Australia, the USA, Canada to mention a few and also apply a no fault divorce system that has been benefitted from even my my wealthy fellow Maltese.
If the type of no fault system was similar to Canada's for example I would think twice about voting Yes. However the proposed law is based on the Irish law (Catholic Ireland) tailored to Malta's realities. This is why the referendum question is so important and although I am not a PL supporter, their parliamentary group together with The Hon JPO and the Hon Mugliette were spot on this time around.
I will stop here for now, I am sure we will exchange views again.
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 20:30
@ John Cassar
So now you got your facts straight.
England DOES not have no- fault divorce'
Do not be fooled by the referndum question, it is not what it seems.
It is trying to fool people that this is a responsible divorce, believe me it is not.
The IVA knows it that is why they wanted to keep to their dishonest loaded question .
No-Fault divorce is the worst kind of divorce.
I cannot understand how intelligent people are not seeing through their dishonesty
Mr John Cassar
May 12th 2011, 23:53
@M.Borg
Read my post again. Especially the part about 2-5 years separation.
As for the no fault divorce, it depends very much on the small print. What does a fault divorce system do? It makes couples attack, lie and remain resentful to each other for the rest of their life. Does it help especially when children are involved. The answer is a resounding no.
To a large extent this is what happens in church and civil annulments. I know of couples who have fallen out of love and just wished to move on. But since the system is not based on a no fault, they were advised to give their love story a tinge, stretch some blame and claim things that never existed in their marriage . Why? To get an annulment and move on.
Rather than these sort of farces, possibly suggested by legal aid, I prefer a responsible no fault divorce.
Joseph Galea
May 15th 2011, 16:50
@Mr M Borg - why you are so concern about divorce? live yout life and let people of whoom marriage is broken a second chance. People are not telling you what to do with your marriage, why should you?
R. Gauci
May 12th 2011, 14:25
Meta smajt lil tal-LE sthajjiltni qed nghix fi stat Islamiku bil-ligi tax-Sharia fejn tghix u taghmel biss dak li jghidlek il-Koran u hadd m'ghandu liberta' jaghmel li dak li jkun ta` gid ghalih jekk f'dan il-ktieb ma jigix approvat. Il-vot tat-28 ta` Mejju hu vot importanti hafna, mhux ghad-divorzju biss imma vot IVA se jkun vot anke kontra l-Fundamentalizmu Religjuz. Fejn kienu dan-nies waqt li qed jaraw is-socjeta` Maltija dejjem toghdos l-isfel fil-valuri? issa stenbhu mir-raqda li kienu fiha ghax intmess interess tal-Knisja? ILLUM ANKE L-MUSULMANI QED IQUMU GHALL-LIBERTA' TAGHHOM U AHNA RRIDU MMORRU 50 SENA LURA FIZ-ZMIEN!! Live and let live !!
Mr Anton PIsani
May 12th 2011, 13:06
I ask anyone who quotes the "new real poverty" to help me understand it using a practical example. Today, i.e. without divorce, an employee earning Eur1000 a month seperates from his wife (and 2 kids) to cohabit with his 'partner' and they have 2 kids too. With divorce law his income will be have to be shared if he remarries. Do we mean that this is wrong because he should only be responsible, with all his income for his first 2 kids? If this is true, who should be responsible for the kids born out of wedlock today that there is no divorce? Is it the kids fault if they are born out of wedlock?
Mr Matthew Grima
May 12th 2011, 15:52
A man who truly cares about his children would take care (as much as he, thanks to this government) of his children, be it in or out of wedlock. So why won't we let him remarry and be LEGALLY (not clerically) recognised as married.
