How the Pro-Divorce Movement is urging me to vote No, and the Anti-Divorce Movement is urging me to vote Yes
A slightly summarized version of the below article, due to length restrictions, was published as an opinion piece in the 24th May issue of the Times of Malta. Here's the link: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110524/opinion/The-two-sides-of-the-coin.366930.
I am urged to vote Yes when:
- I hear the anti-divorce movements come up with fundamentalist arguments, claiming that this will affect the sacrament of Catholic marriages, when we all know that it does not. When they claim they should impose their religion, my religion, on others. I am Catholic, and I go for mass on Sunday not because it is illegal to miss it, but because I believe that the community experience is beneficial for me. I fast on Good Friday, not because the Government forbids the sale of burgers and cakes, but because I believe that it helps me share in the remembrance of the death of Christ. I think Catholics should be mature enough to be Catholics not because the State forbids them to do otherwise, but because they really believe in the way Christ has taught us;
- Our Prime Ministers comes up with a silly statement such as that with divorce all marriages will now expire after four years. No, not all, only those who do not believe in the indissolubility of marriage and decide to resort to it;
- Some wise priest comes up with the idea that it is a sin to vote Yes. Voting Yes does not mean that I believe that I should have the right to use this legislation, but that others should have this right. As a Catholic, I will never resort to it because I believe that marriage is indissoluble. But as a citizen, I want to leave others free not to be Catholic, as long as they do not harm others. That is the principle of religious freedom;
- Some wise people claim that Malta should not allow it because it is a Catholic country. May I remind them that only around 50-60% of the population attend mass on Sunday, and that is only the basic first step of being Catholic. Reduce from the number those who only attend mass for the benefit of their reputation, and you will realize that us Catholics are actually a minority in this country.
- The party in Government takes a position against any form or type of divorce, while moving forward a Cohabitation Bill. Can we be more inconsistent and anomalous than that?
I am urged to vote No when:
- I drive past a billboard and remember that the Pro-Divorce Movement has re-awakened a dead social stigma, and re-introduced a defunct term which not even my grandma remembers to have ever used in reference to children born out-of-wedlock. And this when they know that the law does not distinguish between legitimate and 'illegitimate' children anywhere;
- JPO bluffs that he will get his divorce from UK, reminding us, or at least giving us the impression, that he only started all of this for his personal reasons;
- Ms. Schembri cries loss of income because the Ecclesiastical Tribunal has banned her from working within it, making us realize, or at least giving us the impression, that she too may be only doing this for her personal interests, a family lawyer who needs more family cases to safeguard her income;
- I read pro-divorcist comments on facebook attacking the Catholic Church, and turning this whole Referendum into a war against the Church, being so arrogant as to expect it not to preach its message;
- The pro-divorce movement claim this is an INDIVIDUAL right. How can the dissolution for no reason and without mutual consent, of a contract which was entered between TWO people, be an individual matter? If I enter into an agreement with a Bank that it will buy my house while I have to pay my loan payments, I cannot just walk out of the contract with a unilateral decision, and ask the Court to approve of this without any deterrant or compensation. I believe in that case the Bank will take away my house. Why is civil marriage going to be the only bilateral contract that can be dissolved unilaterally, even when no adultery, abandonment, abuse, and other matters specified in our current fault-separation law are involved?
I am then urged to simply boycott it when I remember that 69 gutless representatives could instead have saved us all this hassle and money, and took the best decision in the interest of the country themselves, without having us vote on a copy-and-paste Bill which we do not yet know if and how it will be amended. And which no one has yet started to discuss. Ah yes, they wasted 9 whole session of discussion to come up with a question, in which only one sensible suggestion was made (by Dr. DeMarco), that the referendum should be a multi-choice multi-question ballot to better understand the most agreed upon form of divorce.
A question tied to such an incoherent and to-be-amended Bill has left me and others in the undecided lot. I believe that the Movement that stops shooting itself in the foot, removes its stupid billboards, and starts discussing the implications of the proposed Bill, will be the one whose cause will win my vote, and that of thousands of other undecided voters.
I am urged to vote Yes when:
- I hear the anti-divorce movements come up with fundamentalist arguments, claiming that this will affect the sacrament of Catholic marriages, when we all know that it does not. When they claim they should impose their religion, my religion, on others. I am Catholic, and I go for mass on Sunday not because it is illegal to miss it, but because I believe that the community experience is beneficial for me. I fast on Good Friday, not because the Government forbids the sale of burgers and cakes, but because I believe that it helps me share in the remembrance of the death of Christ. I think Catholics should be mature enough to be Catholics not because the State forbids them to do otherwise, but because they really believe in the way Christ has taught us;
- Our Prime Ministers comes up with a silly statement such as that with divorce all marriages will now expire after four years. No, not all, only those who do not believe in the indissolubility of marriage and decide to resort to it;
- Some wise priest comes up with the idea that it is a sin to vote Yes. Voting Yes does not mean that I believe that I should have the right to use this legislation, but that others should have this right. As a Catholic, I will never resort to it because I believe that marriage is indissoluble. But as a citizen, I want to leave others free not to be Catholic, as long as they do not harm others. That is the principle of religious freedom;
- Some wise people claim that Malta should not allow it because it is a Catholic country. May I remind them that only around 50-60% of the population attend mass on Sunday, and that is only the basic first step of being Catholic. Reduce from the number those who only attend mass for the benefit of their reputation, and you will realize that us Catholics are actually a minority in this country.
- The party in Government takes a position against any form or type of divorce, while moving forward a Cohabitation Bill. Can we be more inconsistent and anomalous than that?
I am urged to vote No when:
- I drive past a billboard and remember that the Pro-Divorce Movement has re-awakened a dead social stigma, and re-introduced a defunct term which not even my grandma remembers to have ever used in reference to children born out-of-wedlock. And this when they know that the law does not distinguish between legitimate and 'illegitimate' children anywhere;
- JPO bluffs that he will get his divorce from UK, reminding us, or at least giving us the impression, that he only started all of this for his personal reasons;
- Ms. Schembri cries loss of income because the Ecclesiastical Tribunal has banned her from working within it, making us realize, or at least giving us the impression, that she too may be only doing this for her personal interests, a family lawyer who needs more family cases to safeguard her income;
- I read pro-divorcist comments on facebook attacking the Catholic Church, and turning this whole Referendum into a war against the Church, being so arrogant as to expect it not to preach its message;
- The pro-divorce movement claim this is an INDIVIDUAL right. How can the dissolution for no reason and without mutual consent, of a contract which was entered between TWO people, be an individual matter? If I enter into an agreement with a Bank that it will buy my house while I have to pay my loan payments, I cannot just walk out of the contract with a unilateral decision, and ask the Court to approve of this without any deterrant or compensation. I believe in that case the Bank will take away my house. Why is civil marriage going to be the only bilateral contract that can be dissolved unilaterally, even when no adultery, abandonment, abuse, and other matters specified in our current fault-separation law are involved?
I am then urged to simply boycott it when I remember that 69 gutless representatives could instead have saved us all this hassle and money, and took the best decision in the interest of the country themselves, without having us vote on a copy-and-paste Bill which we do not yet know if and how it will be amended. And which no one has yet started to discuss. Ah yes, they wasted 9 whole session of discussion to come up with a question, in which only one sensible suggestion was made (by Dr. DeMarco), that the referendum should be a multi-choice multi-question ballot to better understand the most agreed upon form of divorce.
A question tied to such an incoherent and to-be-amended Bill has left me and others in the undecided lot. I believe that the Movement that stops shooting itself in the foot, removes its stupid billboards, and starts discussing the implications of the proposed Bill, will be the one whose cause will win my vote, and that of thousands of other undecided voters.
Comments
Post a Comment