Sarah Carabott
Families and social welfare stand to lose, anti-divorce movement says
Divorce would weigh down on families and the social security services, the anti-divorce movement said.
With the introduction of divorce, a person’s salary would have to sustain two families or more because whoever divorced could remarry and the spouse in the second marriage would have a right for the salary, the anti-divorce movement said.
However, on the introduction of divorce, women who were bringing up their offspring would depend on the social security services once the breadwinner started maintaining another family, the movement said.
If a person’s salary was not enough to pay maintenance to the first family, this family would have to depend on some other form of income. It was obvious that a person who found himself in this situation would seek help from the state, a spokesman for the anti-divorce movement said.
However, pro-divorce spokes-man Deborah Schembri said that if a man remarried, he would still be obliged to pay maintenance to his former wife, unless she renounces to that right at separation stage. A woman would depend on social security services only if she would have been found at fault at separation level. This was equally applicable to men.
The introduction of divorce did not change the current situation where women were already dependent on such services if found at fault when they filed for separation. On the other hand, divorce enabled a woman to sever all ties with the social security services as she would be supported by her new husband, Dr Schembri said.
But the anti-divorce movement spokesman insisted that, according to the proposed law, a couple did not have to be legally separated to ask for divorce.
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...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Gerry Cowie
May 16th 2011, 20:33
Typical muddled thinking below by various usual contributors who ought to be more constructive and non confrontational if they are to convince others. Anti religious comments, sarcasm and generalisations only serve to strengthen the anti divorce campaign, for whom, as we see below, the pro divorce movement is the best secret weapon they ever had!
Mr Joe Zammit
May 16th 2011, 16:28
Par.2385 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, TO CHILDREN traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a PLAGUE on society.”
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Ramon Casha
May 16th 2011, 10:43
Families and social welfare stand to lose if the referendum does not pass.
Hearing the anti-divorce movement, one gets the impression that people only have to pay bills if they're married.
"But the anti-divorce movement spokesman insisted that, according to the proposed law, a couple did not have to be legally separated to ask for divorce."
Oh you can ASK for anything at any time. You cannot GET a divorce unless you're separated for a minimum of four years, but you can certainly ask for it.
Mr Saviour falzon
May 16th 2011, 09:33
dawn nies inteligenti? u leeeeeeeeeeeee
Mela meta l-mara tkun separata u jkolha kura u kustodja hija , qed tatghti mantenimnet lir-ragel?:)
Jekk din trid u meta jogghobha u ma hi bicca ta hadd, issib lil xi hadd u tizzewgu, mhux ser tmanti lil zewg familji zgur ghax ma taghti l-ebda manteniment. Aktar u aktar jekk ir-ragel il-gdid ikun guvni. Dawn nies li jghidu li huma inteligenti .
Imsomma kull min huwa kontra d-divorzju , jibza li titilqu l-mara jew tibza li jitlaqa r-ragel , u jizzewgu lil haddiehor :)
Ms D Galea
May 16th 2011, 12:46
Imsomma kull min huwa kontra d-divorzju , jibza li titilqu l-mara jew tibza li jitlaqa r-ragel , u jizzewgu lil haddiehor :)
And naturally , you holier-then-though divorcists think it is hilarious fun , hence the smiley.
Re the rest of your comments, you obviously have never been in a family court to see how low some men will stoop to avoid paying maintenance to a discarded wife of several years standing and her children.
Havent you ever heard of seperated women who, in late middle age (who spent their lifetimes looking after husband and children) ended up working as maids to be able to pay the lawyers' and court bills whilst trying and get maintance for themselves and their children? Sopra corna bastonate, they work without a work book because if they declare their earnings, the skiving husband will demand half her earnings as maintenance from HER !
Now , carry on with your silly smileys.
Mr Saviour falzon
May 16th 2011, 16:05
Fejn hi it-twegiba tieghi , li tajt lil din, wara li ikkummentat fuq li ghidt jien?:) ghaddew xi 3 sieghat .
Mr Paul Barrett
May 16th 2011, 09:18
Typical muddled thinking by the anti-divorce lobby, apart from which there is absolutely no obligation for someone that has actually obtained a divorce certificate to have to then get married; they can still live in sin with or without a divorce certificate.
As for the final point about not having to have previously obtained a legal separation, that is where the law would step in and ensure that any financial and custody for the child/children arrangements would be finalised before a divorce certificate were issued by the Court.
Mr Christopher Grech
May 16th 2011, 09:14
The point of this letter is irrelevant. For those couples that are already separated or divorced, or living seperately still have financial difficulties.
Whether there is divorce or not, this situation of financial difficulties, cannot be changed.
It also proves that the couple (at least from one partner's point of view) holds its freedom more importantly than financial constraints. This is not an argument in favour or against divorce.