Divorce is only the beginning of a number of steps the country will have to take so one has to be more careful so as not to create any precedents, Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo said.
Speaking in Parliament on the Divorce debate he said that it was intolerant that there were MPs who said MPs should not vote against divorce.
He said that before any other choice, he had to give his conscience priority so he could only vote no because first and foremost he had to safeguard his beliefs, which were witness of the truth and went beyond any choice made in the referendum.
There were no variables in faith and moral matters, there was consistency and not convenience, he said.
Mr Vassallo said he believed society would have to pay the price of divorce and he was preoccupied that the debate was creating a dangerous precedent since democracy could never replace morality.
The debate preceding the referendum, he said, led to a choice based on sentiment and what Labour MP Evarist Bartolo boasted about, that the vote was one of solidarity, worried him.
He said that unfortunately, there were people who had used a genuine debate to devalue conscience.
On a point of order, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando asked Mr Vassallo to clarify to whom he was referring had attacked conscience.
Mr Vassallo said he was referring generally to programmes he watched on television and articles he had read in newspapers.
He said that House procedures been followed properly for MPs to shoulder responsibility, the motion would have been debated and the people’s vote would only have been sought when it came to approval since it was not part of the electoral manifesto.
He said he believed that the opposition leader’s objective in the debate had been to establish more the PL’s liberal policy. The PL took the opportunity to take a stand of the matter and initiate a new debate in the country.
Such liberalism uncovered a number of other contradictions, he said.
Mr Vassallo said the PL did not initially take a stand on the matter unlike the PN which did but allowed its MPs to vote according to conscience. On the other hand, in spite of not taking a stand the PL leader campaigned in favour of divorce. Several PL influenced newspapers also criticised the Prime Minister for not speaking on the matter.
Abstentions on Divorce Bill should be allowed - Charlo Bonnici
MPs should be allowed to express themselves freely on divorce not just through voting yes or no but also through abstaining, Nationalist MP Charlo Bonnici said.
Although there were no rules on abstentions, there were precedents and arrangements could be made.
Declaring that he would be abstaining, Mr Bonnici said that the issue had unfortunately divided the nation and unjust pressure was made on MPs regarding their vote.
In the past, he said, he had not been afraid to freely speak against divorce. He still believed divorce was not beneficial to society and devalued marriage.
His district voted against the introduction of divorce and when he contested in 2008, those who voted for him had the faculty to know what his beliefs were. There were people who directly asked him about his beliefs.
Mr Bonnici said his Catholic belief would influence his vote so he could not vote for. However, the people made a free choice for divorce and through his yes vote for a referendum he had given his blessing for the referendum to be held. So he could also not ignore the people's yes vote. So he could also not vote no.
He said he would be abstaining as he was convinced that the bill would be approved.
If Parliament failed divorce test it would be failing society - Karl Gouder
Nationalist MP Karl Gouder said his position in favour of divorce had always been clear.
He had been given all the space necessary within the PN to express his thoughts and beliefs, in spite of the party’s position against.
Victims of a failed marriage, he said, should have the opportunity for another chance to start a family.
Mr Gouder referred to the campaign and described it as unique in that it was led by the civil society.
In spite of his position in favour of divorce, he defended the Church’s right to make its voice heard as long as the line diving Church and State was not crossed.
He said that result clearly showed that a good number of PN voters voted in favour of divorce and in spite of the Labour leader’s clear position in favour of divorce there were Labourites who voted against.
The people had expressed their will in favour and their decision was to be respected.
No compromises could be made with democracy, however, he acknowledged there were those who, because of their beliefs, had a difficulty in voting yes.
These MPs would vote no or abstain and since it was clear that the people’s will was to be respected, they should be free to do so.
Parliament, he said, was facing a test, which, if it failed because of useless controversies, it would be failing society.
Legal guarantee to ensure maintenance should be introduced - Joe Cassar
Health Minister Joe Cassar said that politicians were duty bound to avoid all that weakened the stability and harmony of marriage and had to positively protect family rights.
He said it was true there were people who suffered because of what they went through in marriage and although divorce was not the best solution, when people voted in a democracy, their opinion had to be accepted.
It was thus important for one to understand that, in this context, as a politician he had to help for the law to be one which really favoured those who were suffering and it would finally be a law which would reflect the referendum result.
He called for a voice to be given to children saying they should be part of decisions which were fundamental and which would have a serious impact on their life.
Those older than 14 should be part of the decisions about where they would live, right to access, custody and other matters. The courts should also have the duty to consider the opinions of younger children.
Dr Cassar said that the government should be proactive and start organising marriage courses making it compulsory for couples to attend such courses prior to civil marriages.
This would strengthen civil marriage and give it an identity.
To prevent maintenance abuse, a system of legal guarantee should be introduced to make good for maintenance which is no longer given. This could be through a capital sum fixed by the court, for example.
MPs had to have the courage to not just speak in favour of the family but make divorce responsible factually, Dr Cassar said.
He asked what guarantees were to be given to the people that any basic changes to the bill would also involve them.
Dr Cassar said that if the bill provided the necessary protection for children, he would have no problem voting in its favour.