Ms Rita Smith
May 13th 2011, 07:22
Mr. Anton Pisani x'argument ghamilt!!!! Tahseb li wiehed li jaqla Eur1000 fis-xahar se jkun jista jzomm erbghat-itfal? nahseb puntwali tircievijhom il-flus l-ewwel mara. Mhux talli hekk talli t-tieni mara tibda tgerger li mhux qed jghatiha flus bizzejjed biex jghixu (ahseb u ara biex jaghmlu xi kapricc) u terga tara l-inkwiet jibda bejn il-koppja u d-divorzju jkun xalata
Rita Smith
Charles J. Buttigieg
May 12th 2011, 10:04
I ask Dr. Grech, does any law in any part of the world prohibits a spouse to walk out of a marriage with or without reason or control? Can a spouse be stopped for deserting their partner when the deserting party is at fault? Like any other legal partnership, a marriage is a mutual agreement and a promise by both sides to retain their union permanently. Nevertheless for that union to remain active the written rules have to be respected by both sides and even if circumvented by only one part the union will break up.
The Church and the State in Malta impose permanence on the marriage certificate yet both institutions cater for legal separation and although there’s a prohibition on a second marriage both spouses are given the freedom to cohabit with different partners. To make this anomaly more gross, our government is in the process of providing a vehicle to give peace of mind and legal protection to cohabitated bed fellows. In the midst of this travesty, in Malta and the Philippine Islands, honest separated spouses that need a divorce to start a new life are left out in the cold. And all this under the feeble excuse not to render marriage a loose tie, as if marriage is not already a loose tie.
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 09:53
@ Paul Barrett
I know that you read all the comments, but maybe your were too busy to go through them all yesterday, so I will give the questions I asked you yesterday another try.
Can you let us know why your government back home ( the UK government ) deemed it wise to refuse the implementation of no-fault divorce, although it has been on the statute books since 1996 ?
Can you let us know why the UK Parliament after passing the no-fault divorce legislation later repealed them?
Can you let us know if critics of this form of divorce were fools when they came out against it, because they said that regardless the bad behaviour of the wife / husband no blame can be attached ?
Can you let us know if you think that a Former Chairman of the Solicitors Family Law Association, who adviced the Government on this law change , was sane of mind when he said " These are sensitive issues. People do feel very strongly about them. The Government is worried that by implementing " no-fault legislation they would be encouraging divorce " ?
You are very much in favour of us having this form of divorce. Can you let us know why it was deemed to be harmfull in the Uk , a country where one already finds divorce, a country where the Government knows the consequences that follow it ,but OK for us ?
Mr Paul Barrett
May 12th 2011, 10:38
At M Borg.
I really do not know why you expect me to be able to answer any of your questions as I have not a single clue why a UK Government should decide one way or another on any matter, never mind divorce. Malta is my home and has been my home for many, many years.
Mr Adrian Borg Cardona
May 12th 2011, 12:02
Mr. Borg, I have already answered you on tis point yesterday. I repeat; @ Mr. M. Borg: In England divorce does NOT follow separation ,as it will here. So the 'no-fault' divorce in England is NOT the same same as the proposed no-fault divorce in Malta. In Malta fault would have been already established at the separation stage - unlike in England where, at the moment, fault has to be established at the divorce stage. In our case, the proposed law wishes to avoid a second trauma for the children of separated parents who then want to go on to divorce. So please: non-fault divorce in England is NOT the same as no-fault divorce in Malta. You cannot compare as they are NOT the same.
You are comparing two different situations - in Malta's case, no-fault divorce follows fault based seperation - something that does NOT happen in England.
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 13:06
@ Adrian Borg Cardona
You answered me yesterday, and I answered you back, but maybe you did not see it.
The no-fault divorce proposed is the same no-fault divorce that was passed in England.but was never put inot practice
" unlike in England where, at the moment, fault has to be establidhed at the divorce stage.
The key word is " at the moment " no-fault legislation changes all that . The no-fault divorce being proposed is the same no-fault divorce they have in the USA.
A US journalist Beverly Willet , who was divorced against her will,compared New York's no-fault divorce to " arranged marriages " where " power rests in one person's hands to vote on behalf of the whole family "
No-Fault divorce means no-fault divorce playing about with words will not change the meaning.
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 13:36
@ Paul Barrett
Thanks for answering . However you do not need to work hard to find the answer.
The UK Government kindly provided us with that.
What I would like to know, no not from you this time , is why that IVA were not aware of this, and if they knew about it why they went on and proposed this kind of divorce.
