Christian Peregin
Divorce for dummies (FAQs)
After weeks of aggressive campaigning, selective quotes from studies and sweeping statements (but no factual information campaign), a large portion of the voting public are still undecided about how to cast their vote in Saturday ’s divorce referendum. Christian Peregin attempts to answer 21 frequently asked questions.
1. What is the referendum question?
“Do you agree with the introduction of the choice of divorce in the case of a married couple who has been separated or has been living apart for at least four (4) years and where there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation between the spouses, whilst at the same time ensuring that adequate maintenance is guaranteed and the welfare of the children is safeguarded? Yes or No.”
2. Is the referendum tied to the divorce Bill?
Proposed by the Labour Party, the referendum question is based on the key points of the draft divorce Bill co-presented by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo. If the public says yes, the Bill is expected to be discussed in Parliament where certain details could be amended. Although the referendum is consultative (not legally binding), a yes vote would put political and moral pressure on MPs to abide by the referendum question’s parameters and to approve the presented Bill.
3. What is “no-fault divorce”?
No-fault divorce allows the dissolution of marriage without the need for the spouses to accuse each other of specific faults (such as infidelity or abandonment). These issues are tackled at separation stage, where the party at fault, as a consequence, forfeits the rights of maintenance and succession. Maltese law today allows for no-fault separations, which allows separation on grounds that the marriage has broken down irrevocably. Through no-fault, the person who committed a fault can still obtain a divorce but the element of conflict is done away with.
4. Must you be legally separated before getting a divorce?
According to the referendum question, a couple has to be legally separated or living apart for at least four years to obtain a divorce. If the legal separation already took place, and issues like maintenance are already settled, divorce can be obtained through a court petition which declares the marriage dissolved. But the Bill says that if a couple has not been legally separated, they must go through simultaneous separation and divorce proceedings. Therefore, a separation settlement is required before a divorce can be granted. The four-year period begins when people start living apart, unless they get legally separated beforehand.
5. Is maintenance guaranteed?
The referendum question says adequate maintenance must be guaranteed. In reality, it is the right to maintenance that is guaranteed. This means that, after the marriage is dissolved, the obligations from the separation agreement must continue. Not everyone who gets separated or divorced is owed maintenance, and those who are owed maintenance do not receive it forever. If a person who receives maintenance gets remarried, they will lose that right. If a person who gives maintenance gets remarried, they will have to continue paying. The more people this person must maintain, the more likely it becomes that each person’s share decreases. Today, the right to maintenance could be lost if the spouse receiving the money is caught breaking his or her vows.
6. Can divorce be imposed on someone who does not want it?
Yes. Just like in separation and annulment, a spouse’s consent is not required for divorce. As long as the couple has been living apart or legally separated for four years or more, a person may unilaterally decide to divorce his/her spouse.
7. Can you divorce more than once?
Yes. There is no limit as to how many times you can divorce and remarry – as can happen in annulment. You can also remarry any of your former spouses after divorcing them. In practice, it is uncommon for people to marry more than twice unless they are particularly wealthy and can afford to pay necessary maintenance.
8. What benefits do people gain from marriage?
Besides an issue of love and commitment, marriage gives people rights and obligations. Since it is in the state’s interest to promote marriage, there are a number of benefits available to married couples and not to cohabiting ones. This includes the right to pay taxes as a couple and the right to make a common will. The problem with cohabitation is that the couple owes nothing to each other if the relationship breaks down. This causes problems when one of the partners is dependent on the other.
9. Is divorce a fundamental human right?
No. In 1986, a separated Irish man argued that the lack of divorce breached his basic fundamental right to respect for family life but the European Court of Human Rights rejected this claim. The ruling has never been challenged since, so until today divorce is not a human right. However, almost every country in the world views divorce as a civil right.
10. Which other countries do not permit divorce?
Malta is the only EU country that does not allow divorce. The Philippines also does not permit divorce but, like Malta, it is discussing its introduction. The last country to introduce divorce was Chile in 2004. Last year, New York became the last US state to move from a fault-based divorce to a no-fault divorce.
