Am I a traitor by voting for the introduction of divorce in Malta?

A constituent wrote warning me that only Jesus Christ is the real saviour of all humanity: many posed as saviours, but most ended up being traitors.

Evarist Bartolo 6 August 2010, 12:00am

2 min read

“Be very careful” he told me: as a member of parliament no one is above Jesus Christ. Say ‘No’ to divorce, which is the beginning of the end for Malta. I expect and would appreciate an answer.”

I will be voting for the introduction of divorce in Malta if I am given the opportunity: either in parliament or in a referendum. By doing so I have no illusion of being a saviour or better than Jesus Christ. Personally I do not need divorce. I have been married since 1977 and am still with my wife and both of us intend to die as a married couple.

But I cannot turn my back on those couples whose marriage has failed and would like to be given the chance to a start a new married life. Introducing divorce in Malta does not mean imposing it on those who still want to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church like the constituent who wrote to me. I believe that no one should dictate to the Catholic Church and its followers what to believe and how to practice their belief.

I believe in an open and democratic society where there is separation between church and state, where there is liberty for those who follow a religion and those who follow no institutionalized religion. While every religion has the right to tell its followers what to believe and how to live, it has no right to impose its beliefs on others who do not want to live according to its teachings.

We have too many persons suffering because divorce is not available locally. Apart from protecting the partners whose marriage has failed and who have been abandoned without any rights, we also need to take care of the children who are caught in these situations. We must also make it possible for those whose marriages have broken down, to have a fresh start in life.

Committing ourselves to introduce new civil rights in Malta should be part of the answers we need to give to these difficult questions:What does the Labour Party stand for in the second decade of the 21st century? How can it run Malta better than the PN and create the necessary political, economic, social and cultural conditions in our islands to give our people a much better quality of life? Shouldn’t we take real steps to start moving closer to the open and liberal societies of the EU?

If as PL we fail to live up to our tradition of being the party that introduces liberal social reforms in Malta we cannot blame those who lose hope in us and see us as another shade of PN, unable to offer an alternative to the increasing number of people who want our society to open up and become more liberal and socially tolerant and just, like the more socially progressive countries in the rest of the world.

Evarist Bartolo is Minister for Foreign Affairs

More from Evarist Bartolo

•

Dear Abulafia and Lawrence Borg People want to say YES to D I V O R C E because they believe in M A R R I A G E. If people did not believe in a second (or more chances in marriage) they would just cohabitate or live a promiscuous life and not bother about getting a divorce. In any case divorce legislation is clearly outside the capacity, qualifications and skills of the general public ... yet launching a referendum at least offers people the opportunity to exchange views.

•

Halli issa nikteb messagg bil-Malti : dawk li fi hsiebhom jivvutaw LE, ghandkom xi garanzija li d-disgrazzja ta' zwieg li jitkisser qatt mhu se jolqot lilek, jew jekk mhux lilek - u nawguralek li qatt ma tghaddi minn dik it-trawma siehbi - jolqot lil xi hadd minn uliedek, jew ulied uliedek, jew familjari ohra ? Trid fit- 28 ta' Mejju tikkundannahom ghal ghomorhom ghal hajja wahedhom jew inkella u t-tfal taghhom jitwieldu BGHULA ? Ma nemminx li trid dan. Mela siehbi, fit-28 ta' mejju ejja flimkien mieghi nivvutaw IVA BIL-QALB ghal dawk kollha li qeghdin ibatu. U zgur li Alla ikun jafulna, mhux kif qeghdin jghidulek l-OQBRA MBAJJDA li ghandna f'pajjizna !. Eddy

•

Halli issa nikteb messagg bil-Malti : dawk li fi hsiebhom jivvutaw LE, ghandkom xi garanzija li d-disgrazzja ta' zwieg li jitkisser qatt mhu se jolqot lilek, jew jekk mhux lilek - u nawguralek li qatt ma tghaddi minn dik it-trawma siehbi - jolqot lil xi hadd minn uliedek, jew ulied uliedek, jew familjari ohra ? Trid fit- 28 ta' Mejju tikkundannahom ghal ghomorhom ghal hajja wahedhom jew inkella POGGUTI, u t-tfal taghhom jitwieldu BGHULA ? Ma nemminx li trid dan. Mela siehbi, fit-28 ta' mejju ejja flimkien mieghi nivvutaw IVA BIL-QALB ghal dawk kollha li qeghdin ibatu. U zgur li Alla ikun jafulna, mhux kif qeghdin jghidulek l-OQBRA MBAJJDA li ghandna f'pajjizna !. Eddy

•

Evarist bartolo, as usual, provides food for thought to those who are ready and willing to seriously ponder on what he writes. On the question of divorce he is being lucid, credible and down to earth about the real situation we have in our country. Religion does not come into this debate, since it concerns only the civil effects of civil marriage. Whoever resorts to pseudo-religious arguments do so because they lack convincing civil arguments. Eddy Privitera

Luke Lapira •

Would voting no to divorce be putting authorities in the comfort zone of doing nothing (as is happening) to put in practice and consolidate the power of the love and unity of a family? Authorities should ask themselves am I consolidating the value of the family in my drafting and implementation of whatever measure, policy or action? I love the traditional families, I form part of one, love it, convinced and nurture a family but I will vote in favour of divorse. the reason is simple, because I do not want the authorites to sit back and do nothing to promote the family. For example: How long does it take to releive suffering between persons in a dysfunctional family? Who manages to be releived from such suffering? Authorities love families (they say) yet harsh measurements are imposed on them to survive (taxes, wages, job oppotunities, conditions of work). Authorities DO SOMETHING BUT DO NOT POINT FINGERS!

•

I reply to that person who wroted to you that- well who have written that letter he or who is like him- you say you believe in love -yet you are far from it- why you always gets in the middle Jesus- or the religion- that religion of the acts of st.paul is over 2000 yeasr old- that was for that time- personally i am not religious- with divorce law you will give back some civil rights to those people who lost civil rights after their personal problems- just show a bit of love and try to let people be happy to start a new life- who are you to say such things? why people like you think thye know what GOD wants really? that was written thousands of years ago- don't tell me you are another one who hears GOD or so talking to you at night- well Jesus wants jesus don't want- stop all this nonsense- you are religious fanatics- and fanatics goes haywire- in what they do and in what they say- at least i see till now some honest people in what they are saying like Mr.Evarist Bartolo , mr.pulicino orlando and who have spoken without lies hypocrisy- and remember keep out religion from politics- just go in the depth way you came from . we don't care about what hypocrites like you say -some fanatics will agree with you- with their mind obsessed - yet you are far from the truth- the truth is in the world you can see it around you-sooner or later if not this time the next time- Divorce will come - it is inevitable- mr.bartolo and all who says the truth -and who are not afarid to speak openly from those hypocrites- thanks for your honesty and kind hearted to help the weak- with your tools you can help the minority- altough many are bad mariages and hides it- in the dark- we need people like mr.bartolo pulicino orlando etc... in this country to be like the rest of the world

•

@seajay There is a difference between civil recognition and what actually happens when the church annuls a marriage. Annulment means that marriage never happened,therefore offsprings with the church ruling become what I have mentioned. The state on the other hand recognises the offsprings as you have described, that is why DIVORCE is a civil problem regarding laws and not church business.The church has every right to preach that Divorce is unacceptable with her but has no right to stop legislation.

•

Why in Malta some people are afraid of divorce?Could it be that once divorce is introduced all Maltese are going to divorce.Its a fundamental right of every citizen to choose his way of life. Those that are against it have have no right to impose their believes on others .If the majority are against it, so what, don't the minority have rights too.The PM should keep his opinion to himself, he is supposes to represent all, those for it and those against.

•

Mr Bartolo's reasoning would be murky and shallow only if he actually made it. You have only created a straw man, and unsruprisingly tore it to shreds. Similarly the non-sequiturs you mention would be glaringly obvious, but only if Mr Bartolo actually made them. He didn't.

Norman Buckle •

@MICHAEL001 I assume that you are enough of a learned man that I need not explain why Artistotle would hold you in contempt ... Argumentum ad verecundiam, and all that jazz, even if it is not in Greek. There are a mere handful of writers here, including the blogger. As I am one of the "people" in your heading, allow me to intrude into your ivory tower and point out that: 1) Had you corrected me in any way whatsoever, I would have learned something new, and would have thanked you for it. 2) Had you pointed out that I should have included, in my proposal, Battery and/or Mental Cruelty against the spouse or children, I would have taken note of it and include it in any future discourse. 3) Had you concluded, from what I had written, that, hey, Malta already has 'Divorce' legislation, albeit embedded in Article 19A of the Marriage Act, I would have kicked myself for not making my headline reflect that reality. But you did not make a point. Instead, you chose to shame me/us into submission to your erudition. So, allow me to offer you a piece of Canadian folk wisdom: When you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, shut the ░ ░ ░ ░ up!

Albert Zammit •

Why is it that people write in the public media, yet have no idea what they are writing about?? Why don't these people spend time quietly reading and learning, rather than being seen and heard? And read!

Norman Buckle •

@Martin Borg Sorry Mr. Borg, you are wrong. Article 20 (2) of the Marriage Act states: (2) The effects of a valid marriage shall be deemed to have always existed with reference to the children born or conceived during a marriage declared to be void as well as with reference to children born before such marriage and acknowledged before the judgment declaring the nullity.

•

Unlike Divorce , Annulment creates bastards of children born in a non-excistant marriage, because that what annulment is all about, marriage never occured therefore children born are simply illegitimate or as commonly known "bastards".

Norman Buckle •

Whenever a couple find themselves in an intolerable marital situation, all they want is a way out ... and they could care less whether the dissolution of their marriage is labelled "Annulment" or "Divorce". Malta has a unique Marriage Act which includes grounds for annulment as specified by Article 19 [Nullity of marriage]. The Act itself, came into being in 1975. In 1995, Article 19 was amended to include Article 19A whose sub-article 1 reads: (1) A valid marriage may be annulled at the request of one of the spouses on the grounds that the other party has refused to consummate the same. And its sub-article 3 specifies that an action, for Annulment, under this Article, cannot be commenced until after 3 months had lapsed since the marriage took place. Please note: This Article deals with the dissolution of ►valid◄ marriages, just like divorce laws do, in other countries. I respectfully suggest that Hon. Evarist Bartolo should consider submitting a Private Member's Bill calling for an amendment to Article 19A to include, in addition to non-consummation, (i) abandonment of the matrimonial home; (ii) act of infidelity. The Constitutution of Malta's Chapter IV - Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual - guarantees to each and every Maltese citizen, "security of the person" and "respect for his private and family life" (among other things) as specified by Section 32. How does all this relate to the proposed amendment? (i) Abandoning the home usually entails economic hardships and more often than not, the taxpayer is left to pick up the pieces; (ii) Infidelity in this day and age of rampant sexually transmitted diseases, notably HIV/AIDS, puts the innocent partner at grave risk. Both situations present a serious threat to the security of the affected spouse, and therefore, should be included in Article 19A.(1). It is worth remembering that, the inclusion of Article 19A is, in itself, a statement that the Law is a living instrument, fluid in its reflection of current realities. If passed (by a simple majority vote of the House), the proposed Amendment would put an end to the divisive debate.

•

Joe Both are civil matters as well. It is the way both things are manipulated by the Church and Civil authorities that is worrying.

Richard Demicoli •

I think the Pro-divorce members would be risking if they put the cart before the donkey. I am happily married too, but I don't believe that the people should be taught from above: we are in the 21 century after all. Instead I believe in the philosophy of "iz-zmien isajru il-bajtar" and those who are suffering because of divorce should come forward, organize themselves and make their voices heard. Many divorced people would still vote against divorce, when elections come, because of their "conservative" Party allaigance . A clear example of this syndrome is the way gay people vote in Malta. Although the Labour Party stuck its neck out for homosexuals in 1973 ( when it decriminilised homosexuality), many of these gays, including present- day gay and lesbian leaders, still vote for the PN-the conservative Party.And, to add greviance to injury- they will continue voting for PN ( who has always voted against their interests) unless the PL gives them the right to same sex marriage and adoption! U halluna and grow up. The same goes for the divorcees: if they want divorce they have to fight for it and not expect happily married couples to do the dirty work for them. Politics is about doing the possible; Malta is still a very, very, conservative island, and the Church, who has every right to teach its members what is good or wrong, will not refrain from forcing its dictat (willy nilly) with a trick or two, on the rest of the non-practicing members.

