Should government ministers perhaps be more cautious when they use majorities to justify a policy?

Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, certainly a very nice man who represents one of Malta’s most deprived constituencies, recently said there was no need to introduce divorce legislation because the majority were against it.

Ahem.

If we went along with what the public or the majority wanted, we would probably introduce capital punishment, (as many surveys in different countries have shown a majority in favour), and we would certainly turn back every black illegal immigrant who lands on our shores because the majority, though not a necessarily a very moral majority, do not want any illegal immigrants landing here at all.

Yes, the majority are against divorce and the number of women probably figure highly in those who are against. But the real point is that the third or so who do not marry in the Catholic Church, should in no way be bound by the principles and rules of the Catholic Church when it comes to marrying again. After all you can leave your husband or wife in Malta and Gozo by way of a separation when your marriage breaks down. But you cannot ever marry again unless you are well connected and obtain an annulment (and the well connected never ever, anywhere, have to live according to the moral codes and laws they impose on others!).

It certainly is bizarre reasoning. You can leave your husband or wife and be legally separated, which is generally viewed as a bad thing. But once your marriage is over you can never marry again, although marriage is considered to be a good thing. If people’s first marriage does not work, surely it would be better if they were to consider re-marrying, But the current situation encourages everyone to have impermanent relationships.

It’s even more baffling reasoning if you are the victim of a bad marriage. So your hubby can leave you, or your wife who only married you for your money, can dump you and obtain a separation. But you, the one he or she left, can never marry again. You have to be punished too for your husband or wife’s lack of commitment. And of course you will meet men who know they cannot marry again, and who in many cases simply start casual affairs with women, knowing they can swap them for younger models if the fancy takes them. Surely allowing people to remarry is a fundamental human right and better than the current confusion?

It is true that the beliefs of all those who are staunchly Catholic and never want to marry again, even if their husband has abandoned them, or two timed them, or humiliated them, should also be respected. But I fail to understand why a government of a civilised European country denies its citizens, who do not marry in Church, the opportunity to marry again if they find the right person to try again?

The annulment scenario is even scarier. We have a high rate of annulments largely because it is the only route and there is no divorce. As I have said on more than one occasion, an annulment is even worse for children than a divorce, because essentially you are telling them that their parents’ marriage didn’t spiritually or legally exist – a really baffling premise if children were the fruit of that “marriage” in my view. How is it that the Commissioner for Children, who is so concerned about a cluster of cells (called an embryo by some) does not concern herself with this annulment culture and how it is affecting our children?

The basic premise for an annulment is that one of the partners had no intention of fulfilling a Catholic marriage. So if one of you is willing to say that when you married you intended to be unfaithful or whatever, that marriage can be annulled. Yet if you marry someone who systematically two times you, you cannot marry again. Not ever. Unless, and I say it again, you are well connected will find a way to get that annulment, Church or legal, which will then allow you to marry again!

I don’t think we need to go into extreme camps on this one. I respect those 100 per cent practising Catholics who believe you can only marry once. But I do wish they would show the rest of us the same respect, and accept that once we never married in Church anyway, the hard rules of the Catholic Church cannot be imposed on us

It will be very hard for ministers like Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici who I respect and I am sure lives his Catholicism. But his duties as a government minister are to the whole community, not only to the staunchly Catholic who are in the majority. Nobody is forcing any good Catholics to divorce. But those who do not marry in Church must have the right, not only to separate, but also to marry again if they have wish to do so.

It’s about time we grew up and considered those who want to marry again as a positive source, and an indication of the strength of marriage, rather than as a sign only of impending doom and social collapse. The thousands of separating and separated couples have no future in the current system. Thankfully they are not yet

the majority. Are we waiting

for them to be the majority before we address this problem in an intelligent and humane way?