How could they be so irresponsible by proposing this " responsible divorce " ?
Mr John Cassar
May 12th 2011, 15:05
At present a "no fault" divorce can be obtained after two years,(in the UK) if both parties consent, or otherwise after five years. But two thirds of divorcing couples still opt for a fault-based divorce, whichcan be obtained in six months.
Thelma Fisher, chairwoman of the UK College of Family Mediators, said she was saddened by the decision as no-fault divorce was a "good background" to help couples resolve issues between them.
M.Borg - is this a great slam dunk?
Mr Paul Barrett
May 12th 2011, 15:25
I think you can probably find your answer in evolution. If everything remained the same, i.e., without change, we would still be living in caves.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 12th 2011, 15:49
Because it is not the same no-fault divorce, you can keep saying otherwise, whenever you do, you'll be wrong.
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 20:11
@ John Cassar
Please read the anawer to your post, which I wrote at 16.54
What you wrote does not make sense.
Read my post you will find the real facts there.
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 12th 2011, 08:37
"When you live abroad, like I did, you realise that divorce is contagious... If your sister divorces, you have a bigger chance for divorce," said Dr Vella (TAL-LE). NOT TRUE.
UK statistics show the following divorce figures :
1993 - 165,018
2009 - 113,949
These are official figures.
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 10:42
Glad that without knowing you are agreeing with us.
We have been saying that the number of marriages will go down and cohabitation will go up
Less marriages equals less divorces., very easy to understand.
Now finish the table you gave us.
Give us the official figure of the number of cohabiting couples in 2009 and compare them with those in 1993.
They will prove an eye opener !
Mr Matthew Grima
May 12th 2011, 16:40
Mr M Borg, lets say cohabitation rises anyway, why would they bother you? Will they be living in your house?
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 17:15
@ Matthew Grima
They will not be living in my house , and neither will they be living in yours.
But you and other pro-divorce must admit to the fact that divorce rather than being a cure is a virus.
Because of divorce, separated couples will increase, cohabitation will increase and children born out of wedlock will increase.and single parents will increase.
So can you tell us why we should vote in favour of divorce , when the outcome of divorce is just ruin.
Ruin of family and ruin of country.
Mr John Cassar
May 12th 2011, 20:32
@M.Borg
There are no studies that prove that divorce means fewer marriages at all.
Societal changes such as remaining single, cohabitation and obviously economics play a part in this.
If this correlation was true, by now, no one would be married in Scotland who first started recognizing divorces in the 1560's or Germany (Prussia legalized in 1794). Scandinavia - 1909 to 1923.
I rest my case.
saviour visanich
May 12th 2011, 08:30
Agree with you perfectly. Dr. Schembri's arguments were based on reality. The No moviment seems to be living in a fairy world were all marriages are perfect and that their movement can dictate their believes on all the others.
Mr M Vella***
May 12th 2011, 08:30
Prosit Dr Deborah Schembri ,if it was a general election for sure you'll get my number 1.
VOTE YES TO DIVORCE on May 28th
Mr john vella
May 12th 2011, 08:13
I made it a must to stay on the watch for this debate, with an open mind, for the possibility that I will invert my theory, namely this is a front against the Church and the PM. I must acknowledge that I became more persuaded in my theory.
To observe, Dr. Azzopardi represent himself as judge to claim "Jesus Christ was wrong on divorce" as an example, (Boy! how low can we get?) and or Dr. Schembri handing the impression, there is no records of how the outcome of this new law will be. Therefor I say the one route is to chance, if the vote for divorce pass maybe for the better maybe not. This is interesting. (Is this how she expect the PM to pass laws on theory of we wait and see?)
Yesterday was a very educational experience for those in doubt that not all that glitter is gold as presented by the yes for divorce.
Please give us more of these debates, because we had a lot of crying but no substance. The people deserve to know who are these in favor for divorce and their agenda.
Please let us have more of these debates because :"The truth will make us Free".
