I don't need divorce but I'm voting yes and here's why
We publish, with her permission, a letter from a reader for who the current divorce debate has brought back horrible memories of what she went through with her own annulment. Read it and weep.
*The letter has been edited and details changed for reasons of confidentiality. If you think any of it refers to somebody you know that is because so many people you know have been through this.
Dear Mona
I am writing this letter to you because your website has consistently covered the current divorce referendum issue in a way that I identify with without boring us senseless. You have not called people names, reduced yourself to slinging matches or tried to blame anybody for the current situation. I feel that I can open my heart to you and your readers.
My husband left me a number of years ago. It was a traumatic time for me. We had not had children though so everything was focused on our relationship. It hurt like crazy. Nobody likes to be left. Yet I knew we could not continue to live what had turned out to be a fake life. You will like this one Mona: we were one of those couples who do not say a word in restaurants! We had nothing left to say.
The separation was what they call ‘bonarja’. Effectively, a no-fault agreement. We did not have to accuse each other of anything although even the process of doing it hurt. Our lawyers drew up an agreement and we split what we had: the house, our effects, the pets. That was awful but there was no choice.
My ex left the country to settle abroad and get on with his life.
I started to settle in mine. I have to admit I did not miss him that much but facing my parents was horrendous. I used to also come across his parents who had stopped talking to me. Even my parents stopped talking to me. He was a good man, they used to tell me. How do you explain to your parents that you do not want to live a life that is a complete lie and that, at 28 years old, you would like to get on with it? We split friends. Can you imagine?
When I got the income tax return I realised that I was still listed with him as my husband. That hurt again. It also made no sense that I got together with him each year to fill it out! I went back to the lawyer. It took him months to get my ex-husband’s name off that return. And me listed as ‘separata’. I don’t know why people are making such a fuss of ‘bghula’ and ‘pogguti’. ‘Separata’ on that tax return sounded dirty to me.
The lawyer said if I wanted that to stop and if I wanted to get out of the community of acquists, I had to apply for an annulment. There is a lot of emotional stuff in these situations but it is teamed up with all this legal mumbo-jumbo which I do not understand. My ex, at this point, had set up with a new girlfriend and couldn’t give a shit about Maltese paperwork.
So I applied for an annulment. We had got married in church so I went to the church tribunal where, along with many others, waited in line to start my process. I do not even remember if I paid anything at that point but I do remember thinking “I don’t need a lawyer for this: I’ll do it by myself and save myself a packet”.
What I did not realize was that eventually it would have been a psychiatrist I would need. At this point it was not my relationship that was wearing me down. It was the Saturday mornings talking to priests who had heard it all before. They were so utterly bored. And something in me rebelled against the system: I would have to find a reason why I should not have got married in the first place. Do you remember when we used to joke that people get annulments on the strength of their ex husband’s small penis? It stopped being funny after a while.
In the meantime I had applied for my civil annulment. But I was told that if I was going to pursue this, I needed to drop the church annulment because of the church-state agreement. I wanted to scream. hy had nobody told me this at the outset? I dropped the church annulment. I started over.
The civil annulment, was, if anything, a lot more…well…civil. And respectful. We cited ‘immaturity’ and nobody made us drag each other through the mud. It took one year to go through. By now I had met somebody else.
Mona, I did not want to get married again. I told my new boyfriend, when he proposed, we could simply move in together. I had been through all the ‘dream in a white dress’ business. I did not need to prove anything. He said he hadn’t: shouldn’t he have a chance at marrying too? He was not religious at all but his parents and family are. He wanted to get married in church.
Here started the horrific part. I had to re-apply for my annulment at the church tribunal. I will not go into detail but suffice to say that I was asked so many questions I used need a shower after every session. Did we have sex before marriage? After? How did we do it? Did we use contraception? What kind? Those are just the ones I can tell you about. It was just disgusting.
My friends and family had to testify as to why they thought we should not have got married in the first place. Can you imagine that? These same people who had been so happy for me, who had been my witnesses. My ex was having none of it. But then again, he had no interest in getting married again, especially in church, so he did not care.
I have nothing to complain about the lay staff of the church tribunal. They were supportive and sympathetic. It was the process itself that ground me down to my very core. I would get a letter every three months or so meaning I had made one small step. All this and we were not fighting over children or furniture or whatever!! We were agreeing to break up. We had not lived together for years by now. ‘Why is this?’ I asked one of their guys on the committee that hears these cases. ‘Because God was witness to your marriage and we need to prove that there was a mistake’ he said. From what I could understand they needed to absolve what they had done (marry us) with God himself.
Mona, with no faults on either side and both of us agreeing, it still took me eight years to get that church annulment. And when I finally did they sent it to another tribunal so the other tribunal would ‘argue’ it. Then they called me to Floriana where another priest had to give me the go-ahead to get married in church again. Nothing is simple. I remember feeling sick, yet again, when he asked me for more money ‘as a donation’ and asked me if I could afford it and quickly sent me to the bored cashier to pay it. At this point I would have poured out all my savings to get this over and done with.
I am very happily married now. I was, still am, extremely lucky to have found a good man. We have been married for nine years and it is blissful. It is even more blissful because I know what a loveless marriage is like.
It would be great if other people had a chance to cut ties simply and easily without what I and all those people in the queue at Archbishop Street went through. The current situation with church and state and how things get messed up with lawyers’ costs, embarrassing questions and whatnot, leading to ‘You were never married. This guy was not your husband. This woman was not your wife’ is fake and hypocritical. So like you, I am voting yes. Not for myself but to save others the hell of years of lying.
Comments
Hi again Stephanie :)
Read till the end coz the end little bit is really for you... (It's positive not negative)
I do not call people egoistic and hard headed because they do not share my views.. I called them that.. well because to me they ARE being hard headed and egoistic by opting for the answer which will crash the dreams and wishes of many!
Plus if you mean it's not healthy for you well sorry about that, apologies... but if you mean it's not healthy for me umm well there again you're wrong :)
I rarely stand up for my rights and rarely argue about my opinions however this is one of those instances in my life where I simply cannot understand why anyone should say 'no'
And by my story I certainly never meant to emotionally blackmail anyone... I just want to get some sense in some people! But well like everything in life you cannot convince everyone that your point of view IS in fact the right one :) I have a very empathic nature and usually think of all those around me and therefore even if I did not need or want divorce I would have still voted yes as I do not think I have the right to break anyone's dreams.
I am just disgusted that so many people are voting 'no' just because their parish priest happened to 'Christianly' blackmail them or even worse because they want to back up their political party...
I thought that a bunch of people might at least have a second thought before ticking that 'no' box and think about my story if not of someone else's... My aim was to make a difference with my life story... I would never have shared such personal thoughts if my intensions weren't for good reasons...
But you're different... I am sure you have your own reasons for voting no and I respect you for being so strong charactered. Be happy with your choice... I am sorry if I effected you badly or anything... Just shared my point of view... in my own way :) take care
Daniela
Calling people egoistic and hard headed because they do not share your views or because they happen to react differently from you to how life treats them is certainly not a very healthy way of projecting your arguments.
Mona
Hopefully one of the political parties will place divorce on it's electoral agenda,personally I doubt that.Then laws can be discussed and implemented in their rightful place,parliament and not with some higgledy-piggledy of a referendum thrown upon the electorate--what the heck did our politicians give themselves a rise for when they throw their responsibilities upon others! Mhux bizzejed ma jiswew ghal xejn !
What's next is that either one party puts it in their electoral programme, or there will be another referendum a few years down the line. By then there'll be more young voters, more people who are open to change in this category. There may still be another campaign by the No side (btw, I was told that in several schools teachers have been distributing No leaflets to 10 - 11 year old children - what's dirtier than dirty?), but there will be even more who will see this hypocrisy for what it is. Eventually, YES will win. So basically, it would be a battle deferred, not won, for the NO camp.
@all
First of all I would like to thank everybody for contributing. This has been a great discussion and it is nice to see that the nos, the yesses and the undecideds can get together and talk about something without flinging mud at each other and screaming.
Second I would like to thank Letter Writer who, in sharing what is a very common experience in Malta has opened this can of worms, pandora's box or what have you. I hope she's not too upset at some of the reactions at her choices and experience in life. As somebody commented below: we are all happy she has found a good life now.
Third I would like to ask: let's all say the result of the referendum is a 'no'...what next?
Yes I surely believe everyone has the right to vote according to their own principles and beliefs however I only spoke the truth and to me and within my perception of things it is beyond me why anyone would want to vote no full stop. Plus being something so personal and so sensitive to me and to many others like me I get annoyed and angried by people who are voting 'no' for various reasons which to me are all 'nonsense'! Whoever believes in love and gets married when still inexperienced with all the hopes and wishes you have when you first get married... I wish they would all be happy but unfortunately some times the ending is far from that of a fairytale and therefore it is beyond my understanding why should anyone place a brick wall between the unfair life and the happy one anyone could have ahead!!
You do not get married with the perception that your marriage will ever end!! But what if it does!! What if you end up with a violent husband or with a neglecting wife? Or if your husband/wife two-times you more than once and you cannot take it anymore? What if your husband/wife just leaves? because they found someone else before anyone even knew what happened??
There are so many situations and broken families who do need the divorce that I am sorry to me and in my perception all those who are voting no are as a matter of fact egoistic and hardhearted!! I am not with any movement.. yes or no I just have my perception of things and this is my truth sorry
Mona
As you have rightly said, even I have a mind of my own and use it to reach my own conclusions . How I feel about this issue is entirely up to me,whatever both yes and no movements say is totally irrelevant so for me whatever happens after Saturday is neither a win for a party or movement,even though many people will only vote based on what their political leaders tell them and that is what makes me angry in regards how this whole important legislation has been hijacked and manipulated.
Daniela, I am truly sorry for what you had to go through but as you said yourself,you were young and inexperienced and went against saner advice ....as we all do when we are young.WIthout judging or imposing my views I still believe that with divorce, these mistakes will still be made....even more so because one enters marriage safe in the thought that there is always the opt out clause called divorce.These are my convictions on which I base my decisions and when you accuse us of not thinking of your plight or of being selfish and thinking only of ourselves you are wrongly judging us and playing on our sentiments.I have a right to vote without emotional blackmail ,as have you.Please respect that ,no one is trying to convince you to vote against what you believe is right for you.
This is my last post on the subject as I strongly
believe that everyone has a right to his opinion and vote according to his principles and beliefs without being labelled as a hypocrite .
Having said that, if one respects the four year period of divorce than I'm not sure which option would take longer as, if i'm not mistaken, this four-year period may change with time....
Regards
oops sorry :P
hope you understand that being such a matter at heart I am a bit over sensitive at the moment until all this hassle is over
:)) I agree with all you say and I apologise for my having misunderstood you :)))
Thanks
I said he because of the following: ''He was not religious at all but his parents and family are. He wanted to get married in church.''
..I'm referring to the above quoted story...
Secondly, I compared civil annulment with divorce in this case because one difference is that with divorce, as mentioned, children are aware that marriage happened once, which is better than marriage that never existed. Other differences are that divorce is easier, quicker and requires less grounds..as probably mentioned and i agree.
However, since no children were involved, civil annulment vs divorce wouldn't have made much difference except that civil annulment takes possibly longer. It would have taken surely less than 8 years, but she still opted for church annulment. This goes to show how much she wanted church annulment, due to the fact that he wanted to marry in church.
Therefore, all i wanted to say is that in this particular case ( not your case Daniela), the only/best solution was church annulment.
As regards your case, Daniela, I didnt leave any comments about it and I definitely know that you can get married in church if you were only involved in civil marriage the first time !!!!!!!!
Fist of all this is a she... secondly yes if I get a divorce I CAN get married in church since I was never married in church... and since that would break my civil marriage therefore... If I can get married civilly I can then get married in church for the first time!! Kapixx?? and no I do not want an anullment!!! Do you know how lengthy that is??? And did you know that an anullment has to be approved by both in civil law to be ''shorter'' ?? Divorce is easier faster better and a credit in my life that I was once married and learned from my mistakes and for my son that his even if his mummy and daddy ''did not work out'' they were married and full stop!! Why should you make null your past?? That is dumb to me and annullment (to Me) only makes sense when it comes to a Christian (happened-in-church) marriage! Why should anyone be so heartless and egoistic and vote no for a human right??
And yes you are right but why should I get an anullment if I do not want to... If my son does not want me to and most of all since it is sooooo verrrrryyyyy lengthy and extremely expensive tooo!!!!! Money which I do not have since I did not take one singe penny from my ex
Thanks
Daniela
Having said that I'm not implying I'm against divorce, but I think that in this particular case getting a civil annulment would have been similar to getting a divorce at the end of the day, or am I wrong?
By getting a divorce, marrying in church for the second time wouldn't have been possible. Thus divorce in this case wouldn't have as such solved the problem since marrying in church was so important to him...
