The pro-divorce group yesterday rounded on the anti lobby, playing with the words in their “no-reason divorce” slogan by saying that marriage was the only thing without reason when both partners went their separate ways.
“I think that when people remain in a marriage where one partner is here and the other there, the only thing that is without reason is the marriage itself,” pro-divorce chairperson Deborah Schembri said.
Marriage, she continued, was more than a piece of paper stashed away at the public registry and those that have failed should not continue to be recognised by the state.
Speaking during a heated debate on campus yesterday, Dr Schembri pointed out that the only reason to obtain a divorce, in line with what happened in separations today, should be that the marriage has ended irredeemably. The no-camp’s slogan of “no-reason divorce – no thanks” is itself a play on the pro-divorce lobby’s desire for no-fault divorce to be introduced. The anti-divorce movement argues that the requirement of four years separation before being granted a divorce is no reason enough.
“The proposed legislation is presenting a situation where you have a right to impose divorce on the other marriage partner. So I can wake up one morning and decide to get a divorce while the partner who may want to work on the marriage is left with no choice,” David Zahra from the anti-divorce group said.
Moreover, the introduction of divorce would remove the bargaining power of those who wanted to fight for the marriage, his co-lobbyist Austin Bencini said.
This picture being painted by “people who are supposed to believe in marriage” is unrealistic, according to Michael Falzon from the pro-lobby. “These are insulting married people, making men look like cats on heat in January, who, with the introduction of divorce, would leave their wives for someone who is a size 10,” Mr Falzon said.
During the debate yesterday, the anti-divorce group expressed concern that the referendum would take place before the results of this year’s national census, arguing that this could have given a better idea of the state of Maltese families.
Mr Zahra said he felt that the country was rushing into the decision. But Dr Schembri was quick to point out it was the Prime Minister and not the yes camp who had announced the referendum and, anyway, any assessments about the impact of divorce on society would have been subjective projections.
Turning to the impact divorce would have on people’s pockets, the anti-divorce camp argued that it was difficult to guarantee that maintenance was granted to one ex-spouse let alone when there are more than one. This was echoed by a student who questioned how Malta could cope with people having to maintain more than one partner and children from previous marriages.