Will you vote for this question next Saturday?
"Are you in favour of divorce when:
• only one of the parties is in favour and want to impost it on the other party who is totally against;
• you don't need a reason to be divorced – just live with someone else or alone for four years and then just say that you don't want to go back to live with your partner;
• maintenance is granted but its payment is not in any way guaranteed;
• an effort to respect children's rights is made but no guarantee can be given expect that children will suffer in the process?"
This is not the actual question that will be printed on the ballot paper that you will be given next Saturday. However, if you read the text carefully, you will surly realise that this is the REAL question that you will be asked to answer next Saturday. This is what the question concocted by the Partit Laburista in favour of JPO's et al divorce legislation really implies.
The PL's question is an unfair question
The Partit Laburista is doing what is done by those who, as the Maltese proverb says, juruk id-debba u jqabbzulek il-hmara. They speak of responsible divorce i.e. a divorce which is not easily dished out, but then present a motion for an irresponsible divorce. The stark reality is that JPO's divorce can be imposed on unwilling partners; it does not guarantee maintenance grants as no one can guarantee them and it goes nowhere near guaranteeing children's rights. You need two things only to divorce: you want it and you are ready to wait some time for it.
The referendum question that you will be presented with is one which is biased in favour of the pro divorce stand. This is totally understandable as it was presented by a political party which is staunchly pro-divorce. It is true that the Partit Laburista did not take an official position on the subject but it is equally true that its leadership has taken a de facto pro divorce position. This position is most evident in the programmes on the media of the Partit Laburista and the media of its consort, the GWU. Anyone who follows them will immediately recognise where the heart of the Partit Laburista is.
Dr Adrian Vassallo, MP for the Partit Laburista criticised Labour media in an opinion piece published in The Times (210511):
"I feel I must also remark that certain comments broadcast by One News seem to be biased, giving a push to the yes movement, when, according to the Malta Labour Party, the party has taken no stand on the issue and expects all its supporters to be guided by their conscience. I find this strange when Evarist Bartolo, co-presenter of the divorce Bill, is at present head of One News. This is surely a conflict of interest and certainly deserves consideration by all the Maltese electorate."
I would like to add the edition of Affari Taghna of Friday May 20 as an example of an extremely biased programme. A statement by Moviment Zwieg Bla Divorzju said that it drew the attention of the Broadcasting Authority before the programmes was broadcast. It was obvious that the programme was going to be a biased one. The Authority did nothing effective. The programme lived to expectations and was totally and unashamedly biased in favour of the pro-divorce lobby.
The same can be said about Bla Agenda of Saturday May 22. The best that can be said is that it was five against two. However Dr Bernard Grech on the no side gave a great performance. He did not concede an inch and won kilometres, though he was also hampered by that guy from the Kristu Iva, Divorzju Le movement who are the greatest asset of the Yes Campaign.
A self-respecting Broadcasting Authority will surely take action to redress the imbalance created.
Now back to the referendum question.
It is important to emphasise that next Saturday we are not being asked whether we are in favour of divorce of not. We are being asked whether we are in favour of a particular kind of divorce. Even if one is in principle in favour of divorce one has to ask oneself a number of questions to conclude whether one is in favour of JPO's and Evarist Bartolo's divorce legislation proposal.
Are you in favour of introducing divorce legislation before any kind of family impact assessment study was held and even before we have an adjourned snapshot of Maltese families and marriage? Such a snapshot will be taken during the November 2011 census.Are you in favour of a law which permits the guilty party in a marriage to dissolve the marriage contract even against the expressed wishes of the innocent party? This also happens in separation cases; but separation is radically different from divorce. Separation does not radically change our concept of marriage. Are you in favour of divorce legislation which empowers anyone to divorce even without bringing forward any kind of justification or, at least, even a lame excuse? The proposed legislation says that you do not need any justification or excuse to divorce. You just walk out and stay out for four years.Are you in favour of introducing in Maltese another legislative measure that will harm children more than they are being harmed by separation? Are you in favour of using our energy to propose divorce legislation instead of using all our national resources to strengthen our families? One can object saying that we could do both. This is true. However, does it not make more sense to do a collective effort to heal our families before tempting them with a measure that will not solve – perhaps with few exceptions - any basic problem but will create new problems for our families?
There are many people who will not agree with my position as they think that divorce is a civil remedy that should be available to Maltese citizens. I respect their opinion which is a legitimate one. There are those who will vote yes because they are disgusted with the behaviour of several in the no camp, including several on different levels of the ecclesiastical food chain. Even I, on several occasions, have shown my disagreement with such deplorable antics.
I will vote no as the question that we have to respond to and the draft which is being proposed are a hurried and amateurish attempt aimed at changing permanently the model of marriage that has underpinned our society for centuries. Marriage and the family deserve better.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
49 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Arthur Soler
May 26th 2011, 11:48
Hi Jessica:
"As I see it, we have an endemic fear of lagging behind other countries"
I beg to differ. We have an endemic fear of facing the reality that some marriages do fail, and that no matter what efforts are made to put them back together, some are simply irrepairable. In such cases, and there are many, those individuals have a right to divorce and a right to expect the state to grant it, provided all the conditions for support of a spouse and/or kids are met. This is what civilized democracies in the world do to protect the individual rights.
