What’s all this fuss?

Article by Nikita Alamango

This blog is once again about Divorce – not that I believe that there’s a lot left to be said; I just need to get some things off my chest.

First of all, I have to admit, I really cannot understand what all this fuss is about. Regardless what you and I believe, and despite the on-going debates about the introduction of divorce, the same story is being written through the option of civil annulment.

I am sure that you are aware that civil annulment is possible in Malta in this day and age, and quite an increasing number of couples are going down that road, thus enabling them to then remarry civilly through the State.

The main difference between a civil annulment and a divorce is that during an annulment, the marriage is considered null. On the other hand, a divorce is considered when a marriage contract was entered into by sound mind but is now being dissolved for various reasons.

In other words, divorce takes place when a contract must be broken while an annulment takes place to render the contract null and void at the discretion of the judge.

So Malta currently provides laws for separation and civil annulment but not for Divorce when to be frank the only difference is that divorce simply offers wider grounds. To make matters worse, our laws do not call for cohabitation, thus, certain couples are either forced to get married or end up building a family anyway which is not recognised by our current laws.

Secondly, I know I’ve said it before, but I completely oppose the idea that the introduction of divorce should be decided through a Referendum as in my humble opinion it undermines the right of the minority (since divorce is a minority right). After all, no other civil right currently inscribed in our laws was ever decided through a Referendum. Whether it was giving women the right to vote or introducing civil marriage and decriminalising homosexuality – no Referendum was held.

The only reason the government has decided to opt for a Referendum is seen in the way they have been handling things at this point in time. The idea of a Referendum is only there to buy time for Dr Gonzi to get his act together and make everyone in the Party happy. All this is clearly depicted in the games that have been played over the past few weeks. Gonzi seems to be held up in his little own world and totally detached from the rest. He needs time before D-day and is still pondering the question that the Referendum should really ask.

On the other side of the coin, there are people out there who have to bear a lot and have their future at stake and in the hands of politicians.

How can a Prime Minister be so disconnected?

Ultimately, when all is said and done, no one really wants or ever dreams of getting a divorce. Couples who turn to divorce because it is basically their last hope of getting back on their feet, putting their life together and having a second chance. So let us not act like its a happy journey for any couple who opts for a divorce – a lot of emotional pain is experienced some of which will never heal.

So allow me to be blunt and to all those who have a healthy marriage, strengthen it; but when deciding for others remember that not everyone is lucky to have what you have – lets help them lead a better life.

Funny if it wasn’t true

By Nikita Alamango

Anyone who is familiar with William Shakespeare’s writings would compare Malta’s current situation with a Shakespearean tragedy. Tragedy for Shakespeare had two sides, either “love” tragedies like Romeo and Juliet which involve a pair of lovers torn apart by fate and society; or tragedies which are defined by their relationship to Aristotle’s theories of dramatic tragedy, likeMacbeth or Hamlet.

Divorce

Going back to the former example of “love tragedies” it seems that a part of our society still feels the urge to control the fate of couples whose first marriage does not succeed. People who oppose divorce have not managed to come up with any significant reasons why divorce should not be available in Malta or what is the alternative. I cannot fail to mention Martin Scicluna’s recent Talking Point on The Times “Three presidents, hypocrisy and divorce” which highlights the importance of the separation of powers between the Church and State on these kind of issues. While it is understandable that the church wants Malta to remain a ‘re-marriage free territory’ since the indissolubility of marriage is a church doctrine, it is unfair and unreasonable that this affects the workings of the State.

While the laws of the Catholic Church hold true for all those who wish to abide by them, the state must take note of the wide spectrum of beliefs and interests that exist in our country. It must respect other beliefs, including that which says that the rule of law is paramount. That is of course unless you take the view of the Attorney General who claimed that “God is above everything and everybody“.  Malta is no longer a place where we can live and let live – the tragedy of ultra-conservatism is that it ends with Orwellian mind-control.