Young, free, and against divorce

Sporting white T-shirts with the name 'Le B'Rispett Lejn il-Gejjieni' (No, out of respect for the future), emblazoned in different colours, campaigners Andrea Pace and Angelo Micallef outlined the reasons for the group's formation and its main arguments in favour of a 'No' vote in the May 28 referendum.

Andrea Pace, the group's main spokesperson, said that what united this otherwise disparate organization - composed, he said, of 'students and workers' - was the common belief that society will not be better off with the introduction of divorce.

"We are saying no because we believe that the best recipe for marriage is one that promotes a stable society where marriage is based on permanence," Pace said. "We recognize that it is indeed true that the breakdown of marriage causes much pain and hardship, but the introduction of divorce will not serve to alleviate this pain and hardship in any way, but rather will lead to an increase in the breakdown of marriages."

Pace claimed that the current bill, as jointly presented by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (PN) and Evarist Bartolo (PL), would open the door to "unilateral divorce".

"There is no limit to the number of times one can attain divorce and hence one may attain divorce more than once," he added.

He also reiterated the No campaign's arguments that to talk of 'guarantees' on maintenance was misleading, as in practice maintenance be 'guaranteed'.

"This is why we are appealing to all voters to respect the future, and vote no," Pace concluded.

The same spokespersons were however reluctant to comment when asked about a number of related issues: including what alternative solutions the group was proposing for persons whose previous marriage had failed, but who were in new, unregulated relationships.

"We believe the way forward is to seek ways to strengthen families," Angelo Micallef said. When asked how this approach could help people whose families have already failed, he reiterated his group's belief that "divorce was not a solution."

Micallef and Pace both declined to express a view on the proposed cohabitation legislation, arguing that it was irrelevant to the issue at hand: i.e., the 28 May referendum.

Separately, the group as a whole appeared unaware that divorce that Malta's law courts have recognized at least 785 divorces obtained from foreign jurisdictions since 1973: when the Family Act allowed for the recognition of overseas divorce.

"It is not possible for Maltese couples to get divorced overseas," one member insisted, while several others nodded vehemently, "You need to obtain a residency abroad first."

When reminded that Malta has been a member of the EU since 2004 – making foreign residency considerably easier to obtain that ever before – they still insisted that Maltese courts 'cannot recognize divorces obtained from foreign jurisdiction'.