Alexiei Dingli
For the good of the children
On Saturday, I intend to vote no. I can come up with various reasons for my decision. I won’t go into all of them but I’ll just mention a few.
When I married my wife, I gave her a lifetime commitment. I swore to her that I’d be there for her in good and in bad times, until death do us part. So I really can’t understand how someone can tell me that the contract I signed with her ceases to be a lifetime commitment and becomes a matter of convenience. Rather than until death do us part, until one of us gets fed up! Mind you, I didn’t just give this commitment to my wife, I also gave it to our kids and I intend to keep that commitment.
But, really and truly, I will vote no for my kids. I cannot really understand how we are all discussing such an important issue as divorce and forgetting the kids factor. When we procreated our two kids, we did so with the consciousness and commitment that we will be there for them whatever happens. Our life revolves around them and their well-being. The divorce as it is being proposed is just an issue of convenience for the adults. There is no safeguard for the children and if there are no safeguards for the children there will be no safeguard for our society.
Please don’t mention the fable of the guaranteed maintenance money. Deborah Schembri admitted on TV they can only guarantee the right to get maintenance money and that nobody can guarantee that it’s actually paid. But, apart from this argument, even if we assume for a second that the divorced person does pay the maintenance money, when it comes to kids, it’s not really a financial issue. They’re not after the money; they want the time and love of the parent, something the parent cannot give because s/he is busy building another family possibly with a new set of kids. So the kids who were the fruit of the first family and who have no fault in the divorce issue of their parents suddenly get relegated to a second-class family status.
Divorce is definitely not a solution for the kids. It will just add to the confusion by giving them several mums and dads instead of just one pair. Is this right? Will it give the kids the stability they need? I don’t think so and this is why I will vote fervently no.
The yes campaign is saying this is a responsible kind of divorce. I’m sorry but it seems that my definition of responsibility is very different from theirs. Does responsibility mean I file a divorce when I get fed up of my better half? What if my better half gets sick, why should I sacrifice my life? What about the “for good or for bad” part of my contract? What about the ping-pong game with the kids?
Is this responsibility? I don’t think so.
Let me tell you what a responsible divorce is. This is the story of what happened to a friend of mine. When he became 21, his parents called him over and they told him they would divorce. They told him their relationship has been going astray for at least a decade but they wanted to shield him and his older sister from the sufferings of a divorce. This is responsible divorce because the interest of the children came before the personal good of the parents. This is not what is being proposed in Malta, so I’m very much convinced of my no vote.
Finally, I cannot but deplore how this whole campaign got orchestrated. How we were thrown into this whirlwind without a real information campaign. On the other hand, I believe that we, as a society (including me, you, the state and the Church), should utter a big mea culpa. A lot of couples have passed through the turmoil of separation and we’ve just been watching these families collapse without raising a single figure to ease their pains.
If the no vote wins on Saturday, I hope we won’t just sit on our backside waiting for someone else to propose another divorce law in the future. We have to devise a clear strategy on how we can protect the family. And, yes, we have to provide options for those families that fail. Only if we do so can we ensure that our families are built on solid rocks and not on sand.
Dr Dingli is mayor of Valletta and a lecturer at the University of Malta.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Emanuel Debono
May 26th 2011, 04:08
@ Alexiei Dingli:
I thought Ostriches belonged to Africa not Valletta.
So you think I should have stayed with my wife, even after I found out and she admitted, that she had affairs.
I stayed in the marriage, till my kids got married and then got divorced.
Talk to people like me who have been two timed and see what they say.
I hope you have a long and happy marriage Mr. Dingli.
Sydney
Mr Edward Mallia
May 25th 2011, 22:53
With the huge non-sequitur of the second sentence in the second paragraph, one is tempted to ask what subject Alexei Dingli lectures in at University.
Mr edwin formosa
May 25th 2011, 22:38
Mr Dingli, have you ever visited a battered women's shelter? Jekk le, mur arhom ghax bid-divorzju ma jkollnix bzonnhom aktar.
Have you ever known a wife whose husband has had several affairs? Bid-divorzju dawn isiru legali.
Have you ever known a husband whose wife has had several affairs? B'rabta coff issiru many affairs
Have you ever seen or known any children who were physically abused by one or the other parent? That's because none of the parents were second hand spouses
Have you ever seen a wife whose husband has completely abondened her? U dan bla divorzju . Ahseb w'ara b'divorzju ta bla raguni ta htija.
