Divorce not an option for religious marriages - Yes movement
Divorce is not an option for religious marriages, the Divorce Movement said this afternoon.
Addressing a news conference in front of the Cana Movement headquarters, movement head Deborah Schembri said the group wanted to make it clear that divorce would never be an option for religious marriages.
She pointed out that in the first quarter this year there were more civil than church marriages.
There are a lot of people, she said, who did not have anything to do with the church and they still got married. It was not fair to deprive these people of their civil rights.
Michael Falzon praised the work carried out by the Cana Movement, which, he said was filling a void in preparing young couples for marriage.
Such preparation should also be offered by the government, especially since more couples were opting to marry civilly.
Both Mr Falzon and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo said they were happily married and were sure they would not need divorce. However, they believed they should not deprive those who did of this right.
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...
51 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
K F
May 22nd 2011, 10:17
Bhall li kieku minhu Kristjan, mhux bniedem bhal haddiehor... Jekk jidhol id divorzju mhux fmohh kulhadd tkun eda li emm id divorzju... Jien l-ewwel wahda li adni kemm najd, jekk jidhol tant l ahjar ax tamel li trid tizzewweg umbad mux xorta emm id divorzju! Issa jin iz-zwieg sa llum il gurnata ad andu valur alija... Imma diga bil mentalita li ha jidhol ed jitnaqqasli dak il valur...
Mr Alex Buds
May 21st 2011, 17:53
Those voting no, as well as the religious fundamentalists posting on this board, are practicing a vindictive, uncaring, inhuman, and egoistic form of Christianity from the Old Testament which has nothing to do with the spirit of love and forgiveness of the New.
Because their marriage is fine, or they have no marriage, they have no problem with throwing their less fortunate brethren under the bus. Shame on them for they are the truly evil ones.
Mr Anton PIsani
May 21st 2011, 11:58
During these last weeks I've been reading and listening to most divorce related articles/programmes. I think that almost all heated arguments originate from 2 very important basic concepts.
1. Shall we vote whether there should be a law regulating divorce or shall we vote whether we agree with divorce or otherwise? Personally I think its a legal question and will vote yes even though I am against divorce. I understand that most people voting no disagree with me - but whether we agree or not i think this is the key issue.
2. Divorce is not the alternative to a happy marriage but to people who are currently seperated, cohabit and dont have the option of civil marriage. Not all these people will remarry if the proposed law is passed but should they have an option/right to do so? These people already have children out of marriage and already have financial problems to maintain 2 families. That is why i fail to understand the new social poverty created by divorce - they say "how can a man earning Eur1000 pay 2 family bills with divorce?" This man is already doing so -how will divorce worsten this situation?. "Why should a child have to accept his father's partner?" If his father lives with a partner today and they have 2 children, what will divorce change for the child? My point is that divorce is not the cause of these situations. I understand people can still be against the new law but they should not attribute major problems like social poverty and children suffering to divorce.
Mr M Borg
May 21st 2011, 00:06
" She pointed out thast in the first quarter of this year there were more civil than church marriages ."
Why do they always say half truths.Out of roughly 850 civil marriages that took place last year. 456 were of foreigners who choose to wed in Malta 126 were between Maltese and the rest were between Maltese and foreigners.
Why not tell us the number of Maltese who had a civil marriage this year and deduct the number of marriages
where foreigners were involved, only than can we know the real picture.
Mr M Borg
May 20th 2011, 23:59
After trying to make use of Mgr. Charles Vella they now have the cheek to praise the Cana Movement, unbelievable !
Are they now realising that all they have been doing throughout this campaign has turned people against religion ?
Was this their aim to start of with ? Are they really foghting for divorce or against the church ?
In trying to make divorce seem like a civil right, are they laying the ground for abortion ?
Will someone now say that abortion is a woman 's right ?
We must keep the strong families we have and vote No for divorce.
Mr Alex Buds
May 21st 2011, 17:54
This has nothing to do with abortion. Do not try to muddy the issue and confuse people.
Mr Charles.C. Brown
May 20th 2011, 23:45
NO to divorce. do not destroy maltese societ ! be wise be different. and lastly do not please those who have a personal interest in this matter. their is nothing religious about divorce and the church should keep out of this, this is a situation that is either everthing stays as it is ,with separations that many of them will in the end reconcill or a Malta riddled with broken marragies more unwanted children more crime and for those who are not strong enough more suicides. know the facts before you vote.