Mr M Borg
May 12th 2011, 11:09
I did not follow the debate, but I cannot believe that Dr Schembri a lawyer, gave the impression that she does not know what the outcome of this new law will be.
How is it that I, and I am not a family lawyer, know that the UK Government was so afraid of this no-fault divorce that although this no-fault divorce legislation was passed by the UK parliament in 1996 , the British government never put it into practice?
How is it the the UK government says that this kind of divorce encourages more couples to divorce and the IVA movemnet are not aware of this ?
If we all know that the number of divorces and cohabiting couples in Ireland increased after the passing of this no-fault divorce , how is it that Dr. Schembri does not know about it.?
Are we to believe that the IVA were so irresponsible that did not carry any form of study before proposing this " responsible divorce " ?
Although I did no follow the debate I did hear Dr Azzopardi claiming that he knows more than Jesus Christ.on the news.
What can I say ? After making us go through all this mess, they must make themselves seem like experts., even if what he said can sound like blasphemy.
Is the IVA in favour of divorce or against the teaching of God and of the church ?
Why don't they come clean and tell us what they really stand for ?
Charles J. Buttigieg
May 12th 2011, 08:10
I ask Dr. Grech, does any law in any part of the world prohibits a spouse to walk out of a marriage with or without reason or control? Can a spouse be stopped for deserting their partner when the deserting party is at fault? Like any other legal partnership, a marriage is a mutual agreement and a promise by both sides to retain their union permanently. Nevertheless for that union to remain active the written rules have to be respected by both sides and even if circumvented by only one part the union will break up.
The Church and the State in Malta impose permanence on the marriage certificate yet both institutions cater for legal separation and although there’s a prohibition on a second marriage both spouses are given the freedom to cohabit with different partners. To make this anomaly more gross, our government is in the process of providing a vehicle to give peace of mind and legal protection to cohabitated bed fellows. In the midst of this travesty, in Malta and the Philippine Islands, honest separated spouses that need a divorce to start a new life are left out in the cold. And all this under the feeble excuse not to render marriage a loose tie, as if marriage is not already a loose tie.
Ms pat muscat
May 12th 2011, 06:32
Good to hear both sides of the debate; that is how a debate should be discussed without undue pressures of sins or hell! Dr Deborah Schembri was the star; an decent, honest and straight talking lawyer.
Mr Victor Laiviera
May 12th 2011, 09:29
Dr Schembri was good - very good. But in my opinion, the real "star" was Charlie Azzopardi. He projected just the right blend of compassion and "anger" at the way people in need of relief are being denied it.
The other side, I'm afraid, projected nothing except a vindictive determination to make people pay for a mistake for the rest of their lives.
Mr ALBERT FENECH
May 12th 2011, 05:52
Would any person trying to enhance the cause of the "NO DIVORCE" movement explain to me the moral difference between formal and legal divorce and the current national situation of many thousands of separated marriages and partners blatently living logether in what is described as "living in sin"? Presumably, according to this movement, Divorce does not take the feelings of children into account; does separation and co-habiting take children's feelings into account?
ALBERT FENECH
QAWRA
Mr Alex Vella
May 12th 2011, 01:35
No fault divorce is a very slippery slope. Here in the United States, there are divorce rates in some areas as high as 80%, the norm is approximately 50%. The fabric of the family has been torn, children are hurt much more than the "experts" are willing to acknowledge.
Why not make it more difficult to get married, why not make sure people are made fully aware of the real consequences of marriage, the incredible responsibility, the pain of failure?
Here in the USA, they actually make attending a parenting class mandatory for those who file for divorce!!! All backwards.
Malta, please carefully study how other countries handle divorce, learn from mistakes, and please don't repeat what happens in the USA, Canada or the U.K.
Divorce is second only to death as being the most disruptive experiences that a human being can experience. It must therefore handled carefully.
Malta is a very special country, there is so much to be proud of, please proceed with caution and care, so that it can remain the special place that we all love.
"Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it"
Ms Sabrina Borda
May 12th 2011, 08:07
Sir, be careful what you wish for and don't get it.
Be careful what you may need but others won't let you have it.
