QUESTION 3:
WOULD IT BE CONSONANT WITH THE DICTATES OF REASON AND THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE TO REWARD WITH A DIVORCE DECREE NOT ONLY THE VICTIM BUT ALSO THE CULPRIT ACCORDING THE PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR ABSOLUTE DIVORCE?
It is said that an absolute divorce may be obtained on the ground of a given crime, an errant behavior, a disagreeable option, and the like. In any of these cases, the freedom to remarry through divorce favors not only the victim but also the culprit.
Or is it simple a matter of alimony or support imposed on the guilty spouse? In this case, the moneyed people are favored as they are capable of giving as much money demanded by as many “ex-wives” and “ex-families” possible. And what if the spouse proven guilty cannot afford to pay the imposed alimony? Would this party be also allowed to remarry as well, allowed to divorce again, and again leave ex-spouses and children without support?
If the proponents of the absolute divorce legislation really want to strengthen the family as claimed, by preventing marital infidelity, abandonment, attempt at the life of a spouse and the like, they should rather be more serious in penalizing these crimes as provided by law – crime which sad to say, are covered by very dead laws in Philippines society.
QUESTION 4:
WOULD IT BE UNREALISTIC TO ASK THE DIVORCE PROPONENTS HOW MANY MARRIAGES, FAMILIES AND HOMES CAN ONE BREAK? HOW MANY DIVORCES CAN ONE HAVE? HOW MANY SPOUSES MAY ONE ABUSE, VIOLATE, ABANDON AND THE LIKE?
The question really is how many marriages one may enter into and how many divorces may one obtain.
A spouse proven guilty of any of the divorce grounds does not have the best credentials to enter into another marriage. This is especially true on the ground of adverse personality constitution or ingrained character flaw which is certainly not cured by all absolute divorce grants.
The spouse victim on the other hand who unforgiving and perhaps even vindictively acted against the other with the full force of the law in order to have an absolute divorce, may not claim neither good personal credentials for a remarriage. And spouses, who privately agree and even intentionally collude to establish their ground for absolute divorce, are certainly not in command of the best intention for their remarriages.
QUESTION 5:
WOULD THE ENACTMENT OF AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION REALLY PREVENT MARITAL INFIDELITY, SPOUSAL ABANDONMENT AND OTHER SIMILAR MARRIAGE MALADIES AS ENVISIONED BY ITS PROPONENTS?
Would that it does? But the truth is that it may in fact even inspire what it intends to deter or curtail. It is definitely not improbable that when a couple is tired or simply disgusted with their conjugal life, one or both of them would simply deliberately commit adultery, actually abuse each other or decidedly establish a ground for absolute divorce, and thus actually benefits from their reprehensible act.
QUESTION 6:
WOULD IT BE JUSTIFIED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION ON THE PREMISE THAT IT IS HARD BUT CHEAP TO OBTAIN IT – COMPARED TO MARRIAGE NULLITY AND ANNULMENT?
Has the issue been simply relegated to what is hard or easy to obtain? What is wrong may be hard to obtain, but this does not make it right. And what is right may be easy to obtain, but this does not make it wrong. And as to cost, “cheap divorce” – the same as the so called Las Vegas “quickie divorce” – such even depreciates absolute divorce more than what it already is!
If a marriage is ab initio null and void, why make it hard or costly for spouses to get a nullity declaration? And as far as civil law is concerned, if the marriage is voidable, why make it also difficult and expensive for them to have an annulment?
QUESTION 7:
IT IS CORRECT TO CLAIM THAT THE ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION IS THE LAST RESORT TO FREE COUPLES FROM IMPOSSIBLE MARRIAGES.
If the intention is simply to free couples from already unbearable marriages, the recourse is legal separation, not absolute divorce. If the design is for a couple to get rid of one another for purposes of remarriages, their divorce is the wrong mains to an equally wrong end: Wrong means because this would make them liars when they pronounced their lifetime marriage vows, and wrong end because they would have to enter into but a temporary remarriage by precisely subscribing to absolute divorce.
Regarding impossible or anomalous conjugal relationships such as in the case of sex maniacs or sexual addicts, psychopaths and sociopaths behavioral deviants, emotionally unstable and any other duly identified grave mental disorder, once proven by experts that any of these has been existent at the time of the wedding then legal separation, marriage nullity or annulment is the recourse – not divorce.
Absolute divorce is not a “last recourse” but the final triumph of those who subscribe to the so called “free marriage” or “open marriage” which basically means a individualistic union, not a conjugal covenant.