By all mens let's all recognize that strong families are the fondations of a strong society....and let's do everything we can to strenghten those family bonds. But we cannnot put our heads in the sand and not recognize the plight and sufferings of those whose marriages have absolutely failed, and cannot be repaired.
The only really endemic fear that we have in Malta is facing this truth. Unfortunately for those suffering from broken marriages, the Church and State in Malta are effectively saying to them "we're sorry for your sufferiing, but there is nothing that we can do about it". This is nonsensical...but then, common sense is most uncommon especially within the Maltese Catholic church and the present Maltese government.
Jessica Debattista
May 26th 2011, 09:22
As a follow-up to my last post I want to say that most of the negative situations I mention could be revealed in the aftermath of separation, but nevertheless, do we want to introduce yet another scourge to our society?
Marriage should remain the revered institution that it has always been. We ought to be proud to be able to maintain the existenceof marriage as a lifelong commitment. Besides, we would be unfair to all those who still want to have marriage to be the traditional institution that had served society so well.
We talk so much about the right of those who want to remarry but we fail to give importance to the right of those who want to feel relatively more secure in a marriage that requires commitment for life. Is this democracy?
Democracy should not be seen as an emulation of what is happening in other countries but it should be seen in the context of our own nation. After all we have so much that is different from other countries, our size for one, our limited population that is so close-knit, either through familial ties or through the proximity to our neighbours.
As I see it, we have an endemic fear of lagging behind other countries. It has been drummed into our heads as a negative consequence from the fact that our little gem is so tiny. A gem is always tiny and it can have flaws but one would be an utter lunatic to have it and throw it away.
Charlie Borg
May 26th 2011, 11:09
Marriage was never a 'revered institution'. Since time immemorial, separations and divorce cases were commonplace and we have to realise it. It's an innate feeling to want to live securely, and that is why there are problems between spouses. ... once you are married, you let your hair down, if you have any left, and stop doing make-up for your husband, you give him your back in bed cos you have head'ache and so on. .... That is what I call 'security'. But it's wrong. A commitment is a daily one, not one which is forever. There's a difference. You have to renew your marriage vows every day, ... yes, even in your marriage bed!!! Very important. With divorce, am I making you renounce to your 'relatively more secure' life within marriage? No way.
You talk of the context of our own nation. That does not exist. One world, one village. It's impossible to cut ourselves off from what is happening abroad. That's the communist trend, lady.
I don't think that the 'fear' you allude to exists. The 'fear' that exists is in your mind because you refuse to think in terms of an 'insecure' life which comes about as we grow old.
So you think that Malta is a 'gem' because we are tiny. Oh yeah, ... tiny ... but not only in size. In mentality, as well. Not just tiny! Miniscule.
Paul Gauci
May 26th 2011, 01:01
"Are you in favour of a law which permits the guilty party in a marriage to dissolve the marriage contract even against the expressed wishes of the innocent party?"
YES because denying the truth does not obliterate it. If one party wants to divorce, the other party will have to accept as TWO PEOPLE make up a couple not one. There's no point in being in a relationship if the other half has already left. That's what happens with separations, church annullments and divorces from abroad and its the same thing which will happen with Maltese divorce.
Arthur Soler
May 26th 2011, 00:38
@ Fr Borg
"I will vote no as the question that we have to respond to and the draft which is being proposed are a hurried and amateurish attempt aimed at changing permanently the model of marriage that has underpinned our society for centuries. Marriage and the family deserve better"
What are talking about? Nobody in his right mind would dispute the fact that strong families are the foundation of a strong society. And it follows that society should do everything possible to therefore strengthen those family units. Having said that, I find it incredible that ANYONE including yourself would believe that when marriages are broken beyond repair, society should effectively force the partners to stay together.
While the specific referendum question on divorce is by no means perfect, your criticism of it is superficial and most unconvincing. The real issue here is whether Malta should introduce divorce as have all other Western Countries? Let me put you on the spot therefore. Suppose the question was worded differently to address, to your complete satisfaction, ALL the problems that you identified with the current one, would you then be voting YES?
I realize that the question is rhetorical. You will, of course, be voting NO, simply because you are a Catholic priest, and you absolutely cannot accept Secular laws that go against your religious dogmas.
So please....why don't you clear the smoke screen and simply admit that the reason you are voting NO is not because of the specific question, but because you and your religion are against divorce. Full Stop.
Jessica Debattista
May 26th 2011, 00:21
Domestic violence is a criminal offence and one hopes that the victim is protected by law.
But divorce as proposed is not there for those who are in an unhappy marriage but for those who opt out for purely selfish reasons.
Selfish - because it is not consensual!
Selfish, because it is there for those who are separated and cohabiting and who want to regularize their union with the new partner without taking into consideration the wife and children from the first marriage.
Selfish because it is planned to give a second chance at happiness to the one who opts out and ignores the heartache of the one who is left behind.
Divorce is traumatic primarily to the one who is abandoned.
It is not unlike grieving for a person one has lost. It is in fact worse, for where one can recall the beautiful moments spent together with the person who had passed away; with divorce one recalls the painful memories.
It is traumatic - to say the least - and the abandoned party will go through periods of bitterness, regret, anger or even emotional depression. The person will start feeling culpable, thinking that he/she could have been the cause of the other party leaving.
It is worse for the woman who is abandoned later on in life for a younger woman would probably re-marry if only to have someone to help raise the children, but the older woman will have to adjust to the loneliness, especially if the children are grown up and living in their own homes.
These are only a few of the maladies that divorce can cause not to mention the lower standard of living and the overwhelming cost of getting a divorce.
Charlie Borg
May 26th 2011, 11:03
Why are you taking it for granted that it's the wife, the woman, who is the victim? Haven't you heard of men who are similarly made victim by their wives that abandon theirh husbands? What is this innate thing in Maltese women who portray themselves as victims? Stand up and hold your head high, woman!
Yes, it is traumatic for a man or woman to be abandoned but that is the way of life. You CANNOT EVER force a man or a woman to love his or her partner if that love has been tainted without the possibility of it being renewed. It's a tough life. Get used to it.
Whether reasons are selfish or not, a partner will leave his or her spouse and seek pastures new and there is nothing that you or I, who don't agree with this trend, can do about it.
You do not stay on with your partner for fear of hurting him or her. That's not love. That's pity. Again, get over it.
Mr Joseph Lungaro
May 25th 2011, 22:30
The more I read this crap, the more I will be voting YES! Divorce aint the Devil Fr Joe Borg! and its a Fundamental Civil Right we're voting in Favour for next Saturday......Divorce law is present in all the rest of The World ( with the exception of the Philippines) Do you get it Fr Joe?
Ms Sarah Attard Gialanze
May 25th 2011, 11:49
Have to admit that I am rather disappointed by your comments, Fr Borg - while I was not expecting you to say you will vote for divorce, you have written your article in a way that attempts to cajole the reader into following your footsteps and to vote like you. That is not very ethical now is it?
Mr d. attard
May 24th 2011, 19:40
“If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years.” Bertrand Russel
A concept that the 'no' corenr seems to have great difficulty to comprehemd within the context of a reality that exists the whole world over where millions of new marriages produced joy and happiness...the argument against? that existing happy marriages will fold because divorce exists...amazing when one considers that seperations are a present reality an one need not think of divorce when a relationship dies. Re those who continue to bring up religious arguments, they should first read the catechism of the church, last para to the prolouge that says that love rules over all (st Paul etc)...so those who will vote no will have to check with their concience too...
Jessica Debattista
May 25th 2011, 09:17
@ D. Attard:“Re those who continue to bring up religious arguments, they should first read the catechism of the church, last para to the prolouge that says that love rules over all (st Paul etc)...so those who will vote no will have to check with their concience too...”
You seem to think that love is the romantic version between a man and a woman and fail to see that there is a nobler love - and that is the love for one’s children.
A man might not feel quite the same way as a woman does towards her child for it is with the mother that a child bonds since its birth and that is why perhaps women are so protective against any other woman who could be brought into the child’s life.
A man is made up of a different stuff. Since primitive times, he was promiscuous. It was nature’s way to assertain that as many seeds were planted to ensure the population of the world.
So there was no unitive factor than the instinctive love of the mother for her child. Successive stages led to the evolution of the family as we know it today but not without periods of progress or regress.
I wonder! Are we living in the direction of progress or regress?
So maybe those who vote “YES” should “check with their conscience too…”
Mr d. attard
May 25th 2011, 12:42
Love stems from the word charity and men love their children too. I will be voting yes for many reasons among them that divorce will provide an option for a happier life for all, both mature individuals and children. I have weighed all the pros and cons and can now understand better why the whole world other than malta has a divorce legislation and no country is considering removing divorce from its legal infrastructure in contrast to the terrormongering that divorce has brought untold calamities on the rest of the whole world because they have a divorce law. I am sure that the daddies and mummies in all the rest of the world love their children too. As a catholic, the reasons to vote 'yes' are similarly overwhemning.
Mr David Farrugia
May 24th 2011, 18:43
The more I read from these people, the more convinced of my YES.
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 24th 2011, 18:13
"only one of the parties is in favour and want to impost it on the other party who is totally against". The marraige breaks down. One party wants it confirmed by law after 4 years of separation.The other party wants to consider herself/himself married, irrespective of how unrealistic that may be. What are we to do. Agree with the former that the marriage is dead and a certificate has to be issued or are we to agree with the latter and keep insisting that the marriage is still alive and breathing even though it has died and decomposed. In a lot of cases, when this happens, I sense that it is borne more out of a sense of vindictiveness than common sense
Mr Guido Mizzi
May 24th 2011, 17:41
amazing - your ability to twist facts around - as usual you do what the Church has done so well in the past (scare people) - no wonder you glorify all that today's church is about.. But your strength is slowly but surely disappearing.