Be careful to mention divorce when conveniently forgetting to mention the good people remarrying to form a decent family.
Be careful not to generalize divorce to only one perspective of it, when you know that's where you are in America, that very special country too where you have all around you the all important thing, which is to have the choices you need to make.
Be careful not to encourage anyone to steal the choice and the chance people may have if they so choose to remarry.
Be careful what you wish for on others in Malta as you write your piece all the way from the Land Of The Free, or you may consider yourself to be responsible for further destroying their lives.
EDWIN DE MARCO
May 12th 2011, 08:27
@Mr.Alex Vella. You say that divorce is second only to death as being the most disruptive experience that a human being can experience.,,,,,. Do you mean to understand that death is the number one disruptive experience? Haven't you ever been to a Maltese funeral? The priest officiating at the funeral always stresses that one should not feel sad about death as this is the last step forward to eternal bliss....It means the re-incarnation of the body & soul; a second chance to live & what a life! No earthquakes, no terrorism, no electricity bills to pay, no divorce, no separations, no..Now don't come asking me how a person can wile away the eternal hours as nobody knows anything about that. That's why it's called a mystery, because nobody knows...
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 12th 2011, 08:47
"Divorce is second only to death as being the most disruptive experiences that a human being can experience It must therefore handled carefully." wrote Mr Vella. Is it divorce or the breakdown of marraige that is the cause of the problem? Are marriages breaking down because of divorce or because of people's expectations and the way that they live? The UK rate of divorce has been going down since 1990.
Mr W Cassar
May 12th 2011, 08:59
Why not make it more difficult to get married - I think this is a very valid comment one which I thought about myself, people get married too easily these days there should be a number of years before you commit of even a year living together but the church would not want that hux.
Mr Paul Barrett
May 12th 2011, 01:10
I did not see the programme but working from the article here it again seems that the anti-divorce movement just have not got a clue what they are talking about. Not one of their anti-divorce comments can be laid at the door of divorce legislation that does not actually apply to annulment, legal separation or cohabitation.
It is no wonder that there is so much confusion around when supposedly highly educated, intelligent people sprout absolute illogical and pathetic rubbish.
Jesmond Micallef
May 11th 2011, 23:57
Leave the "Malta Heritage" out of this, please. I'm pretty sure that there are Maltese Citizens living abroad who are divorced too. Remember dual citizenships !!
Mr Robert Callus
May 11th 2011, 23:48
"Dr Grech spoke out against the concept of no fault divorce, saying spouses could walk of a marriage without reason or control"
This is extremely irresponsible, especially for the children. Without "no fault divorce", like annulment is right now on party has to blame by force. It's either completely the fault of A or B. In other words, whatever the reason for the divorce/annulment, there will be a fight, sometimes a vicious one. With "no fault divorce" the couple have the option to agree that their marriage has failed without one of them getting all the blame - the healthiest way possible (if possible), especially for the children.
Ms Emma Xerri
May 15th 2011, 18:23
You are right, "No Fault" divorce does not mean you wake up one fine day and decide to go and get divorced for no reason. No Fault divorce is usually preceded by a separation and the "No Fault' part refers to the fact that neither party is an 'ogre' and neither the Court nor the parties involved try to assign tort to the other partner. The soon to be ex-spouse petition the Courts that for reasons their own private reasons, they wish to dissolve the marriage bond. Of course, the Courts still have to come in to settle division of assets, child support and custody and any other maintenance agreements.
Mr John Cassar
May 11th 2011, 23:00
IVA won this debate hands down.
The new form of poverty claim is a real joke. Tell it to the marines...ehm I meant the cohabiting couples.
A vote for divorce is a vote of Solidarity.
Mr Anton Portelli
May 11th 2011, 22:22
"opponents of divorce warned that the law as proposed would impose divorce without reason"
I ask Dr. Anna Vella who stressed the above in the final round why she is stressing this and misleading the public when it is the opposite - the Le camp is imposing their catholic beliefs on the whole population whether catholic or not especially on those whose first marriage failed and want to form a new legal family but cannot gafford to go abroad and get a divorce outside Malta.