A Christian’s perspective
11. Is voting for divorce legislation a sin?
Not necessarily. Although members of the Church have given different opinions, seven theologians answered this question last October in a paper that was endorsed by the Archbishop. They said Catholics must vote with a formed and informed conscience. Those who only follow their thoughts or personal interests are not doing their Catholic duty and “may possibly be sinning”. But those who have a formed and informed conscience and still do not see why they should vote against (or decide to choose the lesser of two evils), have a duty to follow their consciences.
12. Does divorce affect Church marriages?
Being married in church does not prevent you from being able to obtain a divorce. However, divorce only dissolves the civil part of a marriage. The sacramental part is indissoluble as it is deemed to be a contract between the couple and God. In fact, people who get divorced cannot remarry in the Church unless they also get a Church annulment.
13. Does this change the definition of marriage?
Marriage is not defined in Malta’s Civil Code, so legally there is no change in definition. However, since civil marriage was introduced after Church marriage, the Maltese still tend to define marriage in the Catholic terms, where indissolubility is a main factor. Therefore, the introduction of divorce would bring about a distinction between civil and Church marriages.
If not divorce… what else?
14. Is cohabitation an alternative to divorce?
Today, there are no cohabitation laws protecting vulnerable people living with someone outside marriage. A draft cohabitation law has been drawn up but the government has decided against publishing it before the referendum. This law is likely to protect siblings and heterosexual and homosexual couples living together. But it is unclear whether the law would protect a relationship where one of the partners is still legally married to someone else.
15. Can’t people use civil annulment instead of divorce?
No. To obtain an annulment the marriage must be invalid at the start of the marriage (such as if one of the spouses was forced into marriage, or hid a mental illness from a spouse, did not intend to remain faithful or have children). Very often proof of this defect of consent emerges once the couple starts living together. But annulment cannot be used when problems emerge during the marriage, such as in the cases of infidelity, abandonment and domestic violence, unless these constitute a sign that the person was unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
16. Is it true that Maltese people can obtain a divorce from abroad?
Yes. Divorces obtained abroad are recognised by the Maltese state. But to obtain a divorce from abroad, one of the parties must be recognised as a citizen or resident of another country. Foreigners married to Maltese people can get a divorce with relative ease. Maltese people married to foreigners can also obtain divorce with relative ease. Maltese couples can do the same by becoming residents of other countries, which is a complex and sometimes costly matter.
What about the children?
17. Does divorce affect children?
It is commonly accepted that marital breakdown affects children emotionally and psychologically, particularly if the separation is acrimonious and if they are involved in court proceedings. The No lobby claims that things would become worse because the children of the first marriage would be introduced to new spouses and, possibly, new children. However, the Yes lobby counter-argues that this is already the case because one cannot stop a spouse from cohabiting and having children with someone else after separation.
18. Are children born out of wedlock discriminated against?
Legally, they are considered equal to children born in wedlock. But some legal discrimin-ation still remains. Today, if a father dies without a will, the children he had within wedlock are owed a larger share than those born from another non-marital relationship. Children born out of wedlock also still seem to suffer considerably from social stigma.
After divorce…
19. Does the introduction of divorce increase marital breakdown?
There is no evidence of this. In Ireland, the marital breakdown rate actually decreased in the decade after divorce was introduced but the No lobby insists this is because there were fewer marriages. However, some studies claim that the rate of divorce in many countries was accelerated throughout the last century because divorce laws became more lenient and divorce became easier to obtain, such as through the increased acceptance of no-fault divorce. The Yes lobby has disagreed with this interpretation.
20. Does divorce stop cohabitation or increase it?
Cohabitation is becoming increasingly popular around the world, including in Malta. In Ireland, cohabitation continued to increase after the introduction of divorce but there is no proof of divorce having any connection. Divorce will allow couples who today are forced to cohabit the chance to remarry, though not everyone will make use of this option.
