Referendum question does not reflect divorce bill – Tonio Fenech

Speaking during the last debate session dealing with the Opposition’s divorce motion calling for a referendum, Fenech queried why the referendum question proposed did not simply ask whether the public was in favour or against divorce, as laid out in the private member’s bill.

He also asked whether all the MPs who are expressing themselves in favour of the motion are also in favour of the presented bill – which so far has not been debated yet. “If the Opposition wanted to present a referendum question that is based on the presented bill, why didn’t it simply ask if the public agreed with the introduction of divorce as laid out in the private member’s bill, or not ?”

He argued that the motion does not refer to the draft bill in any way.

During his speech, Fenech also said that the introduction of divorce would fundamentally change the idea of what marriage means, both for those who approve of divorce, and those who oppose its introduction. “It means that ultimately someone else is changing a marriage that now is no longer ‘eternal'.”

He also rejected arguments that those opposing the introduction of divorce were interested only in imposing their morality on others. “We are a very tolerant society that recognises the reality that marriages might fail, and that a couple might not stay together. It is no longer a scandal if people find other partners, and there is nothing prohibiting them from forming a new family.”

He said that it is not fair to speak as if those opposing divorce were only interested in imposing their morality upon others. “It is not an issue of imposition.”

He argued that protecting the common good does not mean “legislating in accordance with whatever the individual wants. What the common good means is that the state does not exclude the individual, but considers whether a decision will help or damage society, and measures and considers the outcome,” Fenech said.

He argued that the introduction of divorce destroys the stability of marriages, and introduces the idea that the first solution to problems is divorce. This therefore promotes more marital breakdown, instead of addressing them, he said.

Fenech claimed that he didn’t need statistics to support his argument, but cited an anecdote where a foreign acquaintance who was recently divorced admitted to him that he would have tried to resolve his marital issues if divorce hadn’t been an option.

Fenech argued that “logic dictates” that first the law was debated, and then a referendum would have been called.