What I feared at the beginning of the divorce debate is happening. Name-calling has started. Different opinions are no longer respected. The pro-divorce lobby are calling people from the pro-family lobby old-fashioned and using other derogatory adjectives when the latter are putting forward very valid arguments. Secularly, I thought nobody had a monopoly on the truth – which does not mean, of course, that truth itself has not been revealed or cannot be arrived at through reason!

My argument is a secular argument in favour of cohabitation in the present de facto circumstances. Cohabitation is a legal regimen where a couple, for whatever reason, decide to live together without getting married. There may be valid reasons for doing so, or it may be purely based on choice. Whatever the reason for such a de facto status, there remains the obligation for the secular state to provide two things: First, that this cohabitation is recognised de jure in the eyes of the state for taxation, as well as social security, reasons. Second, when a couple is living together they often have children, and the state should ensure that the obligations of the parents towards those children are responsibly assured. That is, even cohabiting couples need to have legal obligations towards their children’s security enshrined in law.

It is often said that when the state legislates to regulate IVF, this service should be available to both married and unmarried couples living together. I hate to think, however, that any couple simply living together should be allowed to have state-sanctioned or private recourse to IVF, where there is a third factor involved in the conception of the child, without their relationship and the responsibilities to their offspring being secured by a cohabitation law. Cohabitation also allows the state to bring in legal arrangements for other couples – who may not be able to marry due to natural law impediments – to have their relationship regularised and to recognise their emotional attachment rights.

Some pro-divorce lobbyists label cohabitation as a form of second-class marriage arrangement that is available to those whose first marriage has failed. In fact, a cohabitation law is now necessary in Malta, with or without divorce. However, the way I see it, cohabitation is also a secular way forward for those who, like me, believe that a marriage should be for life. People whose marriage fails should be allowed to opt for cohabitation, particularly because of the large number of separated couples that exists today. Marriage, however, is by its very nature permanent and should be allowed to remain so, unless we want to see in Malta the charade we see in other countries – not exactly in the common good, I would say! When a couple take their marriage vows, they should realise that their choices and promises are permanently valid before the state and society. Bringing in divorce is an act and a choice to render marriage a legal arrangement of second-class status. With divorce, nobody has any security of tenure, and when a couple take their promises before society, it will be understood that this is with the reserved caveat of not being permanent by its very nature. At the first sign of trouble in a marriage, which inevitably happens for everyone, the lure of divorce is then dangled before the litigators as a potential very easy way out and we have seen that abroad very many do take it. So there we have it – with divorce, a second-class marriage de facto and de jure is brought into being! It is actually, therefore, the pro-divorce lobbyists who want to institute the concept of second-class marriages and it is those who are pro-family that are seeking to conserve marriage’s essential integrity.

I believe that divorce becomes a civil right only when civil society decides to make it so. It becomes a civil right only with society’s approval but it is not a fundamental right per se. I believe that everyone should be allowed to express an opinion on this complicated matter. I respect the reasons and choices of those in favour of divorce and I have to stress that I am not in a position to judge anyone for having their particular opinions and making their particular choices. The non-confessional secular state has wisely enfranchised the public on the merits of this subject. However, there are very many in our society who, like me, have more than merely secular reasons for being against the introduction of divorce, and these people should also be allowed to express their opinions. Or could it be that many in secular society are now becoming paranoid and increasingly afraid of admitting the opinion of those with confessional beliefs, notwithstanding their citizenship and their right to have them?

Michael Asciak MD