Many would agree with divorce ... if it's 'consensual'

Zwieg bla Divorzju spokesperson Arthur Galea Salomone says the divorce bill is "an imposition" but people say it would have been a different story if the divorce was “consensual”.

Addressing the media, movement spokesman Arthur Galea Salomone said that Moviment Zwieg bla Divorzju is against divorce because “it would be imposed on the party that does not want it”.

Asked point blank by journalists whether the movement was against divorce as a principle, Galea Salomone said the movement is “against the divorce as it is being proposed.”

However, he added that he met with several people who said that “a consensual divorce would be acceptable”, or "it would be acceptable in the case a woman is abused".

But Galea Salomone reiterated that the movement was against the "divorce the Maltese are facing and we are going to say no on the basis of the question we have in front of us."

He reiterated “why should a person who does not want to get divorced have it imposed on him or her?” and said that divorce would be imposed and granted “without reason”. 

Asked to comment on the fact that there are children who are in a worse situation because their parents are constantly fighting and they are caught in between the conflict, Galea Salomone reiterated that divorce is not the solution.

“I recognise there are cases where children might benefit, however divorce will only bring more problems.”

On the movement’s claim that divorce will be “imposed”, Galea Salomone was asked how does it differentiate from separation and annulment cases, where it only takes one party to start the procedure.

“Annulments are given on specific reasons and the Ecclesiastic Tribunal looks into theses reasons,” Galea Salomone answered.

“But separation is different from divorce because in separation one is forced to pass through the mediation phase before separating.” According to Galea Salomone this will not happen if a person – who is is not legally separated – divorces.

But Moviment Iva ghad-Divorzju has more than once said that if a person who is not legally separated applies for divorce, the couple must go through both separation and divorce.

He added that if the husband then remarries, he will cease from fulfilling his obligations towards his first wife “to maintain his partner”.

During the rest of the press conference, Galea Salomone pointed out a number of “reasons” why the “referendum question is misleading and deceitful”.

He said that the first part of the question was deceiving to those who agree with divorce if the couple is already legally separated. “But it is enough to have abandoned your husband or wife and children for four years to get divorced and there is no need for a legal separation.”

The Moviment Iva ghad-Divorzju has more than once said that if a person is not legally separated, the separation case will be done together with the divorce.

Galea Salomone said the question does not show “the reality of a divorce without reason” and the person who is at fault will impose the divorce on the party that “wanted to keep the promised made”.

He said the referendum question does not show “that there is  anything which will stop a person from divorcing two, three times and more”.

He stressed that the question gives “the false impression that alimony is guaranteed – something which divorce cannot guarantee.” He said that this can be clearly understood from the fact this already happens in separation cases.

Galea Salomone said it is “deceitful when they say divorce will safeguard children. According to a Misco survey we commissioned, three out of every four Maltese say divorce will hurt the children and only 8% say divorce will have a positive impact.”

“Children hurt because there are problems in the family. When these problems lead to family breakdowns, the children hurt more.  When a new person enters the picture, it is natural that the suffering increases.

“Divorce will scar children for life. The referendum question ignores the reality that children suffer because of divorce and cannot guarantee they will be safeguarded.”

Galea Salomone concluded that “notwithstanding the deceitful question, the Maltese public is intelligent enough to recognise this deceit and next Saturday he will vote NO against the divorce without reason.”