Gerry Cowie
May 25th 2011, 20:56
How sad that when somebody writes from the heart about what they personally believe, the secularist, humanist, anti-Catholic element comes out from under its stone to knock them!
No wonder the pro movement has become the best tool the anti movement ever had! Well done to them!
Arthur Soler
May 25th 2011, 18:41
@ Alexiei Dingli:
How incredibly naive can one be?
Mr Dingli, have you ever visited a battered women's shelter?
Have you ever known a wife whose husband has had several affairs?
Have you ever known a husband whose wife has had several affairs?
Have you ever seen or known any children who were physically abused by one or the other parent?
Have you ever seen a wife whose husband has completely abondened her?
I can keep citing several similar examples, but I am sure that, being a mayor, you get the drift.
Now, if the answer to any of the above questions is "NO"...then I would suggest you look around you with your eyes wide open, to see the unfortunate and horrible reality that many married people and/or their kids have to endure, day in and day out.
On the other hand, if you have witnessed any of the above, how then can you be so heartless by denying divorce to couples in a mariiage which is obviously broken beyond repair?
As for this "Marriage Contract" that everyone keeps bringing up, let's understand that ANY contract, legal or otherwise, can be rendered null and void if the conditions that govern it have been seriously compromised by either party.
Knock knock...wake up ...we are living in the 21st century not in the Middle Ages.
Ms Lynn Zahra
May 25th 2011, 17:41
It's a good thing that the Valletta residents aren't voting for their local council members then Alexei, because making your views against divorce known so publicly here may have easily worked against you, seeing that Valletta is home to a substantial number of separated people who, I am told need divorce badly.
Peter Xuereb
May 25th 2011, 23:50
Simply shows how in touch he is with the city he is mayor of.
Also his comparison of marriage as a contract shows his lack of understanding of what marriage is, if not insecurity.
Charles Sammut
May 25th 2011, 15:54
Hi Dr.D it is obvious that you and your wife have a good,happy and working marriage and I am certain that should D.I.V.O.R.C.E. become a reality on this island of ours, you and your lucky spouse will not be rushing off to the nearest Divorce office and file for Divorce, or Seperation ( which one can do now) or for Annullment ( which one can do now).
However I feel that you and ALL the other goodie,goodie two shoes are being rather selfish regarding the intro. of D.I.V.O.R.C.E...Should ( the Good Lord forbid) you start injecting heroin or abuse of alcohol and beat up your wife or your kids ..I wonder if your good wife would be happy to D.I.V.O.R.C.E. you.
Likewise,should( the Good Lord forbid ) your good wife have a few affairs and neglects her marital duties towards you and your children, I also wonder whether you would take note of the "or for worse" in your marriage vows and not rush to file for D.I.V.O.R.C.E. !
So, please Dr.D stop being selfish and detach yourself from YOUR happy lifestyle and empathise with other married people who like you took their vows for "better or for worse", but were not as fortuante as yourself or your lucky spouse. They are instead experiencing the "for worse" situation and their offspring are going through hell living a miserable life with their parents constantly at each other's throat!
So, I beg you and other happily married lucky people like you ....stop being so self righteous and so selfish and Vote YES....for the less fortuante people than you!!
By the way, I was very happily married but unfortunately my wife Marja passed away a few years ago at a young age.
I will vote YES... not for me but for the people going through a hell of a marriage.
...and the beat goes on..and the beat goes on.....
Ramon Casha
May 25th 2011, 14:53
"Let me tell you what a responsible divorce is. This is the story of what happened to a friend of mine. When he became 21, his parents called him over and they told him they would divorce."
Yes, and you are telling them THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
"This is not what is being proposed in Malta, so I’m very much convinced of my no vote."
Yes, this is exactly what is being proposed in Malta.
Can we legislate to force parents to place the needs of their children first? No. What we can do is create a law that, on its part, does all that is possible to protect the children and encourages parents not to drag their children through the pain of a litigious divorce.
"If the no vote wins on Saturday, I hope we won’t just sit on our backside waiting for someone else to propose another divorce law in the future."
Whether you sit on your backside or not, another divorce law will be proposed and divorce WILL be introduced eventually. Everyone agrees on this - including the church/PN team. In short, your choice is: either introduce divorce with the conditions that this referendum contains, or... divorce will be introduced with unknown conditions at a later date.