This is because if divorce is introduced, sound and happy marriages will not be affected at all, those whose marriage broke down and do not want to get divorced will not be obliged to divorce, and it will be only those who want will make use of the availability of divorce.
They speak about the possibility that one of the partners may not want divorce but it is imposed on her or him by the other - is it not the same with annulment? Is it not the same with separation? If one partner in a marriage wants to walk out is there anything that can keep him/her from abandoning the family. If a person decides to apply for an annulment can the other party prevent him/her from doing it.
They spoke about the increase of chhildren born out of wedlock in different countries where there is divorce. What is happening here in Malta - so far we do not have divorce but about 30% of children are born out of wedlock. So is the rate of cohabitation in Malta increasing. This makes it clear that divorce is not the main factor that il leading to more children bor out of wedlock and to higher rates of cohabitation.
As Dr. Schembri rightly said divorce will give a chance to those whose marriage has failed and broken down to start afresh with somebody else. These people should not be FORCED TO COHABIT as they hav to now.
The Le camp also argue that if divorce is introduced then people will remarry ...... divorce ..... remarry again.................... Does this not happen with people who get annulments - there are cases where a person had an annulment , got married, got another annulment and got married again!!!!!!!!
Mr Joe Borg
May 11th 2011, 22:13
Dan messag ghal-dawk li sippost ghandhom twemmin kattoliku:
Smajtuh u lit-terapista Charlie Azzopardi wara li qwota lil kristu. Li jhekk kristu tkellem kontra id-divorzju, kristu kellu zball. Fi kliem semplici, u nahseb li ghandu ragun dan qal li, jew ha taqbel ma dak li qed nghidu ahna jew ma dak li qal Kristu. Dan iffisser li kattoliku li jaqbel mad-divorvju qed jighix f'parados, meta temmen li Kristu kien Alla imma imma Kristu(Alla) zbalja meta tkellem fuq id-divorzju. ALLA JIZBALJA !?
Wassal iz-zmien li niehdu decizjoni u insaqsus lilna infusna ahna kristjani jew le.
Kullhadd ghandu dritt jivvota kief irid, imma ma tistax tghid li int kattaoliku jhekk ha tivvota iva.
Grazzi.
Mr Anton PIsani
May 12th 2011, 10:24
Jien Nisrani, u ha nivvota Iva. Charlie Azzopardi ma jirraprezentax lil kull min ser jivota iva. Jien personali kontra d-divorzju u naqbel mal-knisja fl-argumenti kolla li ggib kontrih - ie mhux naghzel dak li jaqbilli u naqbel 100% li l-knisja tghid li d-divorzju (mhux il-vot) hu dnub, ghax hekk hu. Biss nahseb li mhux kull dnub ghandu jkun kontra l-ligi - bhal Adulterju jew tfalli l-quddies. Avolja ma naqbilx mad-divorzju nemmen li m'ghandniex nimponu t-twemmin taghna. Kristu kien car fit-taghlim tieghu, ma kienx ilaqlaq li l-hazin jghidlu hazin, imma fl-ahhar kien ihalli l-ghazla f-idejn in-nies jekk imorrux warajH jew le. Jekk ma nhallux il-ligi inkunu qed naghmlu censura u mhux inhallu n-nies jaghzlu. Qisu lin-nies minflok jghidilhom "jekk trid tigi warajja itlaq kollox u ejja" kien jghidlhom "M'ghandekx ghazla trid tigi warajja bil-fors ghax hekk hu tajjeb". Jien favur it-taghlim mhux censura.
Mr Joe Borg
May 12th 2011, 13:00
@ Mr Anton Pisani
Li tghid li ma nistax ninponi fuq hadiehor nahseb mhux ragunament tajjeb fil-kas tad-divorzju. Naf li tinstemma kerha, imma id-divorzju mhux ha jaffettwa lil individwu biss imma lil malta kollha ghax kull socjeta tibbaza fuq il-famija. Issa jien ta l-opinjoni li bid-divorzju il-familji maltin ha jiddajfu, b'rizultat ta aktar problemi socjali.