OVCRUZ, JCD
SEPTEMBER 06, 2010
(Divorce and Question Marks continues on September 8, 2010)
Monday, September 06, 2010
Friday, September 03, 2010
DIVORCE AND QUESTION MARKS 1/3
The understanding and appreciation of the Church about marriage is certainly not based on her mere opinion, capricious intent and/or invented teaching. That marriage per se is a distinct indissoluble and indivisible union finds its anchorage in nothing less than natural law, viz., the inborn aptitude and disposition of couples opting for marriage, to be together for nothing less than a lifetime.
This innate longings of the human spirit that make men and women want to seal their union for as long as they live can be easily and readily drawn and easily known by simply considering more closely and attentively the constant, consistent and repeated lyrics of a love song. “I shall be loving you eternally…” “I will be loving you always…” And so with other innumerable love songs throughout the world composed by men and women of every race and culture – certainly not by the Church, not by priests and nuns! That is why the lyrics of the song that become also popular say “Torn between two lovers, feeling like a fool, loving both of you is all the rule”
Thus it is that what human nature rightfully and fervently longs for in the matter of man-and—woman love, is duly assumed by the Church as a signal teaching about the nature of marriage, the essence of conjugal love as a partnership between the spouses premised on their mutual consenting love for a lifetime, for their own marital good and the welfare of the children born of their union. In the event that a man and a woman enters into such a covenant before the Church, that union is further elevated into the supernatural order of grace in its constitution as a sacrament.
Question 1: WOULD AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION BE PURSUANT TO THE TEXT, CONTEST AND SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES?
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, in nonetheless than the declaration of principles, very expressly and even categorically says that the State shall strengthen the family as a basic autonomous entity. Furthermore, the very first Article of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that marriage is an inviolable social institution.
How could absolute divorce strengthen the Filipino family? How would absolute divorce make the family an inviolable social institution? It is big sophism and an untenable rationalization to say that by destroying the family, it is strengthened, and by dividing the family, it is made inviolable!
The undeniable fact is that it is precisely the absence of absolute divorce in the Philippines that has kept couples together in joy and in pain that has saved families from breaking apart. The law on absolute divorce already threatens to violate the marriage vows even before they are pronounced.
Question 2: WOULD STAND REASON AND LOGIC TO CLAIM THAT CIVIL ABSOLUTE DIVORCE IS AFTER ALL PRACTICALLY THE SAME AS MARRIAGE NULLITY DECLARATIONS AND MARRIAGE ANNULMENTS?
The present Family Code of the Philippines has provisions for nullity and annulment of marriages – in addition to legal separation. nullity declaration means that a marriage is ab initio null and void. marriage is voided or invalidated. Absolute divorce however means that a valid and non-voidable marriage is still dissolved. These three marriage actions are neither practically much less substantially the same.
If it is argued that the effects are the same, this is tantamount to saying that death by sickness or old age, by accident or lethal injection, by torture, massacre and other forms of execution, is all the same. after all, those concerned are all dead anyway!
the truth of the matter is that there is the attempt to break and dissolve marriage by any and all possible means, whatever the costs to the family, to the community, to the country. if one is not content with legal separation, try marriage nullity.If nullity is not possible go for annulment. And, now, if even annulment is not granted, file for absolute divorce. With all these possibilities of getting rid of marriage, the question may be asked: Why get married at all?
OVCRUZ, JCD
SEPTEMBER 3, 2010
(Divorce and Question Marks continues on September 06, 2010)
This innate longings of the human spirit that make men and women want to seal their union for as long as they live can be easily and readily drawn and easily known by simply considering more closely and attentively the constant, consistent and repeated lyrics of a love song. “I shall be loving you eternally…” “I will be loving you always…” And so with other innumerable love songs throughout the world composed by men and women of every race and culture – certainly not by the Church, not by priests and nuns! That is why the lyrics of the song that become also popular say “Torn between two lovers, feeling like a fool, loving both of you is all the rule”
Thus it is that what human nature rightfully and fervently longs for in the matter of man-and—woman love, is duly assumed by the Church as a signal teaching about the nature of marriage, the essence of conjugal love as a partnership between the spouses premised on their mutual consenting love for a lifetime, for their own marital good and the welfare of the children born of their union. In the event that a man and a woman enters into such a covenant before the Church, that union is further elevated into the supernatural order of grace in its constitution as a sacrament.
Question 1: WOULD AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION BE PURSUANT TO THE TEXT, CONTEST AND SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES?
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, in nonetheless than the declaration of principles, very expressly and even categorically says that the State shall strengthen the family as a basic autonomous entity. Furthermore, the very first Article of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that marriage is an inviolable social institution.
How could absolute divorce strengthen the Filipino family? How would absolute divorce make the family an inviolable social institution? It is big sophism and an untenable rationalization to say that by destroying the family, it is strengthened, and by dividing the family, it is made inviolable!
