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

Divorce is not creating separations and breakdown in marriages, it is simply declaring a state of fact, pro-divorce campaigner Dr. Deborah Schembri said.

“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.”

More in Divorce Referendum
avatar
Divorce doesn t break marriages true! but the fact is that divorce gives an open door to marriages! Gives a second chance to spouses to re marry an another open door to it! Thus the most venerable people in marriage are the children and few of the pro divorce have stated/explained how the maintenance will be really and actually guaranteed as the question states! Most took it against Fr Joe Borg and misinterpreted him that he wants to use underage children while the divorce question its self proves that children will be effected which same question is literally using under age children to falsly influence voters that children will be protected! The question is a hoax! I am saying this cause the proposed divorce bill states as follows art. "70 (7) On divorce being pronounced, the court shall on the demand of either or both of the spouses, decide on an adequate maintenance for them and the dependent members of their family, according to the following sub-articles:" Is this what you refer to as a responsible divorce proposal where children interested in divorce procedure are decided after divorce is pronounced?????? give love a chance? but where is love and responsibilities from pro divorce parents towards the children?
avatar
Luke Camilleri
I am still surprised why no campaigns were ever made for other supposedly other threats to Marriage with the same ardour ...like gambling! Gonzipn with Fenech Adami and now Gonzi have truly transformed Malta into Las Vegas with Casinos and Public Lotto Offices transformed into gambling joints!
avatar
dottor Deborah Schembri, Ovja li d-divorzju mhux ser ikisser zwigijiet. iz-zwigijiet u r-relazjonijiet ikissruhom il-gideb, it-tradimenti u nuqqas ta risptett. Kollox jidependi mill-imgieba ta kull individwu. Issa mbaghad sta ghal persuna biex jghamel tajjeb miz-zwieg. Hawn min jizzewweg bil-gideb ghal li skopijiet ta mohhu jew mohha u jmorru quddiem l-artal , sabiex tara kemm huma kollha cerimonji dawn, pero ma nistghux nitfghu lil kulhadd f'keffa wahda .
avatar
heq ara! tajba din firillu! ghax ahna malta nahsbu li ahna demokristjani! iridu juzaw it tfal fil kampanja tal le u sar aktar abbuziv li tispara fuq tajra milli fuq bniedem!
avatar
Kos ghaliex il-knisja ghadha disskrimina kontra n-nisa u ma thallihomx isiru qassisin? Ghaliex il-knisja ma thallix il-qassisin u patrijiet jizzewgu. Tghid ghax anke dawn li wara kollox huma umani bhalna, jibdew jitolbu d-divorzju?