Categories
Divorce Mediawatch Politics

Marriage (Behind Closed Doors)

Our “President Emeritus” (sic – the Times)  hath spoken: “It is good we are still bound to the principle that marriage is for life and we should be proud of this” – quoth he. Dr Fenech Adami reminded the world that marriage was a contract that bound the individuals for life and this was the principle at stake in the divorce debate. More importantly he rubbished the very strong pro-divorce argument that Malta only has the Philippines as it’s divorce-less partner (should I say wife?).

If you believed men like our “President Emeritus” you’d probably believe that the pro-divorce movement is only in favour of introducing divorce in order to be like others and not for the simple reason that they consider the right to marriage to essentially mean the right to a happy marriage in the long run.

Of course every marriage has its ups and downs but the Vatican-Malta-Philippine triangle would have it that no matter how “down” is “down” in that ups and downs bit, the “till death do us part” has to trump every other consideration. Fenech Adami is right – the basic principle at stake is the whole concept of indissolubility – marriage is marriage for life. Like giving animals as presents: it’s not just for Christmas/weddings but for life.

We all know that being pro-divorce does not mean wanting to better the Philippines or the Vatican State. It means opening a door to those people whose marriage has irretrievably broken down. It means a fresh start. It may not be a civil right in the strict sense of the term but living a happy marriage is an essential building block that inspires many of the civil rights recognised universally. Hiding behind closed doors while the broken couples continue to experience hideous realities without ever seeing a breakthrough is what Fenech Adami is proud of.

In terms of civil rights you can call it sweet F.A.

I wonder what the “President Emeritus” would make of this front page story on l-Orizzont:

TEJPS JĦINU SEPARAZZJONI
Il-Qorti tal-Familja laqgħet it-talba ta’ mara għas-separazzjoni minn ma’ żewġha, wara li fost oħrajn semgħet tejps li fihom ir-raġel jinstema’ jidgħi u joffendi lil martu. It-tejps kienu rrekordjati minn oħt il-mara li toqgħod fl-istess triq t’oħtha.

Il-mara talbet għas-separazzjoni għax skont hi żewġha ma kienx jistmaha. Skont hi, wara xahrejn miżżewġin huwa faqa’ l-bieb tal-kamra tal-banju, tliet snin wara kisser il-bieb tal-kamra tas-sodda u jumejn wara t-tkissir tal-bieb beda jkisser affarijiet fil-‘wall unit’.

B’kollox qalet li bidlet il-bieb tal-kamra tal-banju tliet darbiet, is-siġġijiet tal-kċina darbtejn u l-ħġieġ tal-‘wall unit’ kemm-il darba.Hija sostniet li binhom kien iqum bil-lejl jibki tant li kellha tieħdu għand il-professur li qalilha li binha kellu biża’ kbira.

Minbarra hekk sostniet li żewġha kien jheddi­dha li joqtolha, jqattagħha, jitfagħha f’għalqa u ħadd ma jsibha, li kien joffendiha b’ommha mej­ta u li kienet tarah f’għalqa ta’ ħuh ma’ tfajla u li darba sabitlu qalziet ta’ mara li ma kienx tagħha. Hija ppreżentat ukoll ittra li r-raġel tagħha allega­tament kiteb lil turista Ġermaniża fejn jgħi­dilha li jħobbha.

Fil-kawża xehdu wkoll xi ġirien, fosthom familjari tal-mara, li lkoll qalu li kienu jisimgħu lir-raġel jidħol lura d-dar fis-sakra u kienu jisimgħuh jidgħi, jgħajjas, isabbat u jitkellem ħażin. Fost dawn kien hemm oħtha li ippreżentat it-‘tapes’ fejn ir-raġel jinstema joffendi lil oħtha.

Xhud importanti kien it-tifel tal-koppja fejn dan qal li sa minn meta kellu sitt snin jiftakar lil missieru jirritorna d-dar fis-sakra, jidgħi, isabbat u jkisser. It-tifel qal li huwa kien jiekol fil-kamra tiegħu għax kien jibża’ jinżel isfel minħabba missieru u li missieru kien jgħajjru, joffendih u anke jgaralu l-affarijiet. (continue reading here)

Tinkwetax hanini. Ahseb kemm hemm nisa bhalek fil-Filippini. Dawk ukoll ghandhom kont il-bank biex ihallsu ghall-bibien. U meta tisma’ r-ragel jidghi ghid talba ghar-ruhu u ghal min ghandu mejjet.. fejn taf forsi ghad xi darba jilluminawhom lil tal-Vatikan?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

11 replies on “Marriage (Behind Closed Doors)”

Fenech Adami spells out the bottom line in this whole divorce saga and in some ways it’s refreshing that people are reminded what the real issue is amid the statistical chatter, small talk and beating round the proverbial bush. It’s the ideology, stupid.

If by “spelling it out” you also include and acceptthe “refreshing” manner in which EFA minimises the pro-divorce argument to “I wanna be like the rest of the world” then blessed are “the stupid” for they adore wallowing in this ignorance.

No it’s not refreshing David. It’s the usual business with EFA… half truths and a failure to commit to challenge the full picture. Luxol Grounds yesterday… divorce grounds tomorrow.

It’s the PN way, stupid.

Jacques, Eddie Fenech Adami spells out his thinking on the matter. Which of course coincides neatly with Lawrence Gonzi’s thinking on the matter. It’s the PN core ideology spelt out clearly – unencumbered by nuances and nicities. The clarity is refreshing, that’s what I mean. And I’m sure that from EFA’s perspective this belief of his is anything but a half truth. It’s faith, clever-clogs.

David, I would have no problem if he stopped short of spelling out his thinking on the matter. The issue here is how he describes the thinking of the “other side”. It’s one thing saying he is “refreshing” by exposing his ideas on the matter and it’s another accepting the way in which he minimises the pro-divorce logic into a non-sequitur.

I’m sure Hitler (if you allow me the hyperbolic example) could have been refreshingly clear about his thoughts on the Zionist conspiracy… the question is whether he actually considered all the facts when presenting them to the people.

So we can applaud EFA’s refreshing statement of his ideas on why marriage is for life. I’ll join you in the enthusiastic applauding. I hope you’ll find time to join me in the criticism of his generalisation (and unfair depiction) of the pro-divorce argument.

It’s the full picture, dolly (remember that one?).

Mogginho – you mention facts and the ‘full picture’? In a tussle to the death between EFA-Gonzi style faith, ideology and institutionalised proximity to you-know-who and ‘facts’, who do you think triumphs in their minds? And why do you expect the anti-divorce knights to concede points to the pro-divorce barbarians? Especially and I will emphasize this again, if for them this whole thing is a question of FAITH? Facts rarely stand in the way of that powerful beast. This is why it’s not a question of fair and unfair. It’s a question of halal, ritual and dogma.

Le jahasra Rolex. So after I post an entry pointing out that EFA has been miserly with the truth about why a pro-divorce movement exists it takes you three comments/entries to come to the same conclusion.

1) EFA’s position is based on faith. duh: never said otherwise.

2) It’s a question of dogma. duh: ditto

Essentially my post was there to point out that it is not the whole picture. You burst in to build a mini-monument to EFA because he is clear about his dogmatism and then fail to acknowledge the fact that the same EFA busily distorts the truth re: the pro-divorce movement.

Once again you are not noticing anything new you when you point out that EFA is embroiling facts and fiction. Why then is it easier for you to applaud the freshness of his frank dogma than to criticise his half truth? Why, I wonder?

Why do you bring up that Luxol meeting? It was one of Fenech-Adami’s greatest moments when he convinced people that *the* issue of our generation was EU membership. Not some petty grievance against the government or support for an inconsequential political outfit.

Comments are closed.