More in Divorce Referendum
avatar
These people are an insult to our intelligence! The argument of the no-fault divorce is the lamest, stupidest reasoning these morons can come up with. For one nanosecond let's picture the No to Divorce's favourite scenario; My other half due to my burgeoning weight decides that as I am no longer a perfect size 10 ups and leaves, abandoning his home and family. After 4 long years of separation wherein I am supposedly still pining for this bastard, my moron ex-husband files for divorce and I according to the No movement am being dragged against my will through said divorce proceedings. Who are they kidding? What kind of woman would want to stay married to the aforementioned plonker? Unless of course, revenge is on the agenda and I'd rather be the one and only Mrs.Joe Blogg then let another b***h take my place. In which case, the No movement should start calling a spade a spade and let it be known to ex-spouses with vendetta on their mind that if divorce is available than they no longer can torture their ex-spouses...this is not rocket science people...just another warped lesson in solidarity a' la Maltija
avatar
gECKO sMAJTU JAQRA DIN LIL DS FIL-PROGRAMM TX U SFIDAHA BIEX TBIDDEL U HI QALTLU JEKK IRIDU IBIDDLUHA FIL PARLIAMENT. JIEN GHANDI RAGUN GHAX FIHMT SEW, IL-QORTI TISTA TACCETTA DIVORZJU JEKK IKUN ILU ERBA SNIN U GHALEHKK IKUN IRREPARABBLI U MA HEMMX BZONN LI JKUNU T-TNEJN. JIDDISPJACINI LI SEWWA FIHMT; JIDDISPJACINI LI JAFU LI QED JIDHKU BIN-NIES. SMAJTU JAQRALHA L-PARTI LI SER NIVVOTAW FUQHA. JIEN ZGUR NIVVOTA LE GHAX IL-LIGI KIF SER NIVVOTAW GHALIJA FAVUR IT-TIENI ZWIEG MINN FUQ DAHAR L-EWWEL ZWIEG U MSIEKEN IL-MARA/RAGEL TA L-EWWEL ZWIEG U T-TFAL TA L-EWWEL ZWIEG. JEKK TAQBEL MA DIN AFFARIK!!!!
avatar
Perhaps because he's feeling defeat is near so he trying to be pragmatic???
avatar
Why has Arthur changed his tune when the whole LE campaign has been totally against any form of divorce. Read the Mullah's anti-pastoral letter on: https://mazzun.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/il-kontropastoral-tal-mullah-divorzistan-fuq-facebook/
avatar
Joseph Sant
@bejn il-linji - You don't need anyone to explain anything. Just read the bill. I wouldn't take anybody's word or explanation. I only base my decisions on facts that I can deduce after informing myself from original documents. What others say doesn't interest me in the least. Just read the proposed bill and make up your own mind.
avatar
But Moviment Iva ghad-Divorzju has more than once said that if a person who is not legally separated applies for divorce, the couple must go through both separation and divorce. Gecko iccekkja sew ghax jien smajt lil DS tghid li ma ghandek bzonn l-ebda ittra ufficjali x'turi imma trid tipprova lil qorti li ilek erba snin separat u skond kif fihmt jien din (erba snin separat) hi bizzejjed biex issarraf li l-ewwel zwieg miet. Nixtieq li jew tal-iva jew tal-le jghidulna min fehem sew....jghidulna b'mod ufficjali bhal ma kellhom ittra ffirmata u ufficjali l-kaccaturi ta l-inqas...FIL-LIGI PROPOSTA X'GHANDEK BZONN BIEX TAPPLIKA GHAD-DIVORZJU???? U JEKK JGHOGOBKOM TGHIDULIX LI DAK LI DIGA GIE MIFTIEHEM JGHODD GHAX DIN NAFHA...
avatar
Joseph Sant
Purely for information, excerpts from the proposed divorce bill: 71 (1) Without prejudice to any other Article in this Sub-Title when the spouses are not legally separated at the commencement of the divorce proceedings, divorce may be pronounced by a judgement on the demand of one spouse against the other on any of the grounds stated in Articles 38, 40 and 41 of Sub-Title III of this Title or on any other grounds which may, in future be valid grounds for the obtainment of personal separation. THIS EFFECTIVELY BURST THE BUBBLE OF THE "NO REASON" MYTH CREATED BY THE NO MOVEMENT (caps used merely to differentiate between words of the bill and my own comments) 74(1) Where an application is made to the court for the grant of a decree of divorce, the court shall give consideration to the possibility of a reconciliation between the spouses concerned and, accordingly may adjourn the proceedings at any time for the purpose of enabling attempts to be made by the spouses, if they both wish so, to effect such a reconciliation with or without the assistance of a third party. ANOTHER BUBBLE BURST - THERE IS NO IMPOSITION AND THE COURT IS DUTY BOUND TO MAKE SURE RECONCILIATION HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED. THIS APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE BILL IN OTHER SECTIONS IMPOSES A DUTY ON THE APPLICANT'S LAWYER TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF RECONCILIATION AND/OR MEDIATION AND TO REFER APPLICANT TO COUNSELLING. The proposed divorce legislation can hardly be more responsible.