Mr C Muscat
May 24th 2011, 10:50
Ramon Casha your statement lacks the fact that these that really deserve the divorce law will not take the chance neither the perpetrators nor the victims.
Victor Laiviera if for you is a good reason what happened to my neighbours that the man left his wife with three young children because he fancied another lady and the other one that the woman got wet during the part time work and decided that this man is better than her husband than vote yes for thes two and other like them.
Myself for the children from the first marriage (inboth these cases I do not know about children in the second relationsip) and for the victims that have been changed I will vote No.
Mr Victor Laiviera
May 24th 2011, 13:42
Mr Muscat, in cases where "the man left his wife with three young children because he fancied another lady", you will find that is the the abandoned woman who will want to seek divorce; it will be the abandoned woman who has most to gain from divorce.
What woman would want to stay with a man like that, anyway?
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 24th 2011, 14:32
These things do not happen in Malta. They only happen in countries with divorce, i.e. all over the world. It is so refreshing to see that in Catholic Malta we have no broken down families, no children born out of wedlock, no co-habitation, no battered woman/man, no people who break the 9th commandment, etc. We are so perfect.
Charlie Borg
May 24th 2011, 07:17
I will, indeed, vote a thousand times YES next Saturday:
because I believe that divorce is the only answer to many a troubled marriage, to many a troubled married partner, as a means of rectifying mistakes that are made either through family, peer or other pressures;
because I want to stand up and protest at the blatant alliance between the PN and the Church, very obvious lately;
because I want the Catholic Church in Malta, for all that I love it and cherish it, to be 'put in its place', not in the sagristiji as some will claim that I want, but as getting its butt out of the civil leadership of the State;
because I want to strike a point against arrogant, aggressive and downright disgusting bishops who see their task as being one of purifying their dioceses rather than welcoming straying sheep back to their flocks;
because I want to protest at the way the LE Movement, together with friendly NGOs and religious societies, are conducting this 'campaign' which has become dirty and continues to be dirtier by the minute;
For all these reasons, and more besides, I will vote YES, next Saturday, and in the evening, I will go to Mass.
Jessica Debattista
May 24th 2011, 16:26
@ Charlie Borg: "I will, indeed, vote a thousand times YES next Saturday:”
“A thousand times”?
Well, that would certainly give a head start to the “Yes” campaign!
But let us not get carried away by personal grudges and think rationally since this is a huge step which we have to ponder very seriously before we make up our minds how to cast our vote.
I understand perfectly well the heartache of an unhappy marriage but legalizing divorce to right the situations of couples who desire to remarry after an unfortunate marriage could be jeapordizing a whole society.
I am amazed at how altruistic we have suddenly all become! We love our neighbour, who is in an unhappy marriage, to such an extent, that we would gladly give up our souls (literally speaking, for those who believe) to ensure their right to get married. But I don’t buy it! There must be other reasons! And of course we all know them!
There is a widespread antipathy towards the Church as an institution and this is clouding our better judgement. So at the expense of seeing the Church as a loser we would gladly sacrifice our society.
Society is a structure made up of families and social life tends to suffer greatly where family solidarity is in crisis because its members fail in their obligations. With divorce we will not be helping society, for families will break down at a faster rate and studies have shown that cohabitation will increase and more childen will be born out of wedlock.
So much for the “YES” campaign and its “Bastard” billboards!
What do neglected children from a first marriage make them? - Certainly "Unhappy".
Mr Saliba Francis
May 24th 2011, 21:25
"I will, indeed, vote a thousand times YES next Saturday:" (Charlie Borg)
I think there is some law against voting more than once - never mind, that is perfectly in line with the serial deceptions that has characterised the "yes" campaign.
Charlie Borg
May 26th 2011, 08:38
@ J Debattista: Personal grudges have nothing to do with my argument since I am very happily married. I am so happily married that I feel a lot for those who are not and I believe that only divorce is the solution for these people.
Another thing: I prefer to protect the individual than the State at large. I also doubt how much you 'understand perfectly' what people in unhappy marriages are going through - certainly you would not reason things out in that fashion.
I also find it absolutely shocking and disgusting that you believe that people will be losing their souls if they are in favour of divorce or they go through divorce. I am a believer as much as you are; priests are believers as much as you are, and we certainly do not adhere to your conviction. You appear to have become a judge; you appear to know how we shall be judged. How thwarted can you be?
It seems, Ms Debattista, that when we arrive at a certain age, we become more catholic than the pope himself. We seem to ignore our past, when we were younger and when 'family' did not have that 'ring' in it as it does today. Hmmm.
Of course there is 'widespread antipathy towards the Church as an institution'. How can there not be, with the way priests and religious are behaving? Take a cursory look at the way Churches are going to be open on Friday for prayer, regarding the referendum: did they do the same thing when scandals of abuse came to light? Hardly.
YES, voting YES on Saturday will see me saying NO to the Church in the way it is behaving and in the way it is treating Maltese citizens. And it's a believer who is writing this!
'Society is a structure made up of families' but we do not choose our families. Anyway, everyone is a member of a family even siblings living together, gays living together, separated persons living together, a mother with her daughter, a father with his sons ... all these are families in the eyes of God. Certainly they do not have to be sanctioned by the Church in order for them to exist, and thrive. Whether you or other reactionaries want to or not, such families will continue to exist.
With divorce, indeed, we will be helping society because we would be correcting what is in error. And when you have a couple who are married but whose love for each other has diminished, there is error and needs rectifying.
Let cohabitation increase if need be. I think that is healthy. Better than having married couples who are not happy together.
I never knew that you were one of those many who refer to blind 'studies' without referring to sources. Oh, well. What does one expect?
'Children born out of wedlock'. It seems that we don't want to rectify this, either. Common sense tells me that there would be many more children born out of wedlock if there is no divorce.
Children stand to gain, with divorce. Perhaps that is what teachers would have said, if they had to heed Mr Edwin Vassallo and voiced their feelings.
And who said anything about 'neglected' children? Again, teachers and support teachers can tell you very, very, very well how many 'neglected' children there are, within 'happy families', who arrive at their school-gates while their 'happily-married' parents are still in bed (perhaps separated beds?) or never turning up for parent appointments.
In conclusion, you seem to be living the cocoon you have made up for yourself. Which is far from reality.
Charlie Borg
May 26th 2011, 08:41
@ Francis Saliba: Nothing is more deceptive than the screaming mongerings of the NO campaign. These include the goings-on in our hospitals and old peoples' homes. Enough said. But then, how can one preach at people like you? We only hear what we want to hear - a' la maltaise!
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 23rd 2011, 23:28
"I will vote no as the question that we have to respond to and the draft which is being proposed are a hurried and amateurish attempt aimed at changing permanently the model of marriage that has underpinned our society for centuries. Marriage and the family deserve better." Does this mean that he would have voted Yes if the wording was different? Pull the other one.
Jessica Debattista
May 23rd 2011, 16:39
I do not know why we keep harping on domestic violence almost as if it is endemic of us Maltese - most marriages that break up do not display even a hint of domestic violence. Quite often it is just a falling out of love and a new interest in somebody else that propels us to move out.
Unfortunately the disposable mentality that has developed has paved the way to what we are experiencing at present. Lifelong commitment in marriage is not very attractive to a modern day hedonist philosophy. “Life is to be lived” “We only have one life” and “Nobody has a right to dictate how I should live my life”. How often have I heard these statements! Amazing the fortitude of previous generations!
We are so spoilt. We think the world owes us. What a bunch of egotists we are and we dare belittle the ones who still hold steadfast to the vow of lifelong commitment when their marriage falls short of being ideal.
We seem to think that the Church has imposed this yoke on us, when in reality it is a state that nature has designed for us humans to provide a stable environment for children who come into the world.
Civil marriage itself requires the vow of lifelong commitment for it is common sense that offspring has to be nurtured in a stable environment. But we find it very convenient to put the blame on the Church and many a Bible has been scoured for quotations to enforce our arguments. How fickle we are, to resort to the Bible to justify our weakness!
There are genuine cases of suffering in marriage but we are conveniently blowing the number out of proportion. We want to destroy a tradition out of spite, and we dare use the ones who are really suffering to support our claim. I wonder if the real victims relish to be put in the same basket as the ones who irresponsibly opt out!
We have lost a very important value – ORDER.
With divorce we will be creating further disorder but those who are campaigning for divorce refuse to see beyond their myopic vision, or maybe they do know the repercussions that such a change will set in motion, but ……
They want to project themselves as the champions of battered wives, cohabiting couples and bastard children. They have cruelly reinstated a stigma against “pogguti” and “bghula” through their full blown exposure on billboards, and to think that they dare disguise themselves as the ones who are fighting their cause. How convenient to play on our emotions!
And how gullible if we were to swallow that!
Charlie Borg
May 26th 2011, 08:44
There is so much that one can say about your missives - I could tear apart every single para. you wrote. However, allow me to avoid unnecessary hassle. Just one thing. 'We have lost a very important value - ORDER.' Oh, really? Have you any idea how much blood was shed, how many atrocities were committed on behalf of that one word????????? Do you know history well? Blood was also shed on behalf of ORDER on a certain Cross, on a certain hill, the Golgota. Have you any idea what the reason was behind Christ's crucifixtion?
Honestly, sometimes, I get sick reading such drivel.
Mr Victor Laiviera
May 23rd 2011, 16:15
Fr Borg writes, "• you don't need a reason to be divorced – just live with someone else or alone for four years and then just say that you don't want to go back to live with your partner;"
But that totally ignores the fact that there must have been SOME reasons for the 4years of separation!
Fr Borg must think that the readers of The Times are all idiots.
Mr Joe Borg
May 24th 2011, 14:29
99% meta zwieg jinkisser ghax tidhol terza persuna fin-nofs. U ma tarax ha joqghod jiprova jirranga mal-mara f'dawk l-erba snin jhekk ikun ga poggut mas-siehba tieghu.
Mr Victor Laiviera
May 24th 2011, 17:55
Eżatt, Sur Borg, Jekk ikun ili erba' snin "poġġut mas-sieħba tiegħy" dak altru milli hija raġuni biżżejjed biex il-mara titlob id-divorzju. U mela "bla raġuni"!
Mr Victor Laiviera
May 23rd 2011, 16:07
The four bullets listed by Fr Borg ARE ALL ALSO PRESENT in separation and annulment. Nothing will change with the introduction of divorces, except that things will happen in a more regulated and controlled way and there would be less scope for abuse.
Ramon Casha
May 23rd 2011, 14:15
Do you wish to prevent a person from leaving his/her spouse and starting anew when:
+ There are physical beatings involved, possibly even involving the children
+ There has been one or more threats to his/her life
+ Both of them agree that they should lead separate lives
+ The other spouse loathes him/her
+ The other spouse left the island 40 years ago and nobody even knows where he/she is
+ The other spouse has had a stream of affairs and has made it clear that these will continue, even bringing lovers to the couple's bedroom.
These too are "the real question".
To your first bit however I'd add a teensy bit at the end:
"when only one of the parties is in favour and want to impost (sic) it on the other party who is totally against, UNLIKE ANNULMENT which can be imposed against the will of BOTH PARTIES"
Mr Tonio Micallef
May 23rd 2011, 12:21
Fr. Borg, donnok is-Super One biss qed tara. Ghax ma tiftahx daqsxejn in-NET halli tkun taf min hu biased? U aghar min hekk, ghax ma tarax l-izbilanc li jqazzek fuq il-PBS, kull haga li jghidu l-IVA sandwiched bejn stejjer tal-LE! Dak zbilanc fuq l-istazzjoni Nazzjonali li huwa mhallas mill-poplu kollu. Mela nsejt li hemm il-provediment tal-Awtorita tax-Xandir li z-zewg stazzjonijiet tal-Partiti jibbilancjaw lil-xulxin. U x'tippretendi mill-istazzjon tal-Partit Labursita li ghandu 30 deputat minn 34 diga dikjarati favur id-divorzju? Tahseb li l-istazzjon tal-partit taghhom m'ghandux ikun jirrifletti dik il-maggoranza assoluta waqt li jibqa' jaghti spazju lill-opinoni l-ohra kif qed jaghmel tant tajjeb?
Michael Sciortino
May 23rd 2011, 15:21
Dear Ms. Galea,
'if and when their husbands will decide to pack up and leave home for a "second chance at love" with someone young enough to be his daughter or granddaughter.
Vote No if you want to but do not insult us with such an argument. First of all there is nothing stopping such men from leaving their wives for a younger woman. There is no need for divorce for that.
Secondly I confess I don't understand the psychology of women. If your husband doesn't want to stay with you because he is a feckless idiot, why would you want to keep him tied to your apron strings? Don't you have enough self pride to send such a cad packing?
Andre Azzopardi
May 24th 2011, 12:32
Bir-rispett kollu Sur Micallef, in-NET TV qed jimxi mal-linja li ha l-Partit Nazzjonalista kontra d-divorzju. Il-Kap tal-Partit Laburista qal li ser ihalli lil kulhadd jivvota skont il-kuxjenza tieghu minghajr ma ha pozizzjoni ufficcjlai ghax jitlef il-voti imma jekk tara u tisma' s-Super One hlief kontra l-Knisja u l-qassisin u programmi zbilancjati bhal ta' nhar il-Gimgha u s-Sibt li ghadda ma tarax. Iridu jergghu jqajmu kwistjonijiet ta' hamsin sena ilu biex ihammgu lill-Knisja.
Ms D Galea
May 23rd 2011, 11:08
No, I will not be voting for such a question, and any woman who wants to safeguard her rights such as a widow's pension , will be mad to vote YES .
The leader of the opposition and the IVA movement should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for trying to bully married Maltese women (who have devoted their whole lives for looking after children , husband and home) to vote YES next saturday, when such a vote will be against their own interests if and when their husbands will decide to pack up and leave home for a "second chance at love" with someone young enough to be his daughter or granddaughter.
Mr d. attard
May 23rd 2011, 11:00
1. only one of the parties is in favour and want to impost it on the other party who is totally against;
2. you don't need a reason to be divorced – just live with someone else or alone for four years and then just say that you don't want to go back to live with your partner;
This is the kind of insensitivity that those pushing the above mantra shower on the rest.
1. An airoplane has two wings. If one wing falls away the plane can not fly even if the other wing stays in place. Naturally. Two out of three divorces are initiated by women who feel trapped in their relationship. It is very often the guilty person who wants stay and who will have divorce imposed on him. He can not have the cake and eat it. So yes, The victim alone can initiate proceedings even if the guilty party wants to hold on to enjoy the best of both worlds.
2. Divorce in Malta will need one big reason for it to be granted. The marriage would have to be a failed one. Only those who have experienced a failed marriage can know of the pain and trauma that this failure entails. Subsequently, parties in a failed marriage will then enter into a seperation agreement where torts are established and maintainance established. It is only then that any of the parties can go for divorce. The divorce will not be granted if during the previous years maintenance payments have not been paid. A Divoce legislation that is ultra responsible and an option that the no corner wants to prohibit those who are suffering in working cohabitations.
The usual attack on one of the political parties is amazing in the circumstances. To try to take political milage even when the climate is so sensitive shows blogger's make-up for what it is. Perhaps he would also want to see how the issue was managed on some radio stations.
The vote on Saturday is to me an opportunity to have a reformed church in Malta that focuses on love of neighbour away from a desire to retain temporal power. It will be up to the church to carry out a clean-up that it desperately needs. this referendum may have thankfully brought out in the open the dynamics of such a need. The church should remain relevant in our society. Its choices from now on will be crucial to determine her future relevance.
Joseph Laus
May 23rd 2011, 10:54
Dun Borg,
Jek ma tindahalx fil politika ma tahsibx li taghmel aktar gid jkemm ghalik u wisq aktar ghall Religion li inhaddnu,??
Mohhok biss biex tattakka li PL..Posibli Il Pn huwa daqshekk perfett ghalik......Taht il PN ma tarax lil Malta Taghna qiesa Beitut?
Iva jien Ha nivvota IVA ghax Indahlet wisq il Knisja.. Int ghamel li trid.....Ghax int tista Tiddevorzja min mal knisja u tohrog min qassies kif ghamlu hafna
Mr David Buttigieg
May 23rd 2011, 00:13
"Are you in favour of divorce when:
• only one of the parties is in favour and want to impost it on the other party who is totally against;
Yes ofcourse!
• you don't need a reason to be divorced – just live with someone else or alone for four years and then just say that you don't want to go back to live with your partner;
Definitely, it's no ones business, especially not a priest's!
• maintenance is granted but its payment is not in any way guaranteed;
Nothing in life is guaranteed - what's the other solution, force them to stay together?
• an effort to respect children's rights is made but no guarantee can be given expect that children will suffer in the process?"
Same as happens now you mean? Ofcourse children suffer when their parents SEPARATE in any way!
I thought you were a bit more intelligent than that Fr Borg!
Michael Sciortino
May 22nd 2011, 21:02
The Church states that those who will vote yes should not receive the Holy Eucharist. Yet Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe the serial abuser of human rights causing countless deaths and harm to his fellow countrymen is welcomed by Cardinals and is given the Eucharist in St. Peter's Square at the beatification of John Paul II.
Mr Peter Korsten
May 22nd 2011, 20:19
"only one of the parties is in favour and want to impost it on the other party who is totally against"
Which is what usually happens when there's a conflict between two parties. The same could be said of when someone quits his job, or gets sacked.
"you don't need a reason to be divorced – just live with someone else or alone for four years and then just say that you don't want to go back to live with your partner"
That's so misleading. Like someone decides "I don't want to be married any longer" and just calls it quits. How often have you experienced that there was absolutely no reason for a legal separation?
"maintenance is granted but its payment is not in any way guaranteed"
Which is the current situation with legal separation.
"an effort to respect children's rights is made but no guarantee can be given expect that children will suffer in the process"
Which is the current situation with legal separation.
So, what's your point? In what way will the introduction of divorce, according to the points you mention above, make things worse? I'm all for a debate based on good arguments, but if this is the best that the 'no' camp can come up with, they really ought to look critically at their own arguments, and ponder whether it's a purely religious argument that is underpinning their opinion on the dissolution of a civil marriage.
But use those arguments then, like "I believe it would be the wrong thing because it's against the will of God", or something of the sort, not with the sort of thing that can be easily refuted.
Michael Sciortino
May 22nd 2011, 19:32
'An illustration of my point is provided by the so-called Pauline Privilege. According to the interpretation of St Paul’s text by the Canon lawyers, if a spouse converts to Christianity but the other spouse does not and refuses to live peacefully with the convert, then the convert can ‘DIVORCE’ the other in the current sense of the word. In this case it is quite clear that the bond of communion in the fellowship of the Church is deemed stronger than that of marriage.'
These are the words of Fr Peter Serracino Inglott in his piece New Wine for a New Age.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110522/opinion/New-wine-for-a-new-age.366588
There it is the 'd' word. The Church does grant DIVORCE.
The question is does the Church guarantee maintenance? Does it require four years of separation? Does the Church consider the children? Aren't children harmed by this Church DIVORCE?