Mr Charles.C. Brown
May 20th 2011, 23:35
NO to divorce. do not destroy maltese society do not make Malta part of the european cesspool! be wise be different. and lastly do not please those who have a personnal interest in this matter.
Mr Alex Buds
May 20th 2011, 20:40
It should be an option for religious marriages too. This is no time for half-measures.
Roberta Ferrante
May 21st 2011, 08:39
No, it should not be an option for religious marriages too. All consenting couples who want to get married in Church know what they are getting into. It's no excuse. Of course, no marriages are all rosy, all have their ups and downs. Marriage in Church is a Sacrament and it must not be tempered with. Of course, if one doesn't like the Catholic rules, one can always opt for Civil marriage.
Mr joseph saliba
May 20th 2011, 20:26
when saying "that divorce would never be an option for religious marriages" did the learned advocate mean that being married in the catholic rite will impede one from obtaining divorce under the proposed bill.
Ms Rudi Mcbeal
May 20th 2011, 20:18
Nothing new.
Is Dr Schembri not aware that many of those whose opinion is against a divorce legislation has absolutely nothing to do with church and religion?
Gerry Cowie
May 20th 2011, 20:00
This is the thin end of the wedge! The pro movement standing outside Cana movement trying a different tack. Well why did they not do it outside the court building in Republic Street instead? It is a bit late for the pro movement to do this now. But perhaps they might like to appeal to their followers not to pour out sarcasm and ridicule against the Church and its members. Without doing this their attempt to apologise to the Church will be of no consequence.
MS Xerri might like to note that no amount of preparation courses will have any effect if the marriage still collapses and the blame for this cannot be laid fair and square at the door of the Cana movement for want of having tried. That is like blaming the weather forecaster for the bad weather!
Ms Emma Xerri
May 21st 2011, 05:11
Which begs the question, what is the point of these marriage preparaton classes, to milk more money out of young couples?
Tha analogy of blaming the weather man for bad weather does not hold true in this instance, for Cana do not forecast, but supposedly provide a blueprint for a good marriage. Evidently Cana needs to go back to the drawing board.
Mr Joseph Brincat
May 20th 2011, 19:53
GOD LOVE EVERY ONE
GOD DOESN'T FORCE NO ONE, HE LEAVES EVERY ONE
ON HIS FREE WILL NOT LIKE SOME OF YOU !!!!!!!
BAY THE WAY WHEN DIVORCE WILL BE HERE NOBODY
IS FORCING NO ONE TO DIVORCE !!!!
Mr Richard Curmi
May 20th 2011, 23:25
Mr Brincat check your double negative because you are delivering the message that you do not want to deliver.
Mario Scicluna
May 20th 2011, 19:36
Much has been said from the NO spokespersons, besides negativity, many have observed that when faced so many times over with direct questions, such as to what solutions would they propose for the suffering, they always duck the question, or 'iduru mal-lewza'!
Mr M Borg
May 20th 2011, 19:12
Joseph Calleja (16.29 )
" I think Dr Sciberras touched a soft spot and he might be very correct in what he said . Money,money,money .
What is your gain in all this ? "
I am no priest and I do not form part of the Curia., so the gain you were implying does not concern me .
Believe me it is a good thing that I do not have any say in the affairs of the Curia . Having people like you throwing mud and accusing the Curia that it is making money out of annulmnets , the logical, human side of me would put a stop to the aid the Curia gives.
Much , much better that the Curia is run by priests.
For your information rather than making money the Curia is forking out approximately €500,000 each year to subsidise the tribunals. The average expense is €1,200 per case.
The Curia explained that last year 2010 , out of 112 cases decided , only 48 paid the full fee, 48 made a partial
payment while 16 paid nothing.
Can you tell me if you know of any lawyer or anybody who will do something without getting paid ? Well the Curia did just that last year, because when one really cannot pay, the fees are waived.
Rather than using this divorce referendum to show your hatred towards the church, I am sure that also you must acknowledge that the Church helps the poor.
Christian Sciberras
May 21st 2011, 00:08
Mr M Borg - I have no interest in "throwing mud at the Curia", but let me point out a few facts for you;
- the local Curia is a far branch of the Vatican, it does things the Vatican wouldn't ever do
- what I said about the Curia getting the money is mainly a thing of the past (6 years or so)
- if you cannot acknowledge the above fact, then I've got my doubts on how much you know about Malta
- if you want proof, all brown-marble (Maltese type) quarries have been "donated" to the Curia through various means. We're talking about a huge area.