21. Does divorce lead to abortion?
Since divorce does not impact the right to life, it is completely distinct from abortion. Malta is the only EU state to have an absolute ban on abortion, like Chile, which introduced divorce in 2004 and has since retained its absolute ban. On the other hand, Italy introduced abortion only four years after introducing divorce in the 1970s. Since introducing divorce, Ireland has held on to its very restrictive laws, permitting abortion only when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life.
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.
B Gatt
May 26th 2011, 21:20
gatt b
finally, a very good article - well done!
Gerry Cowie
May 26th 2011, 20:26
We'll see in a couple of days whether the continuous anti-church diatribe of the pro movement encourages people to vote yes or in fact strengthens their resolve to vote no!
Any movement which ignores the undeniable Catholicity of the Maltese voting public and keeps attacking the fervour of the people and their beliefs is simply going to drive them to vote against.
Look at the sarcastic comments below and ask yourself if they are in any way, shape or form constructive or whether those who make them have their own agenda. Secularism is a great danger and should be fought at all costs! God will not be expunged from His own creation.
Whatever the result, all shall have to live with it.
The pro movement has made itself hook, line and sinker the best and most effective weapon the anti movement ever had! Well done!
Mr M Borg
May 26th 2011, 19:51
The best answer was not given.
Divorce is a sin against God.
Anyone who remarries after divorce will be living in perpetual adultery and living in sin and as such unable to receive Holy Communion.
Anything the IVA say will not change God's teaching. Divorce will always remain a sin.
As Fr. Rene Camilleri said " Catholics did not really have the option of a free vote in the divorce referendum. "
Catholics must vote NO
Mr Matthew Grima
May 26th 2011, 21:06
In a logical argument, you bring god in, where are all the statistics you claim to have? As you rightly said somewhere, that we are free to choose whatever religion we want to, and a lot choose others, or none of them. So the sinning part is all for those who care about it, same goes for Holy Communion and all that hullabaloo.
So keep your god to yourself or anyone that cares to listen, leave the rest alone.
Mr Michel Ellul
May 26th 2011, 21:17
the best answer is that not even the bible can give explanation to whether divorce is a sin or not since there are various interpretations, so who do you think you are to shoot statements that 'Divorce is a sin against God'
read here : http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_bibl.htm
Mr Aaron Vella
May 26th 2011, 17:28
At last some actual and logical facts. Yes to Divorce!
T Lombardi
May 26th 2011, 14:39
Well done Christian! excellent article that should clear so many of the lies that have been spread during this campaign!
It should be mandatory reading for everyone prior to casting one's vote
Well done ta veru
Mr Stefan Camilleri
May 26th 2011, 14:24
I really cannot fathom why so many here are so obsessed with the Church that they keep mentioning it all the time, even when out of context. These blogs have become a haven for many a chipped shoulder from the likes of it.
Mr Fenech MD
May 26th 2011, 14:05
Quote" 4. Must you be legally separated before getting a divorce?
According to the referendum question, a couple has to be legally separated or living apart for at least four years to obtain a divorce.
This is not true. If one reads the Referendum question it says quote "“Do you agree with the introduction of the choice of divorce in the case of a married couple who has been separated or HAS BEEN LIVING APART".
Please do give correct answers.
D. A . Agius
May 26th 2011, 17:14
Read the article. That is the wording of the parliament bill. I suggest you actually read that too, along with most of those on the No camp!
Whether parliament uses that bill and builds on it, unfortunately, is something that will depend on the parliamentarians, some of which already have professed to ignore the result of the referendum should it not be to their liking. Just like dictators, right?
For correctness' sake, we should also get clear what the No camp has proposed for better family in Malta if they win the referendum
P. Vincenti
May 26th 2011, 14:05
Ireland has stuck to its laws on abortion after divorce ONLY as they have the kind of constitutional amendment that has been ignored by Joseph Muscat in Malta.
Divorce and abortion are indeed two distinct issues, but both are born of the same reasoning, that individual choices have a priority over who those choices will ultimately affect.
Jacques René Zammit
May 26th 2011, 14:00
Brilliant work Christian. Not a day too late.
