Saturday, 23rd May 2009
Marriage is the leading cause of divorce
‘The human person is not an object, but a subject- who deserves respect.'
But ‘cohabitating couples should not be afforded the same status in the eyes of the law as their married counterparts.'
So it seems that not ALL humans are subjects who deserve respect, or at least, not the same levels of respect.
The first statement was uttered by Archbishop Emeritus Joseph Mercieca, whilst the second was penned by Gozo Bishop Mario Grech and to complete this divine comedy, Mgr Anton Gouder went on to say that ‘to hold the best interests of individuals and society at heart, the way forward is very clear: as a priority, to strengthen and support the family and marriage in all its stages, while giving the necessary assistance to individuals who are in other forms of relationships.'
For peace's sake! Haven't we been supporting the traditional family and traditional marriage forever and a day? Haven't we tried them all? Haven't we given married couples all the perks?
- Joint income tax returns for lower income brackets.
- Joint home loans.
- Wedding VAT refunds.
- Extra marriage leave.
- An entire court dedicated exclusively to marriage issues.
- Free family counselling.
- The automatic right to inherit each other's linen, debts and houses.
- Free marriage training at Ta Cana.
And what exactly have we ever done to support people in other forms or relationships? None of the above.
No wonder that the latest Lifestyle Survey (2007) issued by the NSO shows that marriage is still the preferred lifestyle choice with 195,708 (64%) people being married and only 6, 073 (1.9%) cohabitating.
Don't the numbers speak for themselves? We've made marriage look so attractive that the majority of people still want to find that special someone to annoy for the rest of their lives.
The same survey claims that married couples enjoy a standard of living that is 16 per cent better than that of their cohabitating counterparts, and probably as a direct result of this, they are also more satisfied with their lives to the tune of 12.5% more than cohabitating people.
So who in their right mind would want to cohabit if they were given the choice to get married? Chances are that many of those cohabitating are doing so because they cannot get married, either because they are in...shock horror....drum rolls.. same sex relationships, or because one or both parties have been previously married.
The secret of a happy marriage remains a secret, but these numbers prove that for reasons beyond my comprehension the majority want it, believe in it, and do their very best to get married with pomp and circumstance, and stay married. Even those who feel that their ex-spouse is as useless as an inflamed appendix which caused a lot of pain, still want to live happily ever after.
The truth is that only Adam and Even had a perfect marriage simply because he did not have to hear about all the men she could have married, and she didn't have to hear about the way his mother cooked. All other marriages are subject to whatever life throws at them and unfortunately a few end up feeling like a triple coronary by-pass.
We can preach that couples who pray together stay together until we are blue in the face, but the truth is that some will also separate because of their religious differences - the husband will think he's God whilst the wife (and her mother) will beg to differ!
It is estimated that by 2015 more than 17% of all marriages will fail, which means that more people will go back to living in single households and dying alone, or cohabitating and falling 12.5% in their ‘lifestyle satisfaction' scale.
So now a government-commissioned Think Tank is proposing the introduction of divorce on a ‘no fault' basis. This means that no matter whose fault the break up is, both parties are treated equally - in other words - you don't get screwed for the screw you got!
I don't know about you but surely you must agree that if a marriage fails, it would better if a couple could consider the option of divorce rather than worse.
RSS
Comments
Divorce, divorce, divorce please, bring in Divorce!
Of course it does not rule out the obligations of the first marriage. I agree completely. There will always be responsible and irresponsible parents. Because I have seen the scenario you mentioned and worse with separated parents (I have been my kids' transport for 16 years). As a Catholic I stress again that I do not agree with divorce, however socially I feel dutybound to think of other non Catholics whose children sadly remain in the 'legitimacy' limbo, because their parents cannot remarry. And am sure it hurts for a child to note at some point that there exists a difference between (due to a mere term distinction) a child born out of remarriage after annulment and one born out of cohabitation after separation, the latter may result in the hurtful labelling of children unfortunately.
I used to work in a school. Do you realise the confusion some children have to put up with in their lives? Once we had a young student in a panic - crying - because she had no idea if she was going to be with her mum or with her dad over the weekend!!
Getting married a second time can never rule out any obligations towards a first marriage, especially where there are children concerned. A second marriage might be seen as the start of a new 'stable' family (I dispute the term) but I'm sure you will agree with me that it sure disrupts the first family!!! Still like you said, each case has its own merits.