avatar
M'hawnx min hu ipokrita', giddieb u pinnur daqs dan il-bniedem. Dalghodu mort nara l-ommi li tinsab rikoverata f'dar ta' l-anzjani il-Fgura. Qaltli li meta mar il ministru tat-tqarbin biex iqarbinha dan staqsiha jekk hux ser tivvota u kif ser tivvota. Dan hu li qed jigri,imorru jbezzghu lill-anzjani li jkunu qed jaghmlu dnub jekk jivvotaw iva. Il-wicc vili ta' dawn in-nies ma fih ebda limitu.
avatar
I like the picture above, comes complete with state of the art cross. It shows us that the learned gentleman has reserved his place in heaven and all you Iva sinners are going to hell. By the way there will be foot washing at the stock exchange on Saturday, service conducted by Galea Salamone. No flip flops please
avatar
Joseph Sant
@ bejn il-linji. Once again you are wrong sir. One of the criteria essential for the Courts to even consider an application for divorce (a condition also included in the question we are voting on) is that all efforts at reconciliation have been exhausted. The four year separation in and of itself is not sufficient. Once again, please get your facts right. You are free to vote however you like but don't stoop to lies to try to mislead others. That in my book amounts to dishonesty.
avatar
@ Bejn il linji, Ha najdlek haga, Jekk ir -ragel tieghi dejjaq minni, ma ghandux bzon 4 snin, jistenna divorce! ghax inkeccih min issa, GHAx ma ridc li jkun mieghi bil fors, inhobbu kemm inhobbu,ma ric lil hadd, lanqas lil zewgi bilfors!! Ghax la ma jkollux imhabba u rispett lejjha,ma ridux,tajdlix ibatu tfal, ghax dik gidba hoxna kull min jajda, ghax naf tfal li qedin ahjar,ghax infirdu l-genituri,ghax ma jarawx glied u ghajjat u hafna kliem hazin quddiemom! u B'hekk sa nivotta ''IVA''
avatar
Fil=-kaz ta annulamenti hemm qorti li tgharbel jekk ir-raguni tezistix u r-ragunijiet proprja ma humiex hfief biex tipprovahom u kif jaf kulhadd ghall annulament tghaddi mill purgatorju. L-aktar haga li smajtu jghid kienet li dan id-divorzju ma hux is-soluzzjoni u kieku sar studju forsi kien johrog divorzju responsabbli. Min jivvota iva jkun qed japprova divorzju li jista jinghata u KULL MA GHANDEK BZONN ERBA SNIN SEPARAZZJONI (MINGHAJR L-EBDA CERTIFIKAT SPECIFIKU). IZ-ZEJT TIELA FIL WICC U SER NIVVOTA LE.
avatar
Dr Galea Salamone, dak li ghedtu inthom ifisser ukoll li suppost lanqas taqblu ma' l-annullament tal-Knisja u lanqas separazzjoni u annullament civili ghax xorta wahda jista' ma jkunx konsenswali ghaliex ikun hemm parti li ma taqbilx li ghandha tissepara jew tannulla z-zwieg taghha. Insomma, komplu hawwdu l-froga ghax iktar ma tghidu iktar tithawwad.
avatar
Tistghu tghiduli jekk fil-kaz ta' annulament tistax issir talba min-naha wahda biss?
avatar
Mela skond Dr Galea Salamone mhux il-principju tad-divorzju huwa hazin imma l-metodu. Mela jekk inhu hekk ghax ma ghedtuhx qabel u ipprezentajtu emenda ghal-ligi kif proposta? Tridu tghaddu z-zmien bin-nies biex kif qalu ohrajn tiddefendu lil Gonzi kemm jekk ir-referendum jghaddi u kemm jekk le.
avatar
Mela skond Dr. Galea Salomone, il-moviment tal-LE ma jaqblux mal-mistoqsija izda mhux mad-divorzju Jigifieri d-divorzju, kieku kien " Konsenswali " kienu lesti li jaqblu !! Ic-cucata li qal Dr. Galea Salomone hi din : kieku d-divorzju biex jinghata irid ikun hemm il-kunsens kemm tar-ragel kif ukoll tal-mara, kieku jista jkollna sitwazzjoni fejn mara li r-ragel kien isawwatha, u din il-mara, wara li tkun ilha li telqithu 4 snin , u titlob id-divorzju biex tiibda hajja gdida ma ragel iehor li verament ihobba u jirrispettaha, l-ex rgel taghha, biex ikompli jahqarha, joggezzjona ghad-divorzju ! U dik il-povra mara tibqa SKJAVA TA'DAK IR-RAGEL GHAL- GHOMORHA !!! Dak li jridu tal-LE ! ISTHU MINN ALLA, LI TANT TRIDUHA TA' AGENTI TIEGHU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Eddy Privitera
avatar
LILL TAL-LE NGHIDILHOM. FEJN HU GONZIPN ???? LANQAS LISSEN KELMA WAHDA. DAN QED JUZAKOM. MARTU KATE HARGET GHONQHA IZJED MINNHU GHALKEMM KIENET QALET CUCATA GRASSA.
avatar
Paul Sammut
All the Le are doing is just trying to save Gonzi's face for if the Le gets a majority too many voters will say it's Gonzi's fault for depriving people from a better happy future. On the other hand if the Yes are in majority then the divorce law will have to be introduced on Gonzi's watch, which exposing him for the weakest devious Maltese prime minister ever. In appears that it takes a Gonzi to split families and society.
avatar
Anke dan kien difensur tal-fidi . Pope Alexander VI AKA Rodrigo de Borja . http://www.nndb.com/people/159/000092880/ . Read and learn
avatar
Consensual or not if the marriage is finished and there is no love binding the partners it is best for both if they go thier separate waysand not stand in each others creating some of the worst emotional trauma for themselves and any children involved. Finally even ZbD is coming round to realise this though they will not admit it.
avatar
Luke Camilleri
These new fundamentalists have truly an A' La Carte Agenda- they just want it their way for "theirs" and not for all which should be given by RIGHT! They have transformed the issue in a three ring circus with their clowning about, doing u-turns , going out of the way NOT TO GIVE EQUAL RIGHTS FIRST AND FOREMOST TO ALL THE MALTESE!
avatar
qed tara d dawl Sur Arthur Galea Salomone ? kellu bzonn jdum ftit aktar ma jsir r referendum ghax kieku aktar nkunu nafu li dak kollu li qed tghidu u li intom tant qed tippredkaw kontrieh ghad rridu naddu minnu Nemen li d divorzju ghad jidhol Zgur . Haga li mank emmintha hu ta kif dal gvern sab l flus biex jikri l-ambulanzi biex jiehdu lilmorda jivvutaw imbaghad meta jkun hemm xi pazjent ma jkollomx ambulanza ghalih . Kurzita Tafu kemm inkrew ambulanzi? Poplu qum u thallix lil minn jaddik bi zmien aktar
avatar
@ sage Of course. But (leaving rubber-stamps apart) can anyone clarify what is the actual and practical difference between annulment, separation, cohabitation and being divorced? You know of Machiavelli's "The End Justifies the Means". So if everyone here can agree that if the end result is the same, why create all this hullaballoo and waste an entire €4 million for a referendum to get exactly the same end result? At this moment in time, whoever wants to end a marriage, whether unilaterally or not, whether by paying maintenance or not, whether by getting custody of the children or not, has NO PROBLEM. He or she..... guess what? Correct. JUST LEAVES. PERIOD. Putting it in simpler words: a couple breaks up. The first step would be that they go their separate ways. IE they leave. They agree, whether by an instant notarial contract whereby they agree mutually or by fighting long years in court, who would get which property, who would pay maintenance to whom, and who would get custody of the children, and who would be paying maintenance for the children. I'm pretty sure that if a couple was ready to go through the turmoil of all of that, it would take perhaps even more than Angelik and his miracles to get them back together again, happily ever after.......... So long for the argument that the option of CHOOSING for divorce would weaken marriage. [As a sideline, leaving all religious arguments apart, as if someone would be frivolously spending €15,000 in expenses to marry only with the intent of having to fork out even much larger sums of money for "divorcing" 4 years later... Oh come on people! Anyway, let us assume that there still is no divorce law and this couple just separate. Here are the options which can happen AFTERWARDS: Immediately after separating one of the parties files with the Church for the marriage to be annulled. Almost inevitably, the other spouse files his or her reasons why the marriage