Divorce doesn’t ruin marriage, 'it's a state of fact' - Moviment Iva

“Saying that divorce will break up marriages is wrong; something that’s already broken, is broken”,  Iva chairperson Dr Deborah Schembri said in an interview with Times journalist Kurt Sansone in a gathering in St Paul’s square, Rabat.

The chairman of the ‘yes for divorce’ campaign said: “In the eyes of the law, a marriage that is broken cannot be broken further, so divorce cannot be blamed for breaking up a marriage."

"Before getting a divorce, both parties are given the chance to reconcile their marriage first. It is when all hopes for reconciliation have been exhausted that one turns to divorce,” Schembri said.

“In recent years, marriage has lost its meaning; because a couple in a loving and happy marriage, and a separated and unhappy couple are no different from each other - they are both married couples, but one is separate because of circumstances, not because of divorce,” she said.

Schembri was asked whether a no-fault divorce, which means that a person seeking divorce would not need to cite a specific reason except that marriage has broken down permanently, could be the first sign of a Los Angeles divorce.

“In L.A. one can get a divorce in a matter of months, in Ireland it’s a matter of years. So it’s is simply a case of responsible divorce.

"It is not the ‘no-fault’ part that makes a big difference but the fact that there is a four-year chance for the marriage to be amended,” Schembri said, referring here to the divorce referendum question which states that a married couple has to have been separated or living apart for at least four years before being eligible for divorce.

“There is nothing stopping someone from obtaining an LA-style divorce, but we are looking to implement a responsible divorce, reflective of the referendum question."

Asked about the guarantee of maintenance as stated in the divorce question, Schembri said “maintenance is given in marriage, and with divorce a marriage is over so the right to maintenance does not remain automatic."

"However, maintenance is guaranteed by the law; so it doesn’t mean it will stop because of divorce. One has to see whether they are better or worse off with maintenance.”

A 21-year old in the audience, whose parents have been separated since she was 13 years old, said divorce can lead to happiness and hope, because children are unhappy when their parents fight.

Schembri agreed, adding: “Kids suffer when there is conflict at home; separation is never good or easy but if the parents are happy then the children can be happy too. That’s why yes for divorce, because yes for marriage and happiness.”

“This is a right that has to be regarded with altruism; divorce affects the individual not the institution of marriage. Common good is the good of everyone, not of the majority - it doesn’t have to be used by everyone, but why should it be denied from people who need it?” Schembri asked.

She concluded by saying that parliamentarians have the moral obligation to listen to the will of the people, not just to their conscience when voting in favour or against the introduction of divorce. “It is a fundamental aspect of democracy; parliamentarians are there to listen to the will of the people and they would make a huge mistake if they choose to go against that.”