The divorce referendum question on which Parliament is expected to vote today is formulated, whether by accident or design, to elicit a “yes to divorce” response.
An English translation of the proposed referendum question reads as follows: “Are you in favour of the choice to divorce in the case of spouses who have been separated for four years without any reasonable hope of reconciliation, while ensuring that maintenance is guaranteed and children are cared for?”
Faced with a question heavily biased in favour of a pro-divorce view, it is not surprising the polls show a majority “yes” vote. The referendum question is obviously loaded and conditions the voter to think about the kind of divorce that should be introduced, even before s/he has decided whether divorce should be introduced in the first place.
The question highlights the “apparently responsible” aspects of the Pullicino Orlando/Bartolo Bill and conceals the obviously “irresponsible” facets of the “no fault” regime that is being proposed. Are voters aware that the Pullicino Orlando/Bartolo proposal entitles a spouse to divorce in circumstances where s/he has abandoned his/her partner, for no valid reason, lived apart for four years and subsequently claimed the marriage s/he destroyed has irretrievably broken down?
Are voters aware that the Pullicino Orlando/Bartolo proposal enables the spouse at fault to obtain a divorce, notwithstanding that the innocent party objects, for valid reasons known to him/her, such as protection of children’s interests? Pro-divorce lobbyists, who are quick to invoke freedom of choice in support of their view, fail to point out that divorce can be imposed on an innocent objecting party even though those objections happen to be based on the children’s best interests.
Are voters aware that the Pullicino Orlando/Bartolo Bill, moved on the pretext that spouses should be given a second chance, in fact enables a third and a fourth go at marriage?
Are voters aware that the divorce proposal will in effect fundamentally change the concept of marriage for the whole of society so that indissoluble marriage will be transformed into a bond that can be reneged unilaterally, subject to a four-year transition?
The referendum question actually misrepresents that “maintenance” can be “guaranteed” in divorce proceedings. There is not one reference to a “maintenance guarantee” in the Pullicino/Bartolo Bill nor can there realistically be one.
How can a divorcee who finds it hard to support one family possibly guarantee the maintenance of his former wife as well as that of the children of his prior marriage?
It is common knowledge that in separation proceedings there are numerous court actions relating to failure or inability to pay maintenance.
With divorce, it will be no different, or possibly worse, so why should the maintenance issue be misrepresented in this manner?
The referendum question minimises the harmful effects on children, assuming that children are “cared” for in a divorce context. Children are invariably the silent protagonists in divorce proceedings. They undoubtedly suffer whenever there is parental conflict or marriage breakdown but those wounds are aggravated when either or both parents enter into second or further marriages.
To illustrate the unfairness of an obviously loaded question, the following is an alternative question, heavily biased towards the anti-divorce view, though equally “truthful” to the divorce reality contemplated by the Pullicino Orlando/Bartolo Bill.
“Are you in favour of the choice of divorce in the case of a spouse who has abandoned his marriage, without just cause, lived apart for four years, claimed that the marriage he has ruined has irretrievably broken down, notwithstanding the suffering caused to children and in circumstances where maintenance cannot reasonably be guaranteed?”
This question would undoubtedly elicit a resounding “no to divorce” response. Such a formula would raise the scorn of the pro-divorce movement and, admittedly, rightly so. Equally objectionable, however, is a question which is loaded with a pro-divorce bias.
Though it may be intended to introduce “responsible” divorce, the Pullicino Orlando/Bartolo Bill also permits “irresponsible” divorce. Whether by accident or design, the referendum question hides that reality and, as currently formulated, it is tantamount to sugar-coated misrepresentation.
Dr Galea Salomone is chairman of the Malta Stock Exchange.