The undeniable fact is that it is precisely the absence of absolute divorce in the Philippines that has kept couples together in joy and in pain that has saved families from breaking apart. The law on absolute divorce already threatens to violate the marriage vows even before they are pronounced.
Question 2: WOULD STAND REASON AND LOGIC TO CLAIM THAT CIVIL ABSOLUTE DIVORCE IS AFTER ALL PRACTICALLY THE SAME AS MARRIAGE NULLITY DECLARATIONS AND MARRIAGE ANNULMENTS?
The present Family Code of the Philippines has provisions for nullity and annulment of marriages – in addition to legal separation. nullity declaration means that a marriage is ab initio null and void. marriage is voided or invalidated. Absolute divorce however means that a valid and non-voidable marriage is still dissolved. These three marriage actions are neither practically much less substantially the same.
If it is argued that the effects are the same, this is tantamount to saying that death by sickness or old age, by accident or lethal injection, by torture, massacre and other forms of execution, is all the same. after all, those concerned are all dead anyway!
the truth of the matter is that there is the attempt to break and dissolve marriage by any and all possible means, whatever the costs to the family, to the community, to the country. if one is not content with legal separation, try marriage nullity.If nullity is not possible go for annulment. And, now, if even annulment is not granted, file for absolute divorce. With all these possibilities of getting rid of marriage, the question may be asked: Why get married at all?
OVCRUZ, JCD
SEPTEMBER 3, 2010
(Divorce and Question Marks continues on September 06, 2010)
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
“SEX EDUCATION” – 7/7
As a right and proper ending of this subject matter of “Sex Education”, it has now become both fruitful and practical to make a full circle thereabout in the sense that there it started and there also shall it end. Question: What are the clear and given premises of this short and simple treaties in conjunction with education about sex? Answer: Firstly, it acquired the interest and concern of the Department of Education in particular. Then, the same Department considered it necessary to have sex education modules, booklets and similar literature composed, printed and accordingly funded. Lastly, as a matter of course, the said Department tasked some teachers in selected public schools to handle the subject matter and do the teaching thereof to duly chosen Elementary and High School students in the school premises. Needless to say, the starling statement of the previous Secretary of Health to give “Sex Education” even to “Kindergarten” pupils was not taken seriously. In this final part of this seven-part submission on “Sex Education”, it will be enough to offer the following seven pointers as well:
One: Human sexuality is not only a sensitive and delicate matter, but also has the strong potential for grave wrong doing and even animalistic action and reaction pattern - - if not learned well and right.
Two: Human sexuality is not thus just like any “subject matter” that may be “taught” even by learned teachers as but a “school course” – taking into account not simply its rather intimate nature but also its signal implications.
Three: Human sexuality then should be taught by parents to their children – according to their pertinent needs as perceived by the father and/or mother, considering that children of the same age may need the different formation.
Four: Human sexuality taught to the children by their own parents then automatically acquires the dimensions of respect and deference such that the object of learning automatically becomes divested of malice and vice.
Five: Human sexuality taught at home by parents to their own children thereby furthermore acquires its home ambiance, thereby making the agenda twice sound and honorable as far as the kids are directly concerned.
Six: Human sexuality is definitely a part of the value formation that parents have the serious obligation to make their own children learn – under penalty that these would know about “sex” the wrong way, from wrong individuals.
Seven: Human sexuality – in case known by teachers how to make their pupils learn it – could instead teach their parents how teach the latter’s children through the “Parents’ Teachers’ Association”.
(The end!)
OVC, JCD
01 SEPTEMBER 2010
One: Human sexuality is not only a sensitive and delicate matter, but also has the strong potential for grave wrong doing and even animalistic action and reaction pattern - - if not learned well and right.
Two: Human sexuality is not thus just like any “subject matter” that may be “taught” even by learned teachers as but a “school course” – taking into account not simply its rather intimate nature but also its signal implications.
Three: Human sexuality then should be taught by parents to their children – according to their pertinent needs as perceived by the father and/or mother, considering that children of the same age may need the different formation.
Four: Human sexuality taught to the children by their own parents then automatically acquires the dimensions of respect and deference such that the object of learning automatically becomes divested of malice and vice.
Five: Human sexuality taught at home by parents to their own children thereby furthermore acquires its home ambiance, thereby making the agenda twice sound and honorable as far as the kids are directly concerned.
Six: Human sexuality is definitely a part of the value formation that parents have the serious obligation to make their own children learn – under penalty that these would know about “sex” the wrong way, from wrong individuals.
Seven: Human sexuality – in case known by teachers how to make their pupils learn it – could instead teach their parents how teach the latter’s children through the “Parents’ Teachers’ Association”.
(The end!)
OVC, JCD
01 SEPTEMBER 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)