•

Like me others, Evarist Bartolo seems to be building his argument thus: A. No religious institution has the right to impose its beliefs on non-members. (True) Therefore, B. the State may introduce divorce because C. divorce is good. (True?) The non sequitur and other shortcomings in Mr Bartolo's reasoning: (i) If divorce is good and the Church is against it, Mr Bartolo seems to be arguing that the Church is for something bad (i.e. the prohibition of divorce). (ii) He does not prove, but simply presents as a self-evident, the axiom that divorce is good. Actually, independent research published by Cambridge University shows that divorce brings about the impoverishment of society. It also brings about stress and depression in individuals, particularly children who needs counselling. (iii) To sum it up, what Mr Bartolo is saying is that the State has to introduce divorce because (A) religions should not impose their values on non-members and (B) it is good. The first is a non sequitur and an anti-clerical stance without any proof to substantiate it. The second is an assertion which Mr Bartolo fails, once again, to substantiate. I find Mr Bartolo's reasoning murky and shallow.

•

by any chance is your correspondent called Joe Zammit? :)

Alfred Galea •

The constitution.

gorg dalli •

There is NOTHING and NOBODY above the STATE !!

Alfred Galea •

Divorce ia a civil matter, has nothing to do with pedofile priests, Abraham or God. Leave them out of it.

•

When it comes to argue divorce with those who use religion as an argument I like to cite the Genesis when GOD gave Adam and Eve the right for a free choice. One should compare Divorce to the tree in Paradise, it should be there and it is our choice to eat from it or not, at the end of it all it's the individual who has to face Good and Mari or Ganni who sit in the front seats and are the first to step up for holy communion. DR Gonzi says that as a Catholic he cannot vote for divorce as other MPs say from both sides of the political spectrum, their dilema can be easily solved by introducing a well planned law, avoiding the mistakes other countries did, a law that is exacting but fair without the need of a vote, by parliament or otherwise. As already been mentioned whilst some find it difficult to vote for Divorce which is condemmed by the church yet have no qualms to collect tax from condoms which are also condemmed by the church.

Jessica Chetcuti •

Very well said, it’s refreshing to know where our politicians stand on this very important subject. However how divorce is going to be introduced is the big question. Should it be through government by secret ballot, or by a referendum? If it is going to be done by a referendum I can envisage the church coming out with all guns blazing. The subject of Sunday sermons will be about the evils of divorce, telling the congregation that we will forever remain in purgatory....... Okay perhaps a bit far fetched,.... but you get my meaning. As my late dear old dad used to say, “It’s better to have and not need, than to need and not have”. He wasn’t talking specifically about divorce, but he could just as well have been.

Luke Camilleri •

The Family of Abraham by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Various biblical passages describe the complex inter-relationships in the family of Abraham (originally named Abram). Contrary to modern Western customs, it was acceptable in ancient times to marry close family relatives, including cousins and nieces. It was evidently also common for men to have more than one wife, and even to have children with women who were not their wives (slaves or concubines). For example, Abraham's first son was the child of his wife's slave-girl; and one biblical tradition even says that his wife, Sarah, was actually his half-sister. Similarly, the twelve sons of Jacob have four different mothers: the two wives of Jacob (who are his first cousins) and two other women (slave-girls of his wives). http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/History-Abraham.htm

•

Does your constituent consider the protection of peadophile priests by the church authorities as "the beginning of the end for Malta"?

•

well written var. i just hope that all labour MPs are as open minded and caring towards the rest of the maltese society.

•

Well said.