- paying priests for prayers as I mentioned beforehand is a common practice, I've witnessed this every Sunday for some 3 to 4 yours (during the time I've served as an altar server/boy)
- you should give me some credit considering I've been a (lesser) part of the Curia for some time
Mr Michael Debono
May 20th 2011, 19:08
The NO movment is mixing civil and Church marriages.
They are mixing legislation with personal action.
Legislation to introduce divorce in the country is different from those applying for divorce.
Legislation does not mean that everybody must or will get divorce as also legislation in the case of marriage does not compel anyone to get married.
Regarding broken marriages there are four cases to consider
1 a.. Those that divorce in order to rescind any contact with their husband/wife but do not remarry. These can proceed with their religious practices and receive the Holy Eucharist, so I read.
b. Those that divorce in order to remarry. This is evil according to the Church.
2.a Those that leave their spouse without recourse to divorce and continue to live alone.. These appear that they can recieve Holy Communion.
b. Those that leave their spouse to join someone else and live freely together. These are condemned by the Church.
Divorce legislation applies only to 1 a &b.
The referendum is only meant to set up legislation to cover these two opportunities and not to encourage people to apply for them. Hence this appear that the No for divorce are chasing a ghost.
It is well to point out that the government is ment to legislate i.c.w 2a &b.
However no one has so far protested against the government for legislating i.c.w. cohabitation that is condemned by the Church.
Mr M Borg
May 20th 2011, 18:50
@ Christian Sciberras ( 16.13 -- 17.16 )
Joseph Calleja was not replying to you , but to me.
Take my advice throwing mud at the Church and the Curia will not make you a million !
Mr Alex Buds
May 20th 2011, 20:42
I don't think anybody is out to make a million here...
Christian Sciberras
May 21st 2011, 00:12
Mr M Borg - My mistake.
However, I can't but remind you I'm not throwing mud, but describing a muddy fountain as it is.
If I wanted to be the least hypocrite, I'd say it's crystal white. But after all these years of disappointment, I can't find a single reason why I shouldn't shout out the plain truth.
Mr Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
May 20th 2011, 18:48
Sinjuri Maltin u Għawdxin,
Jiena nemmen li meta Alla ħoloq id-dinja u kull ma jinsab fiha, inklużi aħna l-bnedmin, ma ħalaqiex għall-insara biss, imma għal-ġenerazzjonijiet kollha preżenti u futuri!
U meta Alla għamel il-pjan qaddis tiegħu mingħajr il-moda tad-divorzju, ma għamlux għall-insara biss, imma għamlu wkoll għall ġenerazzjonijiet kollha peżenti u futuri!
Id-divorzju ħolqu l-bniedem b’suppervja, li ħadha kontra l-Pjan u l-kelma t’Alla!
Għax id-divorzju jimmina u jeqred il-valuri ta’ l-għaqda taż-żwieġ dejjiemi u tal-familja b’saħħitha Maltija!
Kull bniedem f’din id-dinja, xi’ darba meta jmut bilfors irid imur jagħmel il-kontijiet mal-Mulej, u dan il-Mulej żgur ser issaqsiena.
Inti kont taf li l-pjan tiegħi jien għamiltu mingħajr id-divorzju għall kull persuna fid-dinja kollha, għax-id-divorzju hu ħażin għall kull bniedem?
Aħna x’ser nirrispondu!
Ngħidulu għax f’ Malta għandna lill ta’ l-IVA, u qalulna li din il-liġi tad-divorzju m’għandiex x’taqsam mar-reliġjon, din hija liġi ċivili, u f’Malta biss ma teżistiex!
Il-Mulejj nistħajlu jgħidilna, għaliex ksirtuli kelmti, għaliex ħarbattuli l-pjan qaddis tiegħi li għamilt b’imħabba kbira għalikom u għall-uliedkom!
X’mistħija taqa fuqna, l-art tiblana inkunu nixtiequ, imma żgur issa ma nkunu nistgħu nagħmlu xejn!
Bis-suppervja tagħna l-ħsara nkunu wettaqnija, lill Mulej inkunu sfidajnieħ, inkunu weġġajnieħ bil-kbir, sa kasbarnieħ bla qies, meta morna nivvutaw IVA favur id-divorzju!
Ngħidulu lill-Mulej, Daħqu bina dawk ta’ l-IVA , dawk li smajna minnhom!