shouldn't be annulled (biex ma jpaxxihiex/ biex ma tpaxxihx). After the separation some are lucky enough to get a church annulment, enabling them to re-obtain the magic "married" rubber-stamp once again, whether they choose to marry in Church, or whether they choose solely a civil marriage. Enabling them to remain "perfect practising catholics"...... The large majority both of "previous marriage annulled" and of cohabitating couples start afresh with a new family and have kids. Most of them adhere to the mutual separation agreement or court-imposed orders of maintenance. Others don't. ALL of them whether they want it or not, don't have their union and their children recognised as such by the state. It was just on the news that the "new cohabitation law" proposed by the present government will regularise people of the same sex living together (and rightly so) but will never regularise cohabitating couples where they are male and female. What would be their position then? Wouldn't that be more cruel than a regularised and legitimate divorce as happens all over the EU, USA, Australia, heck even Antartica.... well anywhere in the world (even in Libya and Iran) except Malta and the Philippines?
avatar
Fr Charles Vella told a Times of Malta reporter and also Norman Hamilton on One TV that "Divorce does not worry him". Then why should it worry you and me? Dr. Anna Vella of the Kana Movement said during a radio programme presented by Fr Joe Borg on Classic FM, that she 'Ma tridx tkun ittimbrata li hi kontra d-divorzju'. She denied saying this when interviewed on Family TV by the interviewer Dr Ellul. The clip with her voice was repeated on One news both TV and radio. Will she deny it again? Now Solomone is saying that he is against divorce as presented. Does this mean that if presented differently he will be in favour and all the ill effects he has been campaigning against will just disappear? Isn't this obvious what to vote for come next Saturday? I would like to be positive and vote YES with clean conscience. My children and my children’s children may one day bless me for voting for a life saver.
avatar
Imma bis-serjeta, dawn x'argumenti huma. jista xi hadd jiehu is-sur Galea Salamone bis-serjeta. Filli divorzju qatt w qatt, imma issa forsi imma f'certi circumtanzi. Ftit wara li bezaqha beda jawwiga u jdur mahha kemm seta biex jerga ihhawdek. B'qajt halqi miftuh. Vera ikkonvincejt lil mien kellu l'inqas dubju. Proset.
avatar
"It was also said, 'Any person that divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce.' But I tell you that any person that divorces his wife is causing his wife to be guilty of the sin of adultery. The only reason for a person to divorce his wife is if his wife had sexual relations with another man. And any person that marries that divorced woman is guilty of the sin of adultery Matthew 5:31-32 fil bibja, kristu jaqbel ma divorzju
avatar
“But separation is different from divorce because in separation one is forced to pass through the mediation phase before separating.” According to Galea Salomone this will not happen if a person – who is is not legally separated – divorces." May I ask...did he read the question posed for the referendum??? Does it not state that the couple have to be at least 4 years separated? secondly one could get a separation if the other party wished not to reply to any proceedings whether the mediation or even in court...so why all the fuss? Who is misleading who...I think he should revise his family law notes....
avatar
@ kp8011 Nispera li kienitx 'the other way round' u r-reporter qalibha ta' taht fuq. Dil-bicca grat fuq dan is-sit milux wisq u rrangaw kollox wara nsistenza min hafna, fosthom jiena. Sur Onlie Editor nixtiequk ticcaralna dil-haga qabel ma jkun tard wisq. SC
avatar
Divorce is an important mechanism for either both parties in a failed marriage who did their best to save it or for an unfortunate victim in a failed marriage. it is for this reason that divorce is present world wide and why no fault has been found to be the ideal type of divorce also because it protects children from being involved in acrimoious situations involving their parents. This is why I consider the cliche' bla raguni as being offensive because a divorce can only be accessible if a marriage has failed...no greater raguni than that can exist. Having used children in the way they have, I will now hope that the naysayers will leave alone the old and infirm on voting day.
avatar
@ Haddiehor: ZBD are not "against" marriage break-downs as such - as in, they're just as distressed by them as anybody else. Break-downs will happen anyway, whatever processes are available to solve the aftermath of such. Also, I am sure that no one in his right mind actually agrees with, or sees anything positive, in marriage break-down per se. Every failed marriage is an unhappy occurence and I don't think that anyone celebrates these things. . What ZBD are against is remarriage at all costs. It is remarriage which bothers them. Annulments are fine because the first marriage has been nullified, no matter that the suffering caused to the parties and the children is just as horrendous as it is with any type of break-up. . Cohabitation, on the other hand, is something which - in their view - will inevitable happen but which does not break old and dead, so-called, marriage bonds. Of course they're not actually in favour of cohabitation, but as long as the marriages are remaining intact, even in only in name and appearance, then such relationships are tolerated.
avatar
@ donovan85 Biex il-fergha tal-knisja kattolika tkun qed timxi mat-taghlim ta' Gesu Kristu m'ghandiex tippriedka biex nivvotaw 'le' ghal ligi li taghti GHAZLA ghal divorzju. Ghandha tippriedka li se tidhol din il-ligi, imma 'ahna' li ahna kattolici m'ghandniex nuzawha ghax huwa kontra t-taghlim tal-vangelu. Ghandha tikxef sor... (oops!) li listess knisja rumana kattolika fl-ingilterra tirrekjedi li koppja jiddivorzjaw QABEL ma jibdew il-proceduri ghal-annullament! Ghalfejn il-"Knisja Rumana Kattolika" ghandha dogma u regoli differenti minn dik ta' l-ISTESS Knisja Rumana Kattolika ta pajjizi ohra? U ghalfejn jinqraw certi partijiet mil-Vangelu waqt il-quddiesa u mhux ohrajn? Mill-link tal-Mazzun, dawn qatt ma nstemghu: "Mattew 5:32 – U jiena nghidlek li dawk kollha li jiddivorzjaw lin-nisa taghhom, hlief dawk li l-imgieba sesswali taghhom hija mmorali jkunu qed jikkomettu adulterju u bhalma jaghmel min jizzewweg mara ddivorzjata. Mattew 19:8 – U qalilhom: “Mose, minhabba l-eghbusija ta’ qalbkom, se nippermetti li tiddivorzjaw lin-nisa taghkom, imma fil-bidu ma kienx hekk.” Dewteronomju 24:1-4 – “Meta ragel jizzewweg mara u jsib li m’ghandux interess fiha ghax mahmuga, jiktbilha certifikat tad-divorzju, jpoggieh f’idejha u jkecciha mid-dar.” Dan bhal sikkina. Kulhadd ghandu l-iskieken id-dar imma il-fatt li qeghdin hemm ma jfissirx li se taqbad wahda u tohrog toqtol. L-istess bhalma llum il-gurnata tista' tmur go pet shop u tixtri arma tan-nar, mhux biss snieter imma revolvers u armi ohrajn. Hadd ma dahallu f'mohhu li naghmlu referendum dwar id-dhul tar-revolvers, ghax kullhadd ghandu fiducja li l-poplu malti huwa matur bizzejjed biex juzhom ghal passatemp biss. Sincerament ghadni ma nistax nifhem ghala dal-paniku kollu ingieb ghal bicca ligi li taghti "rubber stamp" ta' zwieg lil persuni li altrimenti just jikkoabitaw...
avatar
@ Semas The way I understand them is that the No (Zwieg bla Divorzju) people are against marriage breakdowns. They're right there - who on earth would be in favour of couples splitting up, especially when they've got kids? But once the marriage breaks down, what happens afterwards is irrelevant. Nothing can mend a marriage which irretrievably broke down, where even after living their separate ways for 4 or more entire years a solution was never found. Annulling that marriage will not make it work again (far from it), and neither would separation. And obviously neither would cohabitation. I'm just as clueless on what the No (ZBD) movement as you are.
avatar