Thank you for the thought re my daughter.
@Christine Galea
I tend to agree with Kenneth Cassar on the divorce issue because unfortunately not all marriages last, and at times there are cases where no matter how hard one/both spouses try the bond is severed. Some indeed are not bothered to listen and miss the wood for the tree. Annulment gives the opportunity for some to start afresh, however since annulment is not granted to all cases, some end up in a situation where the new relationship is strong enough to start a new family and children are born out of it. Do these children not equally deserve to be brought up in stable family environment? Obviously each case has its own merits. I personally Do Not believe that divorce is the solution, marriage should be for life, however there is the above reality.
Having said all that I think that the most important thing is to educate our young and prepare them properly to make the right decision once and right. And advocate that marriage and raising a family should be a lifelong commitment. In my opinion this is also a social, besides a religious matter.
My personal opinion is that I do not believe divorce is a solution, but there are rare instances where after separation a beginning of a deservingly meaningful relationship (another chance so to speak) occurs with different people.. insomma I will comment properly tomorrow as today my daughter has her 16th birthday party and am quite busy with preparations.
:)
Respect. Impossible to respect another if that towards oneself is lacking. Being unhappy in a marriage but keeping it going to respect the wife is a joke. If the problem is of the bedroom, deal with that. A marriage can survive without bedroom intimacy. But it has to be built on something equally pervading. It is a problem. Because monogamy is not a fact of life. And nor is anything else. Certainly not respect a` la carte. And no dogma, no Cana, no law can change this. It is popularly known as the human condition. There is no saccharine for this pill. Sorry! The proof of all this is all around us.
"Why should divorce be a solution at all?"
Why not? If legal separation (legal recognition of a failed marriage) is a solution, why shouldn't one get a second chance? This is not to say that all people who separate and divorce would marry again, but some would wish to. In any case, with or without divorce, people who would want to start another relationship, still do.
You write that "If one can't even be bothered to listen, how would you expect him or her to make a responsible decision!".
I do agree on this point, but you are forgetting that in such cases, not only the person who "can't be bothered to listen" might wish to remarry, but even the one who made all the effort possible to save the first marriage. Shouldn't this person, at least, be given another chance?
Unfortunately many people do make the mistake of marrying irresponsible and immature people, but there is not anything anyone can do to stop them...except by giving them another chance through divorce.
"I also agree that divorce should be the last resort (if differences cannot be tolerated or settled)."
Why should divorce be a solution at all?
That said, there are some difficult cases where the only solution is legal separation.
But I don't agree that divorce can ever be a solution. I think it creates more problems.
On the other hand, I do agree with you that It "is useless (though still worth trying) for one to try to work things out if the other won't even listen". Sadly this is often the case. Even more so then, I feel that divorce is never a solution. If one can't even be bothered to listen, how would you expect him or her to make a responsible decision! Do you agree with me on this last point?
Yes, I can understand the exceptional situation you mention, where, for instance, a racist attitude is the result of a personal bad experience (like murder of a relative), which luckily does not happen too often. But in that case, this person would not be inherently (ideologically, if you will) racist, so with the right attention, understanding and help, he would be brought around.
So yes, I would agree with you in this case. And yes, I also agree that divorce should be the last resort (if differences cannot be tolerated or settled). Of course, this all depends on both individuals and their own personal circumstances. It is useless (though still worth trying) for one to try to work things out if the other won't even listen. I'm sure we agree on this as well.
Yes I see your point and agree to a certain extent..but regarding: "extreme opinions are not usually due to personal tragedies" I had something in mind on the lines of ..jien naf ..having a very close loved one or relative killed (to be extreme) by someone of another race..hence become intolerant to that particular race ghax jehel kulhadd so on, or something similar..in that case the person becomes intolerant due to circumstance.. and only time, love and understanding will heal that intolerance, if at all.
I totally agree that respect is earned. Some unfortunately still think that it can be achieved by force. Preferably divorce has to be a last resort if at all.
Respect is earned. If a wife/husband, for instance, decides to become a female/male prostitute, would one be showing disrespect if one divorces him/her? And that's just one example.
Pretty much all your post is null because the initial statements on which you base your conclusions have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
"then the spouse should be supportive until the issue is dealt with and accepted by the hurting spouse in my opinion".