Dik l-iskuża biss nistgħu ngħidulu lill Mulej, għax imbgħad ikun tard wisq!
Mhux għalhek biex ikollok kuxjenza infurmata u nadifa kif ser tivvota, bilfors trid tikkonsulta ruħek ma’ dak li għamel u ma’ dak li ma għamilx Alla!
Nikkunsultaw ruħna ma’ dak li qal u li jridna u jippretendi li nagħmlu Alla l-imbierek!
Mela allura ħabieb, aħsiba sewwa, ikkonsulta ruħek sewwa mall-kelma t’ Alla, u tħalli lill ħadd jidħaq bik, ftakar dejjem fi’ kliem il-Mulej u dak li jried minnek, għamel dmirek u mur ivvota LE, għall-uliedek u għall-pajjiżek kif irid Alla sidek!
Charles J. Buttigieg
May 20th 2011, 17:56
The world is unanimous that adultery is sinful and a curse on a decent Civil Society. No religion may find any ground at all to tolerate an infidel spouse. Adultery can do so much harm to a marriage that, according to the Bible, Jesus approved divorce when infidelity tarnished a Christian marriage. That justification for divorced was only reversed during the Council of Trent. Notwithstanding, adultery, in spite of being a lewd act is not illegal and nobody is complaining. Why therefore the States of Malta and the Philippines look on divorce as being harmful to Society more than adultery?
George Lewis
May 20th 2011, 19:19
If you reckon that preparing oneself for a life long commitment is useless as you are saying I simply cannot see your logic.We need to be trained and informed for any type of job or whatever but not for such a noble act of love which brings with it many responsibilities especially where children are concerned.Do you agree ms.Xerri that strong families make a strong society?
Regarding the waste of money and time.What money,the few euros to cover expenses?How many freebies are you getting out of whatever you are interested in?Regarding time We always complain about certain things as time wasting yet we waste so much more on a hundred things and we do not complain.
Ms Xerri you have every right not to attend Cana courses but no right to impose on others your unfounded ideas.Cana has for the past 54 years prepared many couples for a sound marriage.Yes sound marriages are still around,With more preparation and commitment on the side of couples good marriages will prevail,
Ms Emma Xerri
May 21st 2011, 00:48
@George Lewis
What I am saying is that despite Cana Movement, the rate of marriage breakdown is the same in Malta as anywhere else. And where may I ask can one go to a school to teach one how to live life? Life happens despite our good intentions and a few weeks in the Cana movement will not a good marriage make.
Let us start from the beginning shall we, with parents spoiling rotten their children and bringing them everything under the sun that they desire, paid for schooling up to University level, helping them out with their expenses, such as cars and houses, well over the age when they should be functioning adults, you know the score. Now imagine two self-centred people of the opposite sex of the 'Me" generation getting married aand there you have a recipe for disaster when real life and life's pressures intrude in what was an otherwise fairytale existence.
This is one scenario (of the many other permutations that can result in a failed marriage, such as infidelity, physical, psychological and substance abuse , financial difficulties etc) that is having such a negative impact of family life. Of course I agree that a strong family is the foundation of a strong society, but with the consumer generation having bought in on the lie that the more things you have the happier you are, society has become one giant grab-for-all in a race to the bottom. Corporations run most families now and have stolen the children from the parents who are just there to fork out the money, through their relentless advertising campaigns on television and other media, advertising aimed at toddlers right up to young adults and the parent have no choice but to run out and by the latest gadgets, only to be replaced when the newer versions come in next week - just what the Capitalists ordered.
Going back to Cana, all married couples in Malta who marry in the Church have to attend this course, so the proof is in the pudding that it does not work, otherwise we wouldn't be faced with such a high percentage of marriage breakups. Whatsmore, it is kind of naive to expect a course of a few weeks to change a lifetime of bad habits or the character that a person is born with.
Ms Emma Xerri
May 20th 2011, 17:47
Cana courses for the preparation of marriage notwhitstanding, the separation rates and marriage breakdowns in Malta mirror those of other industrialised nations, which begs the question, how effective are these Cana courses in the first placen and are they not a waste of time and money?
Secondly, of course divorce is also an option for a Church marriage. When you marry in Church you are also bound with a Civil legal contract and it is the latter that the divorce will dissolve. In the eyes of the Church you are still married, but nobody would be stopping you from marrying again in the Public Registry. And if things have come to this, why should one wish to marry again in the Church in the first place? It is like saying I do not believe in Santa Claus/Father Christmas but insist in receiving a gift from Santa each December 25th? Where is the logic?