Mr Albert Farrugia
May 26th 2011, 12:34
Just for clarity's sake: (1) The question in the referendum is, perhaps, inspired from, but in no way connected to the Bill which has yet to be given the First Reading in Parliament. (2) There is no time-frame in the question, and in fact there cannot be, because of what is said in (1). This means that, given a YES victory, noone would have the least idea of when divorce would be introduced. Next month? Next year? In two, three years? (3) The question is, infact, little more than what is asked in a simple opinion poll. The legal effect is as binding as that of such a poll. (4) Members of Parliament are totally free to vote in Parliament as their conscience dictates. No authority, not even that of a political party, can interfere in this. Just as Opposition MPs regularly vote against the Government, even though this is elected by the majority of the electors, so can MPs vote against the result of a referendum even if it is approved.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 26th 2011, 13:47
But would they vote against it? Thinking about the election in 2 years time.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 26th 2011, 12:02
The only argument possible here is, "But divorce is a sin".
Mr William Flynn
May 26th 2011, 14:36
We'll see in a couple of day's time how many don't give a tomcat's sphincter about "the only possible argument". I'm hoping you're saying this tongue in cheek.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 26th 2011, 15:34
Sorry William what I tried to say was, that the NO camp could only bring up sin to argue against this article, they'd have real reason behind their cause.
The idea that divorce increases marriage breakdown is a farce, it's a world trend, which includes no-divorce Malta.
Cohabitation too.
Then they'd go on to add that we'll add euthanasia and abortion because of divorce.
Mr Patrick Zammit
May 26th 2011, 11:57
The church cannot be relied on to morally guide a person. At different times, anything could have been considered a sin or evil but then not any more.
It was considered evil to own a bible in your native tongue; in fact it was on the church’s list of forbidden books. You would have been burned together with your bible if found out by the church.
It was considered evil to educate the masses through schooling for everyone. Schooling was considered as the work of the devil.
It was a sin to vote Labour and the sin would be inherited for seven generations.
It was prohibited by the church to believe in heliocentrism and you would be burnt for doing that. But if you would have been friends with the pope, you would only be put on house arrest until your dying day.
It was a sin for a married couple to have fewer children than the number of years that same couple was married for. You would be denied absolution of all your sins.
You would go to limbo if you were an innocent baby unlucky to die before being baptised.
The list is endless. I would never trust the church which up to this day, sees nothing wrong in protecting paedophile priests leaving them free to abuse children all over again.
Kevin Aquilina
May 26th 2011, 11:50
Finally some clear unbiased facts.
Mr William Flynn
May 26th 2011, 11:47
Most disappointing article! Downright slack!
What's this? No mention of god, Jesus, Moses, bible, scriptures, St Paul, popes JP2 and Benedict, Padre Pio, Angelijk, Catechism section 2284, 1789, the fight with the devil ?
Mr Peregrin, Sir, this is no way to run a referendum FAQ article.
I object! ....or not!
Mark Thorogood
May 26th 2011, 11:31
"A christian's perspective" - you've given a catholic's perspective - not all branches of christianity are against divorce.
S. Vella
May 26th 2011, 14:07
Well Said! The Catolic church is changing it's name to christian to fool the people.
Mr M Vella***
May 26th 2011, 11:31
Zwieg dejjiemi " Min ma jixtieqx dan lil uliedu ? Izda bejn li tixtieq u r-realta tal-hajja gieli jkun hemm bahar jaqsam ! U jekk, Alla hares qatt, xi hadd minn uliedek jitkissirlu z-zwieg, xi tridhom jaghmlu IPOGGU, jew JIBQGHU WAHEDHOM GHAL GHOMORHOM ?? Mhux ahjar ikollhom cans iehor fil-hajja jekk jergghu jiltaqghu ma persuna li tkun thobbhom , li jkunu jistghu jergghu jizzewgu u b'hek ikollhom ferm aktar stabilita f'hajjithom. U jekk ikollhom it-tfal, dawn ma jitwieldux barra z-zwieg ?Meta bniedem jibqa poggut m'huwiex meqjus li qieghed fil-kuntest ta' familja.