Of course. But then again, extreme opinions are not usually due to personal tragedies. They are either the result of ingrained mental deficiency or lack of proper education. Of course, this can be found in both of the couple.
I am not sure what you meant by "intolerance" developed after marriage due to a traumatic event. I think it could mean one of two things, so I will treat both.
If the intolerance developed is something like a developed bad temper, or perhaps a disposition to depression and apathy, of course I agree that the person would deserve all the support he/she needs. This applies equally in friendships and marriage.
But if, to give an extreme example, one of the couple is an authoritarian fascist and the other is an authoritarian communist, I can't see how such a relationship could ever work. Same goes with a feminist/patriarchal couple.
Otherwise, I believe that respect has a greater part to play than love in marriage. And one cannot respect a person whose ideas one finds repulsive.
We are in agreement :)..perhaps I did not mention the intolerance issue, because I took it for granted that both have to be in agreement pror to marriage, however I will add to that ...because if an intolerance develops after marriage (especially if the knot had been tied decades before) and is due to some traumatic event, then the spouse should be supportive until the issue is dealt with and accepted by the hurting spouse in my opinion.
Regarding points 3 4 and 5, I said all that too. I agree it takes two to tango.
:)
Scalpel not an option with me either! Toy boy even less! Fish in the dirt, was your coining ..I was never into that either! Tooth fairy ..it did not exist in my time so not interested either....Some by time appreciate, become more savourous full of bouquet like a good wine, even past their sell by date..others go sour, but hey my glass is always half full with wine from a good year!
:)
1. Discuss important things before you "tie the knot". If there are things you dislike before the marriage, they will become things you absolutely hate after the marriage.
2. If you choose not to have sex before marriage, discuss sex with the partner. No matter what anyone tells you, sex is a big part of a marriage.
3. Make a habit of complimenting your partner (don't take anyone for-granted, and it feels good to know one's appreciated), BUT also do not keep from criticising your partner when necessary. In this case, do it privately (and don't overdo it).
4. Spend lots of time with your partner - but also, give your partner some space for "alone time".
5. If you've done your homework well, you know that your partner can be trusted. So trust him/her. If you cannot trust your partner to spend a night out alone (for instance, and this applies to both), then you shouldn't have married - so its actually a good idea to try this out before marriage.
Note: That said, it takes an equal commitment from both for a marriage to succeed.
Quite a detailed post. I will only comment on where I disagree, and then make some comments of my own.
You say that "both spouses should respect and value the other’s opinion on whatever subject". I strongly disagree. Some opinions are tolerable, others are clearly reproachable. That is why it is important to discuss things that matter to each of the couple BEFORE MARRIAGE. If my wife were a racist, a homophobe or a religious fundamentalist, for instance, I could NEVER respect that. On the otherhand, if my wife supports Liverpool FC, and I support Juventus, I could live with that (in fact, I have acquired a liking for Liverpool since I married her).
You are perfectly right in saying that "both should be mature enough to discuss any topic or idea: lifestyle, religion, politics etc", but the important thing is that this should be done long BEFORE the wedding. If one finds that some opinions held by the other are not just tolerable, but clearly repulsive, that is enough reason not to continue with the relationship.
Both spouses should have an equal say in the upbringing of the children, but perhaps the most important thing to note is that although both are equal in the partnership HOWEVER they should realize that the decision making does not always have to be left to both parties to agree upon i.e. there are some instances when one is more informed/ more inclined to make a better judgement than the other (as for instance in matters of finance, style, academics etc etc.) or vice versa, in which case one decides for both (with consensus) and on other instances the reverse happens.
Tell your spouse how special he/she is and show it constantly, and never be ashamed or hesitate to say that you love him/her.
Last but not least ‘couples that pray together stay together’, only if they WANT God to be in their midst, and allow Him to guide their relationship to grow and flourish. Also granted that some may have other valid moralities to use as guidelines.
:)
Keep the love life spiced up with romantic dinners, ‘me you’ time without kids doing stuff you enjoyed when you were in the beginning of the relationship and go off to weekend breaks (with and without kids) etc.
You are not married to your mother or father….respect their opinion but avoid conflicts.