Mr d. attard
May 25th 2011, 13:37
The marriage of a friend of mine failed 20 plus years ago and had no children...got seperated and three years later came together with a lovely unmarried lady and have been together for the best part of 17 years, a union that brought to life three wonderful children...I fail to understand why the Dr wants to refuse this family to join their union in marriage because, inter alia, the Dr gave his wife a commitment to love her forever...the mind boggels...
Mr James Grech
May 25th 2011, 13:01
Dr Dingli, for an analytic person with a very high degree of eduction and experience, you put up quite a puerile argument to sustain your reasoning. Off course that when someone marries, they enter a commitment. However this issue is about what to do when that commitment fails for some reason. This is the reality, and no matter how to try to emphasise that it should be till death do us part, in some cases it is not like that. So from responsible persons like yourself, one would pretend better.
It seems that what you wanted to say was that, since you are pro-PN and pro-Church, then you will not allow ppl that have marital problems beyond repair to re-marry.
Bud Moureaux - Flanders (BE) & Xemxija, SPB (MT)
May 25th 2011, 12:40
For over 2 years, I have been closely following the ongoing divorce debate in Malta in all possible media and through contacts with Maltese friends and relatives.
Divorce in most cases is not at all an easy way out but a realistic way to end the suffering of a marriage broken down beyond repair, both for the spouses and their children.
Therefore the only sensible and courageous choice for Malta to make is:
(1) To introduce a well balanced civil divorce legislation, respecting the rights and interests of all parties concerned, the spouses and their children.
... and at a later stage ...
(2) To separate State and Church, i.e. abolish Art.2 of the Constitution as soon as possible.
This is already 50 years overdue. An untenable situation will then finally cease to persist. In this way, Malta will become a real secular society where Maltese effectively can decide for themselves without fearing to be bullied by Mgr. XYZ or Mr JZ and consorts. The Church in Malta should restrict its role to its teaching and advice to its own flock, i.e. Catholics, but refrain by all means from scaremongering and dictating what others should or shouldn't do.
I would like to share with all of you and with the anti-divorce movement in particular, the following quote from the renowned British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic.
"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."
And finally I would add that, if the spouses in a marriage are convinced that he or she is no more loved by the other partner, life's greatest happiness itself will have vanished. Without TLC - Tenderness, Love and Care - a marriage will gradually fade, become non-existent and die in silence.
So, Saturday 28th, the only right choice is IVA - YES, for the benefit of those who have been less fortunate in their life than others! For them AND for Malta your YES vote will make the difference. YES, you can!
Mr Kevin Cassar
May 25th 2011, 10:10
While you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, you fail to comprehend (or simply pretend to ignore) that by voting NO, you are not simply saying no to divorce because you are against it, but you are also stating that you feel that no-one should be entitled to have a different opinion. Thus despite your nice words about a stable and committed relationship, your stability depends on the prohibition by law rather than the love, respect and fidelity of the couple. Stop using absurd non arguments about children. The commitment towards children does not depend on marriage, it is also true for non married couples. Sorry Mr. Dingli but I do not appreciate you telling me that you know better than all of us and so will deny us the choice. My choice to vote YES, will not remove your right to not divorce if that is how you feel. Perhaps you are worried that your marriage is not as stable as you think and that once the option is available, your partner might look elsewhere. Hardly inspiring confidence.
Mr David Buttigieg
May 25th 2011, 09:50
Honestly, what ridiculous argument!
Maintenance cannot be guaranteed - I agree there, no more than income can be guaranteed today!
"They’re not after the money; they want the time and love of the parent, something the parent cannot give because s/he is busy building another family possibly with a new set of kids. "
My goodness what a tired stupid argument. What would your solution be Mr Mayor of Valletta? Make adultery against the law? Force him\her to stay with the spouse at gun-point?
Ofcourse children will suffer, but no more than happens today with separations! Unless you make it illegal to shack up with another person and have kids with them (and good luck at the ECHR) this is a non-argument!
"A lot of couples have passed through the turmoil of separation and we’ve just been watching these families collapse without raising a single figure to ease their pains."
They don't want YOU, Mr Mayor, or the Church to ease their pains - they want the chance to do it for themselves !
Mr Tony Camilleri
May 25th 2011, 09:44
Alexei Dingli, how about showing some responsibility by voting NO for the project to turn the house of a famous person in Valletta into a private hotel and also vote NO to privatizing the Valletta water polo pitch?
Mr John Agius
May 25th 2011, 09:17
"Great-Minds-Discuss-Ideas; Average-Minds-Discuss-Events; Small-Minds-Discuss People." In a similar vein “Discussion is an expression of the exchange of knowledge while argument is purely an exchange of ignorance.”
Focussing on the current debate on divorce, on Saturday I will be voting YES (IVA) because I want to allow society to be free to debate ideas and to decide its own destiny away from any form of IMPOSITION. I trust future generations to be free to decide their own destiny.
As a staunch advocate of DEMOCRACY and DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM I will be voting IVA because I strongly OPPOSE all forms of DICTATORSHIP and I don’t want to DICTATE onto others what to do and how to live their life. I feel that all forms of IMPOSITION are undemocratic, shameful and in the case of the divorce issue “a reflection of MISTRUST in future generations”.
In other words a YES vote guarantees the right to EVERYONE (including minorities) to be free to decide their future. A YES VOTE will allow “Great Minds” to continue to discuss and decide “Ideas” in a truly democratic and free society away from IMPOSITION.
Ms Christine Galea
May 25th 2011, 13:37
Mr Agius, I agree with you that all forms of IMPOSITION are undemocratic. I am voting NO because the introduction of divorce legislation (unilateral - as stipulated in the Draft Bill) means that a divorce can be IMPOSED upon a person who does not wish to be divorced. How does a YES vote guarantee MY right to be free to decide my future where this matter is concerned?
Mr Colin Formosa
May 25th 2011, 18:22
so Ms Galea, you would rather live with someone wishing to divorce you rather than granting him that possibility. That makes you either terribly insecure, delusional or just plain spiteful.
Mr John Agius
May 25th 2011, 23:13
Ms Galea thank-you for raising a good-point and for giving me the opportunity to provide my view on such an important-issue.
I believe we and-many-others agree that MARRIAGE is “the-social-institution-under-which-a-man-and-woman-establish-their-decision-to-live-as-husband-and-wife-by-legal-commitments, religious-ceremonies, etc.” (Dictionary.com) I will not enter into the definition-of-the-meaning-of “husband” and/or “wife”. Space does not allow. Moreover, since the referendum question affects “civil-marriage” I will not touch on the “religious-issues-of-marriage” simply because it is not an issue affected by the referendum-question. Christian-marriage-will-continue to-be a life-time-commitment.
Divorce, according-to-the-referendum-question is, “a judicial declaration dissolving a marriage in-whole or in-part, especially one that releases the-husband-and-wife from matrimonial obligations, provided the rights of children are protected; provided-also the spouses provide evidence that they have been living apart for a minimum of four-years and that all-attempts-at-reconciliation-have-failed.”
In answer to your question, once the “social institution of marriage” fails, then marriage-no-longer-exist. The fact that one of the spouses pretends otherwise is nothing but an illusion. Since life, hence marriage, are not an illusions, Divorce provides for life to proceed based on reality. ILLUSIONS exist only in the mind and therefore cannot be imposed but the sufferings of a marriage break-down are very-real and democratic-governments are obliged to provide a way-forward through Divorce-legislation. Thank-you.
Peter Xuereb
May 26th 2011, 00:10
Ms Galea, I am afraid that you didn't even understand a thing of what Mr Aguis said. He is clearly against the imposition of laws by the state upon the individual.
What you are mentioning there is the will of an individual to impose his rights just because you don't like it. Because I'm sorry, but if you get to a state of affairs where your "loved one" would decide that he would divorce you overnight, it really shows two prominent qualities that you posses: your lack of wisdom at marrying someone who does not truly love you and a questionable sense of reality at thinking a relationship with such a person is sustainable.
Although of course the reason the majority would be genuinely against divorce would be because of their own infidelity. After all as they say: the more the merrier and it would be a shame if one took steps towards ending a relationship going "so well".
But let us assume that that is not the case. Even so, your overall attitude is egoistic. You only case about "YOUR" rights, but not of your partner. If your partner thinks that your marriage is beyond repair, it would be only just if steps were taken to take a better turn of life. By denying your partner his ability to make choices, you deny his freedoms. Is that "democratic"?
So maybe those who are voting no need to look upon problems in their marriages that they are oblivious of. As any genuine couple with a genuine sense of responsibility would not require the law to safeguard their marriage. That is a childish attitude as only children rely on the regulations set by their superiors to limit their own behaviour. A true couple instead would consider the rest of society and indeed it is at such a viewpoint that a vote needs to be made.