WOULD IT BE UNREALISTIC TO ASK THE DIVORCE PROPONENTS HOW MANY DIVORCES CAN ONE HAVE, HOW MANY HOMES CAN ONE BREAK, HOW MANY CHILDREN CAN ONE LEAVE BEHIND?
The question really is how many marriages may one enter into and how many divorces may one thereafter obtain.
A spouse 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 unforgivingly 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 excellent personal credentials for a re-marriage. The truth is that when seriously traumatized by an errant and erratic former spouse, the said spouse-victim becomes sadly unprepared for another marriage. And considering that another and another marriage and another and another divorce are all possible, neither the guilty nor the victim spouse is helped by such indefinite possibilities.
WOULD THE ENACTMENT OF AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION REALLY PREVENT PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, MARITAL INFIDELITY, SPOUSAL ABANDONEMENT AND OTHER SIMILAR MARRIAGE MALADIES AS ENVISIONED BY ITS PROPONENTS?
Would that they do! But the truth is that it may in fact even inspire what it intends to prevent or deter. It is definitely not improbable that when a couple is tired or simply disgusted with their conjugal life, one of them would deliberately physically abuse the other, intentionally commit adultery or actually abandon the other. Why? Precisely to prepare and provide a ground for divorce!
In other words, what the divorce proponents might want to prevent in order to stabilize marriage—such as physical abuse, marital infidelity and spousal abandonment -- abuse could be the very reasons that would in fact destroy marriages. And this is not funny.
WOULD IT BE JUSTIFIED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION ON THE PREMISE THAT IT IS NEITHER HARD NOT COSTLY TO OBTAIN—COMPARED TO MARRIAGE NULLITY AND/OR ANNULMENT?
Has the issue been simply relegated to what is easy or hard, cheap or costly to obtain? What is easy and cheap to obtain, does not necessarily make it right. In the same way, what is hard and costly to have, neither necessarily makes this wrong. .
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?
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 means to an equally wrong end: Wrong means because this would make them liars when they pronounce their 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 personalities 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.
8 JUNE 2011