The pursuit of happiness

Ultimately our choice next Saturday is all about respecting the inalienable right of people to choose their own path towards happiness- that sometimes elusive sensation to which we all aspire. 

It is a vote which recognises human imperfection but seeks to redress it by giving people a second chance to love.

Most people will never make use of divorce either because it goes against their moral values or because life has already been generous to them by granting them a happy marriage based on life long commitment. For marriage in itself is based on the idea of spending and sharing the rest of your life with another person. Otherwise one would choose to cohabit. This option is already available irrespective of whether divorce is available or not. Neither does the absence of divorce prevent people from walking out of their marriage and starting new relationships.

What does not exist in Malta, unlike the rest of the world, is the possibility of those who are being forced to cohabit, to take their relationship to a new level, by promising each other lifelong commitment. That in itself does not mean that they will always honour their commitment but that they will do their best.

Some would ask what’s the big deal for these people to marry again, can’t they just cohabit? The answer is simple: making a vow of commitment in front of the state not only certifies the relationship granting it legitimacy, but also is an act, which is conducive to personal happiness.

The no argument states that people should sacrifice their happiness for the sake of the common good. This argument would have been valid if applied to acts of personal gain undertaken at a social or environmental cost. But this argument is unacceptable when used to deny personal happiness for those whose only aspiration is to commit themselves in marriage.

Perversely throughout the campaign we have seen neo conservatives who give a damn about the common good in all aspects of social and political life expecting common mortals to sacrifice their happiness for the sake of keeping Malta special. And instead of addressing the real problems of poverty effecting separated women through the welfare state, they resort to scare-mongering about the financial pressures of divorce which are not different from those associated with separation.

They do this in the full knowledge that the rich and powerful would still have access to divorce obtained from abroad.

On the other hand they remain unforgiving towards common mortals who have either erred in their judgement or have been victims of life circumstances by continue denying them a second chance.

Every time I hear No speakers I cringe at that streak of authoritarianism so evident in the body language of those who want to impose a totalitarian ideology, which stretches beyond the confines of social and political life and seeks to control and regulate private  life. Most arguments brings out the dark negative side of most religions, that of glorifying mortification and masochism  while putting aside that most noble aspect of Christianity - compassion, empathy and solidarity.

Not surprisingly their final act was to use children as a form of emotional blackmail mainly directed at undecided women, conveniently forgetting that children suffer equally in cases of annulments and separations. And that in some cases re-marriage also offers children a second chance to a happy life.  For life is full of examples of non biological father and mothers who make better parents than biological parents. Say that to a child of an abusive "father" who after his/her mother found the courage to file for divorce is offered a new opportunity in a happy family.

The no movement glorifies a mythical golden age where families lived happily ever after disregarding the evidence that modern societies, all of which accept divorce, are with all their problems happier than oppressive feudal societies where obligations are imposed and rights denied. In modern societies  people are able to reflect on their life and write  their own life history. They are able to  build relationships based on love which mature like good wine as they grow older and perhaps fatter. They do not simply stay together because they are obliged to but because they find each other interesting and fun. They do not take each other for-granted. Unlike DJ Cordina these people will not start thinking of finding a new partner simply because divorce is available. 

This is why next Saturday’s vote is all about the inalienable right for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” proclaimed in that fine document which ushered the democratic era in the Western world; the US declaration of independence of 1776.

For people like me, who have found happiness in their marriage and who intend to live up the vow of lifelong commitment, next Saturday’s vote is an occasion to give the same opportunity to other people.

The Maltese might be conservative in their values but they are not cruel. On Saturday most will be taking a decision which will not effect them personally but which could bring happiness to other people. That is why the yes will prevail.