L-ghazla ghal dan ir-referendum hija semplici, il-famiji taghna l-aktar dak li ghadhom ha jibdew, bid-divorzju ha jkunu aktar sodi, ha jibqghu l-istess, jew ha jitkissru iktar. Umbad umbad hu decizjoni u mur ivvata IVA jew LE.
Ms N Buttigieg
May 11th 2011, 22:10
Great presentation by the IVA movement "IVA ghad-Divorzju, IVA ghaz-Zwieg".
Sure that this first debate was won by the pro-divorce side.
Mr j mifsud
May 11th 2011, 21:58
i personally believe that divorce will solve absolutely nothing..it is true that in certain cases divorce seems viable (when a husband or wife abuses the other)..but on the whole divorce does not solve broken marrages; it is simply going to increase them
many people say "if u dont agree with divorce simply dont use it yourself" - however this is not so easy as the mentality of society could change and when people search for a partner , the people around them could have the mentality that there is always an easy way out. Therefore indirectly it affects everyone.
one of the main reasons that i am against divorce is because of the children who have no say in it. Even if the marriage doesnt work out between a couple, their children should remain top priority. There are many cases where people marry again and the second wife or husband makes it difficult for the childreen to meet their parents. I am sure (in most cases) that children would prefer that their parents seperate but they have close contact with both instead of their parents remarrying and feel that they are no longer part of their parent's lives. i am speaking from personal experience.
if divorce is going to enter i think that it is not at all enough..the government should provide courses for couples who are going to get married..right now these courses do exist but only from the church..government should also provide such courses with specialists and psychologists who help the couple get to know one another properly as this is one of the main reasons why marriages break down - the fact that people rush into marriage without getting to know each other.
Mr Paul Barrett
May 12th 2011, 08:23
What are you suggesting - Government arranged marriages? The Government have enough to do without getting involved in private married lives. As for getting to know one another properly - I got married eleven months after first meeting my wife - forty years later we are still getting to know each other properly, just what sort of course are you suggesting the Government arrange?
The worst thing a couple can do for "the sake of their children" is to stay together in disharmony - children can and do instantly recognise conflict between their parents.
As for divorce changing the mentality of people looking for a partner - there are, as you call it, easy ways out now - annulment and legal separation as well as of course just walking out the front door and moving in with someone else and ignore the official break up mechanics. Divorce will not change the mentality one iota.
Ms Sabrina Borda
May 12th 2011, 08:38
Sir, this mentality you speak of surely may not effect you, but not necessarily all others either.
If this is what you want to hypothesize, meaning to show you may run out and get divorced, if you feel it is contagious, you may hypothesize all you want, but that is what it remains.
I'm sure if it were the case you would give yourself a little more credibility and accept that this is also not the case at all also with most people who you feel would run for divorce whimsically and without good personal reasons.
In the case of the children which is your main reason against divorce, giving yourself and others the credibility here too, you would know what is best for your own children and take the decision towards the right thing to do, which may include divorce once you know you are never going to go back to the wife you have already separated from after so many years.
You cannot judge people's mentality as unreasonable just because they need to remedy what is broken.
Nobody is forgetting the children here, Maltese parents need more credibility than you give them and therefor they know what is best, especially by the time they make the serious decision to move away from a partner that is not being positively conducive to a good family life that the children deserve.
Mr Christian Azzopardi
May 12th 2011, 09:43
Please, stop this patronising nonsense. Stop this implying that people are mature enough to decide whether to marry but too immature to decide whether to divorce. The NO lobby should, once and for all, look beyond their own ‘perfect’ marriages and start thinking outside the box. For many, that seems to be an impossible task. What a backwards country!
Mr Mark Anthony Cassar
May 12th 2011, 11:07
Completely agree with everything Mr Paul Barrett is saying, The "sake of their children" comment is top notch. Staying together just for the sake of children will still make the children have to pass through all the uncomfortable environment that a couple in disharmony will produce.
Please choose the reason of your report below: