Malta, it seems, is about to make a
decision that Ireland made 16 years ago,
namely whether or not to permit
separated couples to divorce and,
consequently, to remarry.
I propose to do two things in this
article. The first is to set out what
has happened in Ireland since we
introduced divorce in the 1990s. The
second is to test the sincerity of
pro-divorce advocates with regard to
marriage, that is, are they really as
pro-marriage as they say they are?
Although Ireland voted in 1995 by the
narrowest of margins (0.7 per cent) to
introduce divorce, a law to permit
divorce was not passed until 1997. The
previous year, a national census was
conducted.
At that time, there were 94,433
separated people in the country. Census
2006, exactly 10 years later, revealed
there were now 198,592 separated or
divorced people in Ireland. That is an
increase of more than 100 per cent in
just a decade.
This increase cannot in fairness be
blamed purely on the introduction of
divorce. Marriage separation was already
a reality in Ireland. But the
introduction of divorce sent out a very
powerful and important signal, namely
that marriage, as traditionally
understood, was simply one lifestyle
choice among others.
Indeed, in a certain sense, marriage as
traditionally understood no longer
existed because, as traditionally
understood, marriage was permanent and
irrevocable. Now, overnight, it could be
revoked by either spouse, unilaterally
and, in practice, for any reason
whatsoever.
Suddenly every marriage in Ireland could
be legally terminated, like it or not. A
marriage contract that was permanent and
irrevocable was no longer an option.
Thus, everyone in Ireland who was
married was now in a different kind of
marriage, legally speaking, and many
Irish people since then have been
divorced against their will. It is
harder to cancel a hire purchase
contract than a marriage contract.
Therefore, those who say the
introduction of divorce will not affect
those who don’t want to divorce are
wrong. It changes the nature of marriage
for everyone and makes victims of those
who are divorced against their will.
One of the arguments used by divorce
advocates in Ireland was that permitting
divorce would make cohabitation rarer.
If couples could not divorce and
remarry, instead they would live
together without marrying, which would
drive up the rate of cohabitation. Allow
them to marry, they reasoned, and fewer
would cohabit.
In 1986, cohabitation was so rare in
Ireland it wasn’t even recorded. In
1996, 31,298 couples were cohabiting. By
2006, this had sky-rocketed to 121,763
couples, a 400 per cent increase in 10
years.
Whatever else divorce did, therefore, it
certainly didn’t reduce the cohabitation
rate. Cohabitation in Ireland is now
more common than in America and only
somewhat less common than in Britain.
Divorce and cohabitation actually spring
from the same underlying mentality,
namely one that puts personal freedom
and personal happiness first. To marry
without first cohabiting indicates a
basic commitment to commitment. It’s no
wonder people who cohabit first are
about 25 per cent more likely to divorce
later than those who don’t first
cohabit, according to American figures.
This same philosophy of individualism
that is behind the drive for divorce and
the increase in cohabitation is also
behind the huge increase in the number
of children born outside marriage in
Ireland as elsewhere.
That figure now stands at one in three
of all births. The number of Irish
children being raised outside the
marital family is 26 per cent and that
has more than doubled since 1986. So
long as we think it is a good idea, in
general, for a child to have both a
mother and a father who are married to
one another, we should be extremely
worried by these figures.
Incidentally, Ireland has just legalised
civil partnerships for same-sex couples
and a debate about allowing same-sex
marriage is well and truly underway, as
is a debate about giving same-sex
couples an equal right to adopt
children.
If and when this happens, Ireland will
have erased from law and social policy
any notion that children have a right to
a mother and a father, where possible.
What is more, those who assert that,
ideally, a child should have a married
mother and father are now regularly
denounced as “bigots” and “homophobes”.
This brings me to my second point,
namely that if those who are pro-divorce
are actually pro-marriage (which is why,
as they say, they want to give people
the right to divorce and remarry) then
what do they intend doing to strengthen
the institution of marriage? What are
their proposals?
The fact is that rising individualism
has enormously weakened marriage as
shown by rising divorce and separation,
rising cohabitation and the rising
number of out-of-wedlock births.
People marry because they love one
another but marriage is given special
status mainly because society has an
interest in encouraging men and women to
raise their own children. Marriage, as
the evidence shows, is the most
pro-child of all social institutions.
But it is an institution that is in
trouble. Will Malta’s pro-divorce
advocates support policies aimed at
promoting marriage? Will they support
social marketing campaigns extolling the
benefits of marriage and discouraging
cohabitation?
Will they state publicly that it’s
better on average for children to have a
married mother and father? I stress “on
average” because, obviously, there will
be some bad married parents.
Will they publicly declare against
same-sex marriage, which totally
compromises the message that marriage as
a social institution is primarily aimed
at encouraging mothers and fathers to
raise their children?
Will they put all of this now before
considering the introduction of divorce?
Or will, in fact, what happened in
Ireland happen also in Malta, namely
that the same people who campaigned for
divorce in time will campaign in favour
of everything else that has chopped away
at the special status of marriage that
has reduced it to one more lifestyle
choice?
Those campaigning for divorce should
therefore put all their cards on the
table now or else Maltese can logically
conclude that for all their talk they
don’t really value marriage at all,
except as a purely individual choice of
no special social significance and that
those who are campaigning against
divorce are its true custodians.
The author is a columnist with The
Irish Independent and director of The
Iona Institute, a pro-marriage
organisation.