Both spouses should know when to ‘agree to disagree’! And say so. And admit that the other is more right, despite the fact that it kills one to do so! :)
Both should know how to give each other space and yet remain within reachable distance.
There should be a line beyond which either one does not go, for whatever the reason.
Do not pay attention to what the pop media says. Be informed through the right means, and make informed and carefully weighed judgements. Be not gullible or think that since every one does it mela it is the norm. Isma ghax bilfors emmen jekk trid. Do not just accept any opinion; every one seems to have one! Filter, adopt and adapt.
Do not do unto your spouse what you do not want him/her to do unto you.
cont....
To whom it may concern: allow me give you my humble experience of why a marriage succeeds :)
By living we evolve. People grow mature and change. Some things become difficult others become easier to handle. In Maltese we say anke l-imsaren fiz-zaqq igorru.
Both spouses should respect and value the other’s opinion on whatever subject.
Both spouses should be mature enough to admit to erring when it is the case and make up for the hurt caused. If you are familiar with the film ‘Love Story’ Ali Mc Graw tells Ryan O’Neal ‘love means never having to say you’re sorry’… true …but it helps to say it :)
Both should be mature enough to discuss any topic or idea: lifestyle, religion, politics etc. And discuss whatever may be annoying in the other spouse and be able to rectify this in time.
Both should be mature enough to realize that they are not as aesthetically ‘perfect’ as they were when they were 20 years old. Comparisons with idealised men/women are hurtful and need to be done away with. Beauty is within but if a change is needed take positive approaches.
cont...
Give us the glass half full. And make sure it's not imxellfa (chipped).
I guess Joe Xuereb could write a book about "his thesis"...except that it has already been written. Read some books on evolutionary biology (I would recommend Richard Dawkins' seven excellent books on the topic, but perhaps any book on evolutionary biology would do). Or if you want some lighter (but very good) reading, I would recommend Olivia Judson's "Dr Tatiana's sex advice to all creation".
As for the history of Marriage, you may get an introductory essay (with several references) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
As for "no fault" divorce, it would have enabled you to marry your 28-year-old girlfriend who has left you. But think about it...do you think someone who leaves you just because she cannot marry you, actually loves you enough that would make marriage the right choice?
True love, the mature type, starts after falling out of love. This love has nothing to do with feeling and frisson. Nothing to do with the cute hearts. It is a matter for serious decision making with the head. Needs maturity and different approach. This leaves one free to love another person without the stranglehold (this last, sometimes literally).
Bobby, you may have been an awful husband. I sense your anger. Benefit-of-the-doubt is yours. My Facebook ID. Joe Xuereb.
You're a sensible, sensitive man. That's fine. So was I once.
Is my thinking so bizarre that it took four takes for you to understand? Had it been a thesis I might have used denser more professional language. But not to impress. Content is paramount. On this paper I choose to use very straightforward language often with banal short-burst incisive sentences. I want to get a message across not alienate people. Never forcefully - that would be pointless, my game. An opinion is read and thence, the reader decides how to process. Simple as that.
Your marriage's fallout sounds traumatic and I hope your confidence returns.
My view of marriage you now know. I'm not against marriage naturally and the siring of children obviously crucial. Marriage setup by a couple has always been problematic, humans being what they are. An Institution prescribed along unsubstantiated dictats will never work in spite of often seeming to. I believe a more detached approach to marriage is necessary. One were two people decide with their head to set up a family and sire children. This requires maturity. And one can never entirely eliminate human vagaries naturally.
As for the Think Thank proposing a 'no fault' divorce. My wife left me for another man.... when we separated I had to take a loan to pay her part of the house and 1000 Euros a month for the next 15 years to to give her her share of the stock I have in a warehouse which is part of my ongoing business.
She moved in with her boyfriend, and bought herself a new car. With the €1000 a month she lives comfortable without doing anything.
So besides the humilation of all this...my new girlfriend has left me because at 28 years of age she doesn't want to be with someone who can never ever marry her!!! GREAT!
This is a commonsensical opinion. And that is as far as any study on the matter need go. Commonsensical abrogation of man-made inflictions are well overdue. If nothing else because marriage, the patriarchal setup, was instituted by Man with the proviso (for it to work) that the female of the partnership be subservient. It did not work, it does not work because a woman's brain is no different to a man's. Any claim to the contrary is a blatant lie.