jien se nivotta favur id-divorzzju ghal diversi ragunijiet, 1. il knisja messa tisthi bdin il kampanja ta scaremongering illum madniex fi 60'ijiet 2. mhux dnub li tivotta favur id divorzzju. il midneb hu dak li jabbuza mi tfal u jihu linocenzza ta tfal, meta xolu suppost hu li jiproteggi dawn it tfal. 3. id-dnub hu dawk il membri tal knisja li fil passat kienu ibezzaw li nies li jekk ma jhallux il kaxxa ta dheb il knisja ruhom ma salvaxx. u sa hansitra kin hemm ejra bejn il qassisin li minn halewlu modd. u min halewlu modd ihor. 4. il knisja qeda tamel din il kampanja ta bizza fuq il poplu malti ghax il knisja taf li se tmurila il pappa, jekk jithol id divorzzju. daqsekk flus min fuq l-anullamenti. 5. il qassisin bijaw u salbu lil kristu ghal flus. u il knisja go malta tbieh il felicita ta nies al flus laqwa li tkompli idahall il flus min fuq l-annulamenti 6. il midneb hu dak ir-ragel li jsawatt il martu u dik il mara li taqliba li ragel tahha. dawk kont lil alla jtuh huma ta emilom. izda dik il vittma li giet traduta fi zwieg taha jew tigheu andom ikollom dritt li jsibu felicita ma persuni ohra 7. le al knisja ta ingann. iva al knisja nadifa. le al qassisin u sorijiet pedoffeli. iva al qassisin u sorijiet misjunarji.
avatar
Is the No (ZBD) movement against divorce or not?
avatar
Always the same broken record of an argument that can be applied to divorce, cohabitation and separation equally. For more info see: https://mazzun.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/alla-tolleranti-u-jridkom-tivvotaw-iva-fir-referendum-l-ewwel-parti/
avatar
Has it occurred to anyone that ALL the arguments presented by the "LE" movement are perfectly valid, but not for divorce? They are valid for separation. Trauma to children? It happens when their parents start fighting, break up and separate. Maintenance problems? They start when the spouses break up. And your argument that wages have a stretching limit - annulments also provide for maintenance, what about those persons who get 2 or 3 annulments and have to maintain 2 other families apart from their present one? Are they exempt from your 'wage-stretching' rule? What about cohabiting people? Isn't separation the starting point of maintenance? What has divorce got to do with it? At least divorce will bring a legal framework but as the law (or better, its absence) stands now a spouse can just leave, cohabit with a partner, start a new family and just wipe out his first family from his mind! Child custody issues? They start when the spouses break up and separate i.e. start living apart from each other. The argument that divorce can be imposed by only one of the spouses against the will of the other is a joke. Possibly you don't know of any couples where one spouse just left, and separated the spouse who was more than willing to have him or her back? Or where a marriage was declared null in spite of one of the spouses (probably out of spite) did his or her utmost for the marriage not to be annulled? Of course divorce is not a solution Mr Galea Salamone. Divorce is not a solution for the family which is broken (because obviously to happily married people whether divorce is introduced or not will make no difference). But using your same flawed argument, is having a marriage annulled a solution to the broken marriage? Is separation a solution? Divorce is a solution, to the children whose parents are cohabiting. Divorce is a solution, to the spouse who is cohabiting: did you know that in the case of death the partner of the deceased will be totally excluded unless the deceased had made a will providing from him or her? Do you know that when 2 cohabiting persons split up no maintenance can be asked by either one? Do you know that when 2 cohabiting persons split up, neither party has any rights over the property which they paid for together, it just automatically is owned by the person on whom it was registered? And finally, has it occurred to you that divorce isn't something obligatory? If (heaven forbids) your wife divorces you, you can still choose to live as a celibate separated person. And please don't put forth the argument of her marrying another guy and its effect on the children... as the (lack of) law stands now, a high percentage of separated persons cohabit. Cohabitation is just the same as re-marrying after divorcing. It just doesn't have the "rubber stamp" of marriage.
avatar
Quote no1 “Annulments are given on specific reasons and the Ecclesiastic Tribunal looks into theses reasons,” Galea Salomone answered. Unquote: Is being the son and son-in-law of EFA a specific reason? Quote No 2: " Galea Salomone said the movement is “against the divorce as it is being proposed.” Unquote: hypocrite!
avatar
Insisting on an obligatory consensual divorce panders to some of the basest of human emotions - revenge and spite. If divorce had to be consensual, we would never hear the end of cases where people would withold divorce as a kind of "punishment" or just to get at their estranged spouse, denying them the happiness which they might richly deserve. Separated, estranged couples should never be given that kind of hold, and that kind of power, over one another because they'll just use an obligatory consent to make each other's life hell.
avatar
Naqra ohra u jivvota IVA dan Salomone...gharef daqs Salamun dan :) L-anqas hu mhu cert imma umbaghad irid jikkonvinci lil haddiehor..u leee
avatar
Consensual Divorce? No thank you. If a battered wife opts for divorce, the husband who loves hurting her both physically and mentally, would never consent, even if he needs the divorce more than she does. If a wife leaves her husband because he was not contributing any money for the family, and files for divorce, the husband would not consent, because that would lose him his hold on her.
avatar
so if a guy bashes his wife but doesn't consent to give her a divorce then that is ok for Mr Galea Salmone reasoning out of Ally Mcbeal
avatar
Krista Sullivan
Ara veru ma fadalomx xi jghidu tal-LE ta issa ghamlu UTURN
avatar
Verbal and ideological contortionists ...
avatar
1. consensaul divorce? 1.consensual seperation? Huwa inkredibbli d-diskors li qed tghidu, biex forsi jghidu , ara veru t kien ikun ahjar, halli jitfghu d-DUBJI. In-Nies ilhom li ddeciedu kif ser jivvotaw. issa naraw il-maggoranza tal-poplu Malti kif trid tghix min issa l-quddiem. Jew f'pajjiz li huwa verament bhal pajjizi l-ohra tal - EU, jew inkella issa wara li nkixfu l-karti kollha, f'pajjiz immexxi mil-knisja kattolika rumana. u isma tinsewx tal-LE, li anke jekk tuzaw il-CONDOM , ma tistghux, vouldire mhux fejn jaqblilna jinzlilna min grizmejna u fejn le ma jinzlilniex. jiena l-istess nibqa bniedem hieles f-mohhi , ghax li nghid jiena naghmel mhux li jghidli jew nahseb kif jghidli hadiehor
avatar
“Annulments are given on specific reasons and the Ecclesiastic Tribunal looks into theses reasons,” Galea Salomone answered. ...and whether one or both of them WANT the annulment is NOT one of those reasons.
avatar
The article above is incorrect and the journalist has been contacted to amend accordingly.
avatar
Ian George Walker
This is a transparent ploy to try and confuse the YES voters. It won't work - people are not as stupid and gullible as Mr Salomone seems to think they are.
avatar
Whatever Mr Galea Salomone said what we are being offered counts. So do not be misled and on the 28th May go and vote 'NO'.
avatar
ZWIEG BLA DIVORZJU ISSA FAVUR TIP TA' DIVORZJU ......almost sounds like a news headline. This is probably the final desperate attempt by ZbD. Why is he saying this now on the eve of the referendum and not at the start? Obviously because people doing some homework at tal Pieta are realizing that they have not made sufficient inroads. ZbD's position seems to fluctuate and change every single day now. I wonder what it will be tomorrow? YES we can!
avatar
Is this guy for real? So a no fault divorce is wrong because children suffer....but a consensual divorce is ok!!!! As if the children do not suffer in an annulment, seperation, no fault divorce or a consensual one. This is simply unbelievable!!
avatar
So now we have two anti-divorce movements: one who are totally against divorce and the other against the divorce law as proposed but ready to accept divorce in certain circumstances.
avatar
ONLY A DESPERATE GUY wants to stay with a wife who wants to divorce him!!! FLIRTING PROBLEMS SALAMONE?
avatar
Jien se nivvota iva imma jekk galea salamone itini provi li it-tfal ma jbatus meta jkun hemm separazzjoni, annullament u koabitazzjoni allura jien lest li nivvota le. l