Tackling the divorce issue

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=45131

 

Tackling the divorce issue

by Marisa Micallef

When Lou Bondi presents Bondiplus tomorrow evening, a programme which is going to tackle the current divorce debate, I hope he will ask the anti-divorce lobby a few simple questions. Does separation destroy marriages? Is separation responsible for marriage breakdowns? If it is, what are the political and legal classes planning to do about it? Why is the anti-divorce lobby not pushing to ban separations too, to enshrine marriage in the Constitution as something which cannot be broken?

The truth is we have a rate of marriage breakdown which is certainly higher than it was 10 years ago. However, marriages have always broken down. There is nothing new about this. We can argue till the cows come home about what the rate of breakdown really is, which Ranier Fsadni tried to do in an article in The Times last week, but it is there and it is not insignificant. Certainly, however, the picture is not at all bleak and many more people remain married than separate (and this is true allover secular Europe), which is entirely a good thing that should be commended.

What is certain however is that this decision whether or not to introduce divorce cannot be left in the hands of those who never marry, never experience marital joy, and neither marital strife, for that matter. The Church, in other words, is not very well-placed to lead any discussion on this issue, yet it is always people's faith which is being invoked as a reason not to consider it.

The Church is always talking about family life, yet none of its spokespersons experience it, except as children. They, when they become nuns and priests, make a decision not to have families. It's a very tough call and undoubtedly a big reason why there is such a fall in vocations, but it looks like this hardline approach will continue.

Many people think or plan to separate and then do not. Presumably the fact that we allow separation contributes to marriage breakdown, because without it nobody would separate. Once they separate, the marriage is broken. I think we can all agree on that. So allowing separations leads to or causes marriage breakdown as much as the introduction of divorce would.

What divorce does is allow people to marry again. It really is that simple. Separation breaks the marriage. Marriage can be created again through divorce. In Malta this is not allowed unless your divorce is obtained overseas and then recognised here. It is a baffling and hypocritical situation, which is forcing people to live together without marrying. It is encouraging even more fly-by-night relationships. If your marriage does not work the first time, you are relegated to second-class citizen status where you can never marry again, which it is certainly your civil right to do.

Now, if the Church does not want to allow divorce, that is its right. But why is the government mirroring the Church? Why don't MPs have a free vote on this issue as Georg Sapiano, possible future MP, suggested?

Both political parties are justifiably petrified it will cost them votes. When Alfred Sant tried to discuss it, the usual torrent of panic and abuse from our extreme right wingers descended on him. But funnily enough, it, along with other liberal issues, will probably lose the nationalists more votes next time around.

The Nationalist Party has managed to keep these votes for 20 years. It has had, up to now at least, the vote of the strictly-by-the-letter religious, and the more liberal for many years, but can it hold on to both in the current climate?

Divorce should be allowed. Not quickly or easily perhaps, just as separations are not quick or easy here. But once a court allows a couple to separate, it is inconceivable and inhuman to never allow either of the partners to marry again.

Oh yes, I forgot, unless you choose to do the ugly thing and annul the marriage, which is telling your kids the marriage never existed. And I am not criticising those who go for an annulment. They have no choice here, but the implications for kids are much, much uglier than they are with the introduction of divorce. We should hang our heads in shame at this travesty of human rights and dignity masquerading as protection of family life.



marisaml@onvol.net