Dear Mona and especially Stephanie and Charles
I am 29 years old... I was in my very early teens when ''I fell in love'' for the first time and even though everyone told me ''he'' was not right for me I persevered and was hard headed and obstinate as that is my character unfortunately for me! At 18 I got pregnant from the first and only love of my life who used to treat me like sh!t but I did not care ''because I love him'' I used to say stubbornly...
When our son was born I unwittingly moved in with his parents as at the time I thought it was what would be best for our lovely jewel (child). I lived in the basement and suffered numerous atrocities... continuous bullying... I was neglegted, mistreated and misunderstood and I was not strong enough for all of this.. did not fight back... gave up and I entered a phase of severe depression even though I always found the strength to smile and laugh around my son as he was my rock and my only reason for living... My partner was never there and when he was we were quarreling about how he should be around more often! He used to tell me that everyone has problems and that I should stop fussing. In my depressed state I quit the quarrels and even though I felt unloved and dead inside I kept striving for our child.
When our child was 4 he started having emotional problems with the fact that I his mother had a different surname to that of his daddy and why were we not married... His father never wanted to spend money on a marriage but said lets get married civilly and do nothing special... so we decided over just a meal for the two of us afterwards... I prepared for the big day... no one was invited except the witnesses but I was still trilled that he was finally showing one act of love and therefore I did not care about the little details... during the meal we did not really enjoy ourselves as he got bored and started being sharp tounged as usual... asking why I put up my hair uncovering what he liked to call my huge forehead etc. Still being so young I did not realise I could have done better and I too had the chance of being loved. Him being my first and only one I thought all this was normal and anyway was used to him and scared to move on so the pang of guilt and scaredness at getting married left in a jiffy...
after 7 years living in that blessed basement.. alone... well we finally moved to a house of our own... yet his parents were still invading my space and he was still distant and I realised that I was living a lie...I realised I did not love this guy anymore and that now at the age of 27 percieving life from a different perspective I realised that this guy did not even want to marry me in church so why were we together... the answers were easy... We got used to our life/daily quarrels (yes again), the money from two working people was comfortable to live a comfortable social life and our child who was getting older...
Now being in our on house we had more freedom of speech and the quarrels got worse and he started getting violent, our child started getting traumatised over our fights and doing bad at school etc
After a year in the new house I told him I could take it no more and that I deserved better and that I was leaving... At first I took our child along (keeping in mind he was ours not mine) but then our child wanted to live in HIS house as he called it and went to live with his dad and since ''I'' was the one who decided to leave and I was the one to break the marriage he hated me and didn't want to see me... That hurt like hell but I used to call every day to speak to him and with time and patience he started coming over to my rented flat to spend time with me
Two years later... needless to say I am now seperated... my son lives with me today and I found another partner who loves me like hell... I am not married by church and I do not want a civil anullment because what I went through made me the strong person I am today... I want a divorce to remind me of my mistakes and to give credit to my son that I did marry his daddy but it simply didn't work out..
My son wants me to remarry to see me happy but most of as even though no-one can replace his daddy he wants to live in a family again and even though it feels like a family we can only be unite in marriage...
and I don't say ''Ghalik mux xorta'' I say ''please do think about me and people like me'' think about my son who can also have a brighter future... think about others not just about yourselves... This should be a free country then why can't we get a divorce?
Please... Take care and happy life to all xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oh and sorry forgot to answer your last question:
As mentioned below NOBODY gets married 'when you want an opt out clause'. People get married full stop, full of hope and dreams. Marriages go awry. Relationships go awry. When I mentioned 'who pays' I was referring to this: if we vote No or do not vote, these people who made mistakes, whose marriages are empty, must either resort to separation or annulment.
And that, to me, is sheer hypocrisy. The broken marriages are there.
Stef
this has nothing to do with the yes movement or whatever. I have my own brain to weigh things with and make my own decisions.
Tell me a little bit: if 'no' wins, considering the people who are backing it, will you be happy with that?
I do not even consider this a situation were I am 'denying' anyone or 'paying' anyone back.This argument,pushed incessantly by the Yes movement irkes me beyond belief .Please remember that by using the same argument,you are forcing me to forgo my own beliefs ...u ijja, you say ghalik mhux xorta? Ivvota iva ghal min iridu divorzju,inti xorta ma tuzahx.
For me,it is very difficult to understand this concept ....how do you get married in the first place when you already want an opt out clause ghal li jista jkun?
Understood Stephanie.
Nobody is happy really with how the government has abdicated its responsibilities.
So what shall we do now? Deny people who want to get married again and regularise their position the right to, just to 'pay' our spineless MPs back?
Who would really be paying?
Angela, I was commenting about this particular case.Even I,like you,didn't want to be coerced in a situation were I have to assume the same role you referred to,going against what I believe in,not being a keeper at anyone's gate.Unfortunately,as often happens on this rock, a decision which should have come from the state has been plonked upon our shoulders to appease someone's ego.For me,that is unacceptable.
Stephanie thank you for your honesty.
Divorce solves one thing and one thing only: it gives you the option to get married again and legalise your 'new' relationship. I say 'new' but as we all know the relationship would be years old.
Are we going to deny these people who wish for this their rights to start over within the law?
Stephanie, it is not about divorce being the end all or great solution in every situation. It's about an option being there if desired. Personally, I had good use for it. My husband is divorced so I'm the second wife. We've been happily together for 13 years. Plus, his children from his previous marriage have been catered for and supported by us, as is our son now. We had that option, we used it. That's pretty much what it's all about. I don't appreciate someone else telling me what I should and shouldn't do - freedom is what it is. We may not always like it, but if we don't allow it, we become the wardens at the gate of someone else's life or dreams, denying them what they wish for. I don't want to have that role, ever.
The most significant part of this sad story ,to me,is the fact that she had to go through this whole sordid business of an annulment to marry in church again! divorce or no divorce, it would not have mattered in her case,she still needed an annulment to appease her new partner! .WIthout being judgemental, I feel uneasy thinking how hypocritical all this seems--going through to all this hell to achieve something you do not believe in the first place, I admire her zeal as she must really love her new husband.Sorry Mona, but to me this story seems to strengthen my idea that divorce really does not solve any problems at all!
Ergo why we need more options to get out of a sour situation should we choose to. Divorce is another option...a civil option that should be available for those who choose it. Of course, to add to the comments, I wasn't interested in a Church marriage, or the baggage that came with it (Cana, the Church coming into "my bedroom" to tell me how to behave, etc.), so I personally never got one. I don't need a priest-officiated ceremony to dictate my relationship with God.
So knowing me, I wouldn't have taken myself through this ordeal to appease someone else, either, although I'm happy that this lady's new relationship is a very blissful one. And her story does shed light on the fact that yes, the Church annulment is gruelling, but it's only one way to go. It could be avoided. With a divorce ruling, a Church (second) marriage would not be possible anyway - therefore, in this lady's case, the argument is moot. It seems that, were Malta to offer divorce, this woman would have still opted for the Church annulment. Despite the humiliation, she didn't just get up and leave. She succumbed to the pressure of a family (her then partner's family) that is "devout Catholic" and took the beating without hesitation. Kudos to her, she did something I definitely couldn't fathom.
But I say one thing. If we want things to truly change, it is not sufficient to just have an option. We must stand up for what we believe in. I know many people who would rather not have married in Church but did it anyway to avoid ruffling feathers. Is this due to the mentality of sin and suffering that we're indoctrinated with from an early age?
So this is what irks me: when are we going to start acting for our own personal good? For our own bit of happiness? We can grasp this happiness, without being selfish and unkind. We have a right to it. Now, this is only for those who'd love to see changes, of course. We're not all the same, and some are happy with the way things are, and with the prevailing mentality/morality. Good for them. However, for those who yearn to break free of strict Catholic dogma, there is a certain amount of courage, of sheer guts, that must be summoned and employed. There is a jaded assumption that one is either a good Catholic or bad - there are no shades of grey in this flawed argument.
There are good people who do not wish to live by Catholic rules. There are Maltese people who feel this way, yet, they live false lives for the sake of parents, friends, family, ghal ghajn in-nies, etc. As long as this way of thinking persists, there will never be a change. I know people who have made this transition, and are happily adjusted in their lives. Undoubtedly, other people will fall in line if we put our foot down and show a desire to stop kowtowing to the "status quo". Eventually, if they truly love us, they will accept. If they don't love us, who needs them anyway? And we will be so much better off for standing up for ourselves.
I am sorry to hear about this woman's ordeal but do wish to comment on the Church annulment.
if it was difficult to prove that the marriage never existed or why you should not have got married in the first place means that there were no grounds for a Church annulment.
a lot of people complain about the Church annulment and the money spent when they should actually concentrate the real reason for this annulment. some people boast might think that they have taken the Church for a ride by getting their marriage annulled when in fact they are only kidding themselves as in the eyes of God, they are still married to their first partner.
it is all a matter of conscience and the relationship with the Creator.
1. You'd be surprised how many marriages, indeed, were always loveless. Just like relationships can be loveless.
2. The subsidisation is so much of a fact that the Ecclesiastic courts in Malta cause a net loss of €500,000 euro per year out of JUST subsidisation.
3. I know she never said that, I used 'if' for a reason. I don't think anything's meaningless in life, I'm just saying that IF she felt that way, then her suffering came from lack of awareness about why she was getting married, or just a general lack of awareness caused by inexperience.
4. Nope, but I can already tell you it's hard, but worth it. It's never about bliss or happy-ever-afters.
5. I pray that I won't ever need one. But that's besides the point, I'm the same way with relationships (in the sense that I take being single before a relationship and marriage very seriously). And just because I know how serious marriage is, I also know that the Church must know how very serious the annulment of a marriage is. It's not simply a whim or something. But this brings us back to 'Why get a Church marriage etc'. Which is all very personal and faith-based, not civil based.
6. Whoops, negativity in all this must've cause a little freudian slip.
But wait, are you saying democratic decisions don't need reason?
@Jamie
1. You tell me which marriage is 'loveless from the start'. That process is a fake.
2. Does anybody tell you about this subsidisation thing? I'll ask her you know but it's a huge surprise to me. Do you have to prove you're poor or something?
3. She never said her marriage was entirely useless. Please do not misquote her. They had got to a point where they both wanted out (actually he left, but that's not important).
4. The lack of knowledge about what she was getting into. I have to ask you now: are you married?
5. Invasive questions: give me a break Jamie. When you have been through this process (of course you never will need it, of course) then we shall talk again.
6. I think you mean 'yes'. I think you mean 'fish needs a bicycle'.
@Mona
1.Yes, I read her comment, but let me reply to the others for now.
2. A Church annulment annuls a church marriage. A Church marriage, by definition, cannot be loveless. If the marriage was loveless from the start, then it is unquestionably in need of annulment.
As for reading her comment, I know, I asked those questions to get some information and run through a rational process, but less on this for now.
2a, I know, but she mentioned finances at a point and seemed unaware of the willingness of subsidisation. I just want to make a by-point.
I stick by what I said about misinformation. If her marriage was entirely useless, if she feels that her pain was meaningless, then I'd say that the lack of knowledge she had about what she was getting into (the only reason I'd be this audacious is because of the fact she went into a Church Marriage without understanding it, as I take it)
As for the invasive questions, of course they have to be invasive! It just shows how seriously the Church takes the annulment, to make SURE that it's not a dismissive dissolution of a marriage but actually understanding that the marriage never took place. It's a serious matter on the level of life, not just a relationship.
But again, why the Church marriage if it didn't matter? Why the annulment if church marriages don't matter?
If you really believe that you shouldn't impose a 'no' on others, then that is the reason why you're voting no. It has nothing to do with the article. Like I said, my big qualm was with "here's why I'm voting no." My problem is with non-rational decisions in processes such as democratic voting that NEED rational thought like a fish needs water.
As for what I'm voting, how does that matter?
We're 'arguing' on the same side and for some reason its amusing me.
1 - My point exactly. Consensus reached
2 - Faced with such a direct question, no. Even in my limited experience, breakups, frankly, suck. If they didn't then something was terribly wrong in the relationship.
3 - Same sentiment. Its just a pity people sometimes don't see beyond their own interests.
I was not expecting a discussion out of that comment! But I guess it was a good way to clear the air a bit. Maybe this campaign needed a bit more discussion and a bit less mud slinging.
Also... I'm offended. You compared me to the no movement. Haha.
@Jamie
1. Did you see her comment below?
2. I don't think you really have any idea of what the annulment process is about. It has nothing to do with 'loveless marriages'. It is about proving you should never have got married in the first place.
Your 2 :) - that is correct. See her comment below.
Your 2a) You have got to be kidding me. And she never said she could not 'afford it'. That is hardly the point here anyway.
'Most of her trouble was caused by misinformation'. Oh dear...here we go with the judgements. Her 'trouble', from what I can read (and I have read it over and over) was not caused by anything but the process itself, which to me sounds demeaning. What on earth has sex life and god knows what got to do with it? Are you aware of the questions asked during a church annulment process?
Re your last para: of course. The point is: she does not need divorce, like the majority of people in this country. Others do. Who are we to deny them that right by voting 'no'.
And at this point I'm seriously confused. Are you voting yes or no?
Okay, so following her story.
1. What made her want to get a Church Marriage?
1a) If it's because of her faith, then there is no such thing as a 'loveless marriage' that can't be annulled.
1b) If she doesn't care for a Church marriage, why even bother with the annulment? A state annulment and that's that, she'd only need the Church annulment if she wants another Church marriage. Which brings us back to "why get a church marriage?"
Still, sorry that the first marriage didn't work out, even if it was never there in the first place.
2. How would have divorce changed anything in her previous situation? She would've still had to get a Church annulment, so this 'horrible experience' isn't avoided at all with the annulment.
2a) Was she aware that annulments by the ecclesiastic court can be subsidised if she simply said she couldn't afford it?
The reason I'm asking these questions is because clearly, most of her trouble was caused by misinformation. Misinformed steps, misinformed opinions, etc,.
The reason I care is because of the statement "I'm voting yes and here's why." Not so much the "voting yes" (I could care less about your vote, because that's a personal decision), but more so the claim that this anecdote is a valid reason or admissible argument for divorce. It's as valid as "I'm voting no for divorce because I know someone who didn't enjoy theirs." This experience with the Church annulment has nothing to do with divorce. Nothing at all, zero, zilch and bupkis.
Very interesting Jeremy as these are the arguments being brought up by the No movement. Let's tackle them one by one:
1. Why should we be bound by something we have created. This is an odd question. Marriage is a contract. Every single contract in the world has opt-out clauses should it come to the crunch.
2. 'People are blinded by the here and now and need to be protected from taking rash decisions'. Yes I asked about your age because frankly, you have absolutely no idea how untrue this is. Sure, there are 'shallow buggers' who eff off. But in their majority people go through hell before they make that 'final' step of leaving. Is any relationship breakup 'easy'? Tell me that.
3. "Contemplating divorce isn't really a symbol of love in the relationship". Of course it isn't. I personally am very happily married. To me 'divorce' means breaking up with my husband irrevocably. I do not ever think of breaking up with my husband because I am happy and secure. Does that give me the right to vote 'no' and deny that right to other people who have made their decision? Who am I? God? Deciding upon other people's lives and broken relationships like that? So I'll be voting yes, as I wrote two weeks ago, because I feel others should have that right. If I voted 'no' it would be a question of 'I'm all right; fuck you jack'.
@planetmona
Definitely! I personally believe that most of the things around us, institutions and such, including things like language and marriage, are for the people and not the other way around. Why should we be bound by something which we have created? ( Marriage on a civil, not religious level. A Marriage bound by God is not one I feel I have any right to voice an opinion about)
Its just, I feel divorce shouldn't be 'easy'. As in, it should be available, but not a walkover, if you know what I mean. Sometimes, people are blinded by here-and-now and it needs to protect from people taking rash decisions which they could regret. And maybe I'm a shallow bugger, but if I knew there was an 'easy' way out, maybe I wouldn't plan my steps in a way to care for the relationship so much - but as you said, maybe I'm just young.
Having said that, contemplating divorce at all isn't really a symbol of love in the relationship.
@Jeremy
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, which are very valid.
'If ties were easier to cut, second marriages won't be appreciated as much'. You are young but that does not mean that you are not aware of one simple fact: if you were in a relationship with another person, and you broke up with them, does that mean that your next relationship is less important, or 'not appreciate'?
I doubt that. Maybe your first relationship was crap. Maybe your second makes you much happier.
Our letter writer here found love and happiness in her second marriage. Who are we do deny her, and others, that chance?
Dear Mona
could I clarify something?
My mention of what one goes through in the church annulment is not to say that divorce will replace it. In fact I could get married civilly the moment I got that state annulment.
It is just to show people what a church annulment is like...and believe me it is hell.
My only 'disagreement', if you could call it that, is that maybe if ties were easier to cut, second marriages wont be as appreciated as much. Don't misunderstand me, it seems that this lady has been through way much, and by no means deserved any of this. Its just a thought which popped into my mind as I was reading, that is all.
Also, divorce is Civil-only, am I right? So you'd still have to go through all the muck of a Christian tribunal to get into a second Christian marriage.
Disclaimer: Had I a vote, it would have been a 'Yes'. Unfortunately, I'm one of the 2800.
