At the end, after Wednesday’s ‘stand up, sit down’ vote on the Opposition motion regarding the referendum question, there was no jubilation, either in the House, or among those who had assisted at the event.
On the contrary, the main feeling was one of sadness. This is, after all, what speakers from both sides had spoken about, the sadness that comes when a couple find out that life together is no longer possible and decide to go their various ways.
It is a sad day, therefore no cause whatsoever for jubilation, when our House of Representatives came to decide that the people will get their say on such a matter of importance to many people. It shows how many broken marriages we have in our midst, how many times hopes of a loving future have been wrecked on the rocks of painful reality, how many people have suffered and are suffering. At the same time, whatever some may say, the vote was also a sign of hope, reflecting the hope there is among many persons coming out of a broken marriage, that they can perhaps manage to get it right the second time running. It shows people believe in marriage; when their own marriage has fallen apart, they still believe in marriage and want to give it another try. Hopefully, they will all be wiser the second time.
Wednesday was also a sad day for a variety of other reasons. Mainly it was a sad day because of the messy way our House of Representatives came to its conclusion. Ideally, an open-ended discussion on whether Malta should get divorce legislation should have first taken place. Then, what kind of divorce legislation should we have. Then the people would be asked to vote in a referendum on the kind of divorce legislation Parliament has chosen.
Instead of this logical path, we are now having it back to front. After a 28-hour discussion in the House, as bombs were falling on Libya and as Japan was being torn by an earthquake, a tsunami and huge problems at nuclear power stations, we now have an Opposition motion that has been approved which has decided not just that a referendum will be held, but also when, and also what will be the question that the people will be asked.
It was a rather sad debate at that: So many points were made and left hanging apart and so many assertions were made and countered that people do not know which is right and which is wrong. Even if people had the patience and fortitude to listen to all 28 hours, mostly they would get speeches and counter speeches. You would have to remember all points and cross them out with points made by opposite speakers – a hard slog indeed. Different figures were given for the numbers of families breaking up – can we hope at least for someone to tell us which figures are right and which are wrong? Some assertions that were made were patently absurd: The motion is not the chink that will lead to legislation allowing abortion, for instance. Others were inflated and exaggerated: Many of the comments made about the sadness of divorce would apply equally well to the sadness of separation, or marriage annulment even. And then the points about children: Children are hurt when their parents divorce, but they are also hurt when their parents separate, when their parents get an annulment, even when their parents are still together but going their separate ways. Prime Minister Gonzi claimed this is a no-fault divorce, that it is ‘worse than the Las Vegas divorces’ except for the four years separation clause. Maybe we may have missed something, but it seems he was told that the separation procedures we now have are also a ‘no-fault’ procedure. So who was right? And who was wrong?
Many would seem to think that those who voted No were against divorce in principle and those who voted Yes were for divorce in principle. But this is a wrong perception. And this is the saddest thing of all: For partisan politics intruded in the issue and clouded the debate. On the part of the two PN MPs who voted along with the Opposition motion, and who were portrayed on our pages yesterday as smiling – some would say smirking – after the vote, one, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – has long been known to be in favour of divorce and has characteristically stuck his neck out for it through thick and thin – was after all the MP who started the whole ball rolling by coming up with his (now-defunct) Private Member’s Bill in the midst of a slumbering summer; but Jesmond Mugliett? The same may possibly be said of Opposition MPs who voted solidly for the motion when they have been saying, in public and more in private, they are against the introduction of divorce. The same may also be said of the Leader of the Opposition who spent most of his final speech making a political attack on the Prime Minister rather than clearing up the issues that were made regarding the motion. The same may also be said of l-orizzont which yesterday chose as its front page heading ‘The Opposition wins the vote’.
So there we are: On 28 May we all will go to vote on an issue about which we have so far not heard enough to know which is the right thing and which is not the right thing to do. We will go and vote on a question about which not all shades of doubt have been removed. The question is only superficially related to the JPO-Evarist Bartolo Bill: We would have been far better off if we had a proper Bill to vote upon rather than an idea in four sentences. Many people we have talked to are in favour of divorce in principle but are shocked, saddened and even disgusted at the shabby way in which the whole issue has been tackled. Maybe we should get divorce introduced and carry on with our lives, as some have said, but maybe just as divorce itself, maybe we can hope to get it right the second time around.