Dawk li qeghdin ibatu minhabba t-tifrik taz-zwieg taghhom. U l-uniku cans li jistghu jergghu jibdew hajja gdida hi l-ligi tad-divorzju. Waqt li inthom tal- le qed tisfurzawhom IPOGGU !
Anthony Schembri adami
May 26th 2011, 11:30
Is it true that maintenance of children is garanteed only by a degree of the Court? What a joke!
Mr Patrik Larsson
May 26th 2011, 12:32
What's the alternative. At gun point?
Kenneth Cassar
May 26th 2011, 13:22
How else could it be?
Frank Portelli 2BFRANK
May 26th 2011, 11:24
"Divorce is not a Sin" - says the VATICAN
The Vatican had issued this statement through Cardinal Mario Francesco Pompedda, when Pompedda was Head of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura – which is the highest Judicial Authority in the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Pompedda stated:
"In itself, Divorce is not a sin, and in certain cases it could indeed even be recommended, to resolve Patrimonial or certain civil problems."
i. schembri
May 26th 2011, 14:56
"Divorce is not a Sin" - says the VATICAN
unfortunately malta's church feel they are stronger than the vatican.
I still don't get the connection between marriage/divorce and christianity though...
Mr Matthew Grima
May 26th 2011, 15:37
Who collects the annulment cheques.
I hope that clears it up Mr. Schembri :)
Mr elton grech
May 26th 2011, 11:23
Great Article, it gives you all the objective facts at hand! this should be the thing the people read before going to vote!
Mark Brincat
May 26th 2011, 11:16
Spread this article. Print it out. Show it to your families.
YES for tollerance
Peter Xuereb
May 26th 2011, 11:15
Well done. I encourage others to spread this article around! Neutral facts are what we need of we are to make wise decisions.
Mr Aristide Galea
May 26th 2011, 10:59
It is a pity that this artcle was not published earlier. It could have been a true and good example of how things really are. With this article, one can get a clear picture of who was telling the truth and who was telling lies and half the truth,which is worse then a lie.
Mario Vella
May 26th 2011, 11:37
Hats off to Christian Peregin! He has summed up pros and cons disspationately and in a clear and unmistakable way. I hope the Maltese electorate will go through Peregin's piece calmly. It has removed all doubts........YES! The way foward is thumbs up to the the proposed referendum question!! Indeed, it is an eye opener for the doubtful because it exposes the weak arguments the No camp has dished out so far! Morally, the Maltese after reading it, should not hesitate to VOTE YES with a peacful conscience both if being fervent Catholics or not!! The Maltese should show that alas they have become of age and grown up, and that they have finally emerged from the darkness of the anachronism of the past. Make courage, and show that being Maltese is tantamount of being truly European in spirit and in mind!
Ms Gillian Snook
May 26th 2011, 12:01
I agree, this is what should have been stated at the beginning, but we would have missed some very
extreme views which made fascinating and so frustrating reading.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 26th 2011, 12:25
The only people who are ready to read it all agree with it already sadly, the rest will still say that because of divorce, without any real proof of it, that marital breakdown increased, cohabitation increased and most of all, Jesus is against it.
Mr K Pullicino
May 26th 2011, 12:27
@Mario Vella: It's a very neutral article and for that Christian Peregin should be commended. But, I don't see why I should vote YES just by reading the article. I can restate what you said but replace "NO" instead of "YES". Divorce is clearly not the solution people have been clamouring over.
Mr Matthew Grima
May 26th 2011, 12:45
With no counter arguments Mr K Pullicino? What is your reason for voting no then?
Kenneth Cassar
May 26th 2011, 13:24
@ K Pullicino:
It is not up to you to decide what solutions people seek for themselves.
Mr Victor Calleja
May 26th 2011, 10:40
Well done Christian Peregin. With these questions and answers you made me decide on which side to vote. There was no need of all the talk and arguments we have been hearing throughout these last few weeks. These are the facts. Thank you Christian.
Ramon Casha
May 26th 2011, 10:39
A very informative article which avoids the hysterical tone of many other writings on this topic.
