Divorce can be imposed by pro-divorce spouses on anti-divorce spouses – MP Beppe Fenech Adami

“If I am a devoutly Catholic person and I do not believe in divorce, my spouse could separate from me, apply for divorce and obtain a divorce without me having a say in it – even if I am against divorce, if I voted against divorce, and if I never wanted a divorce.”

He argued that because of this, it is not true that divorce is not being imposed on those who do not want it, as the pro-divorce camp is saying.

Fenech Adami also said that the suffering of those couples going through marital breakdown would not actually increase through the introduction of divorce. He said that the children, as those most vulnerable

“We have the duty to not only safeguard the interests of society as a whole, but also need to ensure that the conditions of children would not be made worse through the introduction of divorce,” he said.

“I had yet to meet children who say ‘I can’t wait for the introduction of divorce so my mummy or daddy can remarry and so I can have a new mummy or daddy.’ It is simply not the case,” Fenech Adami said.

He also hit out at the Opposition’s resolution and referendum question as a misleading one, and one that does not reflect the actual wording within the Divorce Private Members Bill.

He said that these omissions were “intentional and were intended to mislead the public and win votes.” This motion seems to say that divorce is the medicine for the social problems that plague marriage, he said, vehemently rejecting that this is the case.

The motion “dishonestly” says that Opposition’s motion seems to suggest that alimony would be automatically guaranteed as part of divorce when it is not even the law itself that guarantees alimony, as it is up to the court’s discretion, Fenech Adami also maintained.

He also accused the Opposition of encouraging people to leave the family home, something he said based on his experience as a family lawyer, something that usually works in their disadvantage.

Fenech Adami said that thanks to this motion and thanks to this ‘clause’ that divorce requires a minimum of 4 years separation or living apart, it would mean that couples facing marital issues would be advised to leave and start “adding up those 4 years, than try to work the issues out. Is this what Maltese families need?”

Fenech Adami said that this meant that this was a ‘no fault’ divorce where people could simply leave the home, abandon the marriage, with no questions asked. He hit out at the Opposition members and those supporting divorce for “incentivising families to seek out divorce as a first option.”

Also speaking in parliament, Labour MP Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca spoke of the need to strengthen the institute of marriage and protecting children, and of the importance of measuring both sides to the divorce argument - "not through crusades, or charlatanism, but through facts."

She said that she signed the motion "not because anyone forced us to, as some suggested, but because I believe in the institution of marriage."

During her speech, Coleiro Preca quoted a very wide spread of foreign studies showing the benefits of divorce, rates of divorce, effects of divorce, and also linking the divorce to how better or worse off spouses end up. 

In his own address, Labour MP Michael Farrugia emphasised that the referendum is consultative in nature, adding that the public needed to be presented with two things: the former being a clear question upon which to vote, and a commitment that the government would respect the outcome of that vote.

He accused the government of not listening to the will of the people in obstructing the chance for a referendum to be held. He maintained that urging Libyan regime dictator Muammar Gaddafi to “listen to his people” while then ignoring one’s own people on such a socially sensitive issue is “hypocritical.”

Farrugia also reminded the house that the state already recognises divorces obtained abroad. He argued that Malta is not ‘introducing’ divorce “as it already exists.”

He also hit out at the logic that government should not introduce divorce because it would cost public funds. He said that this arguing is only heard in theocratic states and an "insult to this institution."

Concluding the session Health Minister Joseph Cassar spoke of his experience living abroad for a considerable amount of time. He vowed that the situation that exists in countries that possess divorce, such as the United States, is no answer to the Maltese situation.

He said that these situations were much harder on children, “and if there is someone we should be protecting in this parliament, it is children.” He also maintained that one could not dismiss studies simply because they are not tailor-made to the Maltese contexts.

Cassar conceded that if the public was presented with a question that proposed clauses and conditions, the public would be far likelier to vote in favour of divorce.

However, he added that it would only be a handful of years before “we begin discussing reducing the four years’ waiting (before divorce can be sought) time to two, and doing away with the idea of a no-fault divorce. We should not deceive people in this manner.”