Timothy Guntrip
May 20th 2011, 17:25
I for one eagerly await the outcome of the divorce referendum. The only reason I can find against divorce being introduced in Malta is that we will continue to be subjected to the tiresome waffling of Mr Joe Zammit otherwise.
George Lewis
May 20th 2011, 20:15
Mr.Borg I agree with you.The handouts regarding Fr.Charles Vella's text have been pulled out of context on purpose.They are clinging to every straw that floats.I had on another occasion challenged the group to get in touch with Fr.Charles's to clarify what he said,but I do not believe they did for it does not suit them.
Can one imagine Fr.Charles,who 54 years ago set up the Cana movement and having prepared thousands of couples for a solid marriage speak against what he still believes in that is the sanctity of marriage?Can anyone imagine that having done such monumental and sterling work even up to this day accuse him of being against the stability of marriage?
Yes Mr.Borg who knows where their next show will be!
Mr M Borg
May 20th 2011, 17:22
They have been going round the island. Every day they are infront of this, infront of that, today it was the Curia's turn to be graced by their presence.
They are doing all they can to make the Media report something on them , least we forget them and vote No !!!
They were even shown on one of the TV stations going round distributing handouts with the " speech " given
by Mgr. Charles Vella. They are using a priest who has always worked hard to teach that marriage is forever
to promote their " responsible divorce. "
If this is not the action of someone who knows that he is fighting a losing cause , I do not know what is.!
Mr Joe Zammit
May 20th 2011, 16:20
The two characteristics of every marriage are Unity and Indissolubility. All marriages, religious nor not, are indissoluble!
Unity means a marriage between one man and one woman.
Indissolubility makes marriage for ever, i.e., until the death of one of the spouses.
It is possible to get married for life, always by God's grace. That's why the saying goes: Three to get married: the groom, the bridegroom and God.
What we must all remember is that basically marriage is a life-long service.
Remarriage after divorce = Cohabitation
Ms Marthese Vella
May 20th 2011, 16:56
"All marriages, religious nor not, are indissoluble!"
I doubt whether a Muslim Imam or Protestant Pastor would agree on that.
Mr James Tyrrell
May 20th 2011, 17:12
"Remarriage after divorce = Cohabitation"
And being forced to live with someone outside of marriage after a seperation is what exactly?
Mr Daniel Schembri
May 20th 2011, 17:33
stop being repetitive.
it's making no effect.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 20th 2011, 16:20
Christian Marriage (Casti Connubii) of Pope Pius XI:
Par.91 runs: “… Venerable Brethren, there stands one irrefragable law of God, amply endorsed by Christ, a law against whose force no human decree, no ordinance of peoples, no lawgiver’s will can prevail: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder.’
If anyone in spite of that law makes such a separation his act is null and void, with the consequence which Christ Himself has clearly proclaimed: ‘He that puts away his wife and marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery.’
And these words of Christ apply to any marriage whatsoever, EVEN TO A LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE OF THE NATURAL ORDER. Indissolubility is the attribute of every true marriage, and therefore so far as the dissolution of the bond is concerned it is independent of the will of the parties themselves and of every secular power.”
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Mr Joe Zammit
May 20th 2011, 16:18
Catholics for divorce are false Catholics.
Catholics for divorce are betraying Christ.
Catholics for divorce are pleasing the devil.
Catholics for divorce are living in sin and are on the path to hell.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it’s already guaranteed!
Mr Anton Portelli
May 20th 2011, 16:13
Dr Schembri is 100% right. Divorce is a civil procedure whereby an ALREADY BROKEN marriage is dissolved and the parties can then re marry if they wish to reestablish another legally recognised family.
All that the No to divorce camp are saying does not fit in.
No one is being force to go against his/her catholic beliefs if divorce is introduced - it is the opposite, with lack of divorce legislation in Malta a number of persons are FORCED TO COHABIT.
Regarding maintenance and the claim by the No camp that this brings more poverty and problems because one bread winner cannot support two families - At present with no divorce legislation marriages are still breaking up and individuals are still reforming new relationships. Weather it is cohabiting or actual marriage the salaries are still the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Children suffering - children suffer when they are living in an unstable environment where parents are all the time quarreling and arguing not when they see their parents living a happy life.
Statistics - ALL KINDS OF EVILS OF SOCIETY are being attributed to divorce by the No camp. However there are a lot of other factors both economic and social that affect trends in statistics.
Thus one hopes that the electorate will use their brains and vote YES if they do not want to feel guilty afterwards, if they do not believe in intolerance, imposition and inquisition .
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 20th 2011, 15:16
DR Deborah Schembri 1 st Martyr of the divorce movement. 1 st victim of the catholic church of Malta. Thank GOD its is not the 1800's they would have burned her alive. If it was the 1900's they would give her a nice cool "interdet" in the yeay 2011 they try to deprive her of her source of income. I am certain they are doing it for her own good.
Mark Galea
May 20th 2011, 16:24
Quote "they try to deprive her of her source of income"
How naive, Mr Mario P. Sciberras !
Dr Schembri will now be the most sought after lawyer in Malta after all that coverage on the media, irrespective of what the result of the referendum is. Other people may pay the price, but not she.
You have no idea of strategy, my friend.
Mr M Borg
May 20th 2011, 15:10
Does Dr Schembri think that the Church is against divorce because it would lose money if people did not make use of annulments anymore ?
Is she still agreeing with Dr Philip Sciberras ?
Christian Sciberras
May 20th 2011, 16:13
Mr M Borg - Actually it is very credible.
People "voluntarily" pay priests to dedicate mass to the deceased - in other words, paying for one to get to heaven (does it even make sense?)
Needless to remind you the times when the Church paid lawyers and attorneys to suggest that people donate their property when writing their will/testament.
This is hardly a secret.
Even worse when seeing the Church resorting to 80's scare tactics to make people do its biddings. Putting 1 and 1 together, it's not unexpected they try to do the same thing again.
Keep in mind being realistic and seeing the Church for what it is isn't being against the Church. But not openly admitting to the Church's flaws (or calling anyone that does "heretic" or "demon follower") is completely unacceptable.
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 20th 2011, 16:29
I think Dr Sciberras touched a soft spot and he might be very correct in what he said. Money, Money, Money? What is your gain in all this?
Christian Sciberras
May 20th 2011, 17:16
Mr Joseph Calleja - First of sarcasm aside, I'd like to make it a point that I'm no doctor and I usually do not reply to personal insults, but I'll reply since you made a very fair point.
What's my gain in all of this? Lets put it in simple terms, millionaires aren't born out of countries like Kenya.
I came to the conclusion that if I want to get a fair share of money, I can't do it by stealing it from the country (when the country doesn't even have any).
If I want to get anywhere near a million, I must see to it that the country is progressing forward, whether I like it or not. Other people might not aim that far and still steal (such as the good old Curia).
Think of it like "personal gain with national-level positive side-effects".
Mr Jo Camm
May 20th 2011, 15:08
These speakers said nothing new. Everybody knew what they had to say.
However they did not say that those who are against the introduction of divorce, as they love their neighbour as much as they love themselves, should vote NO on the 28th May, 2011.
Mr Joe Gatt
May 20th 2011, 15:55
@ Jo Camm
No one is obliging you to seek divorce, still by voting no, one will be imposing his will on others that may opt for divorce.
Live your life, but let others live theirs.
That is what democracy is all about, period
Mr George Calleja
May 20th 2011, 15:57
I agree with you that the same three 'preachers' have nothing else to say. They're having a daily press-conference talking the same hype all over again. They are attacking their aversaries hoping to gain their ambition. Leave the people alone to make a responsable decision. Malta should be proud that it has no divorce...and let's hope it will remain without it for years to come!
Ms Rebecca Bartolo
May 20th 2011, 16:12
Int bis-serjeta? Just stop and think about what you wrote ... if your neighbour was getting beat up , I think the only way you would show her love would be to get her away from the man doing this to her and give her another chance in life. Jahasra people need to think this over seriously before going ahead and voting ''No'' just because they are not in need of a divorce themselves.
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 20th 2011, 16:26
@ George m Calleja
It does not matter if Malta remains without divorce for years to come, because in years to come divorce will not be needed anymore because men and women will be cohabiting instead of marrying. Is that what you are looking forward too, for years to come?
Mr Jo Camm
May 20th 2011, 18:39
By voting yes you will be imposing your will on those who do not want divorce.
Divorce will not solve problems but create more.
Mr Joe Gatt
May 20th 2011, 19:51
@Mr Jo Camm
Divorce will follow separation by 4 years, when the marriage is long dead and gone.
So pls initiate a campaign against legal `Separation`