Mr David Smith
May 26th 2011, 10:31
So many comments to make, but will restrict myself to commenting on FAQ 21.
Twenty years ago, nobody spoke about divorce in Malta being a civil right. Today, perhaps half the populations seems to think that it is. Also today, almost everybody in Malta seems to be against abortion. Yet abroad, wherever abortion started being allowed, it was because of the premise that it is because of women's rights over their bodies. The concept of civil rights changes, as do people's perceptions. So, in plain english, divorce today, abortion tomorrow.
Ms Emma Xerri
May 26th 2011, 14:18
But I assume that you have no objection for having rights over your own body?
It is only women's bodies that do not belong to them, theirs then must belong to some male guardian, such as the Church. What a backward, discriminatory and hyporcritical view - half of the population does not own the body they inhabit. You are also against civil rights because they open people's minds - how very sad and to admit it is even sadder. Perhaps you would have been happier being born during the Dark Ages.
Mark Thorogood
May 26th 2011, 10:09
"A Christian’s perspective" - that's not a christian's perspective, but a catholic's perspective. Protestants (and many other branches of christianity) don't have an issue with divorce.
"people who get divorced cannot remarry in the Church unless they also get a Church annulment" - should say catholic church
Noel Cuschieri
May 26th 2011, 10:09
Is Divorce a civil right? Dr Pullicino Orlando spoke against divorce in 1997 and 1998. However, in recent years he spoke in favour. If Divorce is a civil right he should not have spoken against it in the first place!! Or is it a case that he speaks up as is convenient for him at any given time? Yes, divorce is a convenient solution for those who are incapable of being responsible in their marriage commitment or for those who, at all costs, want a solution for everything before going the extra mile!!! A marriage commitment is an affair between two people and possibly between more (whenever there are children). So how come that Divorce is an (automatic) civil right, especially if it is imposed on the other parties in the family? Divorce is simply the breaking up of a promise between these parties and should not be considered as a civil right. Now, for those who cannot agree to/understand this, I would suggest to them to adopt the honourable and prudent approach of considering not voting this time.
Ms Emma Xerri
May 26th 2011, 14:27
Divorce is a right in the same way the universal free health is a right. After all, just because there are healthy people and happily married people, that does not mean we should do away with doctors, hospitals or divorce. Just as in sickness, a person does not have control of certain externalities, such as an abusive and violent spouse, diseases or accidents. Therefore ia truly humanitarian and benevelent state has the obligation to create facilities for dealing with these very common human eventualities.
Mr Paul Barrett
May 26th 2011, 09:59
A well researched factual, none bias article without smoke and mirrors. The only problem now is will people at this late stage actually read it and just as important, absorb the information within or is the mental blockage just too great for them to overcome.
Mr Daniel Jones
May 26th 2011, 09:58
At last, some clear and balanced facts on this whole ridiculous issue.
It also shows that a lot of the 'No divorce' arguments are based on conjecture, misinformation and, even possibly, lies.
George Kimble
May 26th 2011, 14:33
You forgot to mention that the fear of sin, no house blessing, no communion during mass etc .. were used by certain anti divorce people to scare others into voting No this coming Saturday.
And then some people take exception to the fact that they were labelled "spiritual terrorists"
Mr Albert Farrugia
May 26th 2011, 09:48
Just to be more precise: Although, in theory, the referendum question is inspired by a Bill which has been presented to Parliament, there is no legal connection to it. The question does not refer to any Bill. Infact, the question looks rather like that which one would find in a simple opinion poll. Moreover, there are no dates attached to the question. Let's say the YES vote prevails. And then? By when should divorce be introduced? In a month's time? In a year? In two? Anyone's guess. One might argue that the result will put pressure on Parliament to pass the Bill, but "Parliament" is simply the sum of its members. Individual Members of Parliament cannot be forced to vote one way or another, and God forbid if it were that way. Elected Members of Parliament are not legally bound to anything they promise in elections. Maltese electors have been led by the nose on this one. And not by the Church, but by those who are entrusted with power. This is not the way important decisions are taken.
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 26th 2011, 09:39
We needed something like this.
Well done