Mr Albert Farrugia
May 22nd 2011, 18:28
The biggest irony this morning (Sunday) was that the leader of the party which "took no position", Joseph Muscat, in his speech spoke clearly in favour of the Yes vote, while the leader of the Party which supposedly is in favour of the No side, Lawrence Gonzi, simply referred to "the importance of protecting the family". I think both political parties, each in their own way, have acted in the most irrational and cowardly of manners in this affair. The only organisation which took the stand it always had, and stuck to it, is the Church. The political parties have proved to be cowards, when the time came to stand up and be counted. On a matter which has important consequences to society, the political parties ran away and left us citizens fighting it out between ourselves. They behaved like an Army which, when the enemy attacks, runs away and lets the citizens try to defend themselves. I am not saying that those who led the respective movements are not competent persons. But the total lack of politicians, whose presence is normally so overbearing, was bizarre and and indication that something is not so right in the state of Malta.
Ms G Schembri
May 22nd 2011, 23:55
Do you consider the Maltese nation so immature that they cannot decide for themselves if they want divorce legislation or not? I was very glad that the political leaders refrained from imposing their point of veiw on their followers. For ones in Malta we are letting people use their brains instead of treating them like a bunch of idiots. On the other hand the Church (especially the bishop of Gozo) did not only take a stand but practically told us that if we don't vote NO we will burn in hell. They didn't even let their FIDILI decide wether to cast their vote or not.
Victor Rodenas
May 22nd 2011, 16:14
In Malta Priests do not marry and raise a family so they do not have first hand experience,their knowledge on the subject is what people tell them or what they read in books.They never were in a situation of suffering in such a case where the `wife` is beaten every day by her husband,or how the `husband` feels when a cheating wife makes his life Hell on Earth.Do we really know how cloistered nuns live,if we never set foot in a convent.To really know what maritial suffering is one has to wear the shoes of those who are suffering and offer them remedies so that instead of living in Hell perhaps they will taste Purgatory or even better take a sniff of Haven.
Jessica Debattista
May 22nd 2011, 22:34
Mr Rodenas, one does not have to be married and raise a family to be aware of the suffering one can be unfortunate enough to live in a marriage!
I do not know why we keep harping on domestic violence almost as if it is endemic of us Maltese - most marriages that break up do not display even a hint of domestic violence. Quite often it is just a falling out of love and a new interest in somebody else that propels us to move out. Now if we want to be a spineless society, then maybe we cannot do without divorce.
Unfortunately the disposable mentality that has developed has paved the way to what we are experiencing at present. Lifelong commitment in marriage is not very attractive to a modern day hedonist philosophy. “Life is to be lived” “We only have one life” and “Nobody has a right to dictate how I should live my life”. How often have I heard these statements! Amazing the fortitude of previous generations!
We are so spoilt. We think the world owes us. What a bunch of egotists we are and we dare belittle the ones who still hold steadfast to the vow of lifelong commitment when their marriage falls short of being ideal.
We seem to think that the Church has imposed this yoke on us, when in reality it is a state that nature has designed for us humans to provide a stable environment for children who come into the world.
Civil marriage itself requires the vow of lifelong commitment for it is common sense that offspring has to be nurtured in a stable environment. But we find it very convenient to put the blame on the Church and many a Bible has been scoured for quotations to enforce our arguments. How fickle we are to resort to the Bible to justify our weakness!
There are genuine cases of suffering in marriage but we are conveniently blowing the number out of proportion. We want to destroy a tradition out of spite, and we dare use the ones who are really suffering to support our claim. I wonder if the real victims relish to be put in the same basket as the ones who irresponsibly opt out!
We have lost a very important value – ORDER.
With divorce we will be creating further disorder, but I suppose those “saintly” people who have mushroomed overnight and who are championing so vociferously the battered wife or the bastard child have found a good card to deal against the “NO” voters and they do not worry unduly whether society decays or not.
Pity!
Mr Joe Micallef
May 23rd 2011, 12:07
Hi Victor, you are certainly free to vote YES but it seems to me that you will be doing so for all the wrong reasons. Am I surprised? No really reading your earlier post it seems that you are not all that informed and wouldn't care to be.
Adrian Buckle
May 22nd 2011, 15:47
I haven't read your article, Father, as I can imagine what it says. But just to answer your question, yes, I will be voting for that question on Saturday and I will be voting 'YES'.
Jessica Debattista
May 22nd 2011, 19:13
@ Adrian Buckle: “I haven't read your article, Father, as I can imagine what it says. But just to answer your question, yes, I will be voting for that question on Saturday and I will be voting 'YES'.”
Mr Buckle, maybe you don’t have to read Fr. Joes’s article because, as you say, you “can imagine what it says” but can you imagine how divorce could change Maltese society thanks to your “Yes” vote?
I hope you have given the issue your due consideration for your “YES” vote does not concern just you personally, but the whole fabric of Maltese society.
I hope that you are farsighted enough to visualize the long term impact of divorce on Maltese families and not the instant gratification of a minority.
There are many couples whose marriage one cannot describe as ideal, but they are responsible and farsighted enough to realize that the stability of society is commensurate with the stability of the family nuclei that compose it.
These last will be voting "NO"
Victor Rodenas
May 23rd 2011, 19:09
Hi Joe I am not naive,have you ever been there? I have, so I can speak with experience,...I hope that you have`nt been there too,if you have`nt,I know and you do`nt.
Please choose the reason of your report below: