It seems that among those advocating divorce a consideration they are giving weight to is so that children born out of the second, or third or fourth liaison no longer be regarded as born out of wedlock. If divorce is to be granted after four years, one can theoretically and not so theoretically visualise (that is if instead of a sensible law we are to permit hormones to determine the regulation of the foundations of our society) a person can contract one marriage after another after the lapse of a normal ‘legislature’ span and still be inside the law.

So in a nutshell it all boils down to ‘for appearance sake’ and the desire to confer on the second or third or fourth attempt at forming a ‘family’ the blessing of the law of the land. What amazes me is that such an argument does not consider the rights of the first family.

Apart from which the spouses are not living in a vacuum but in a society and thus they also have duties to the wider community. It seems that in the rush to push for a ‘right’ which favours a small minority at the expense of the larger majority as well as at the expense of the youths and children of today, not all the disadvantageous ramifications are being considered.

But then those pushing for divorce in the past also pushed for integration with Britain, Labour’s cosying up to Gaddafi, staying out of the European Union, reducing university stipends and turning Mistra Bay into another Paceville discoland!

C. Debono

Ghajnsielem