Maria Steen
We are to have a referendum on May 24. The proposal is to change the Constitution to make it easier and quicker to get a divorce. The referendum will pass.
For anyone who is brave enough to take part in public debate opposing the proposed change, I predict that this is the way it will go: the person brought on to defend marriage (or rather to oppose progress, as it will be described), will be confronted with a woman, beaten by her philandering husband, who has now found love with a kind and decent man who cares for her. What kind of monster would oppose such a relationship? What kind of monster would ‘force’ her to stay with an abusive husband? The person who has walked into the lion’s den to defend marriage, that’s who.
The truth is that I don’t know anyone who truly supports a Christian view of marriage who would want anyone to stay in an abusive marriage. In fact, it is contrary to the central meaning of Christian marriage. The Church has for the longest time allowed annulments of marriage where one or other party is lacking the psychological, intellectual or volitional requirement to establish and nurture an intimate partnership of life. Someone with an abusive or manipulative personality is clearly lacking the understanding of what is required in a marriage, and often lacking the proper intention.
But no defender of marriage will ever be given a chance to express this in public ‘debate’. Rather he or she will be cast as a persecutor of abused women and children.
Newer model
By contrast, no one will interview those spouses who entered into marriage for life, only to be divorced against their will, rejected for a newer model and left holding the baby and struggling financially and in every other way. No consideration will be given to the damage to children. The framing of the debate will be one way only – and that is one in which a ‘Yes’ vote is presented as a no-brainer. Anyone who has the temerity to oppose it will be cast out into the exterior darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
There is no winning – or even engaging in – this debate while broadcasters are biased and dishonest in how they set the scene. No scales of justice are applied to broadcasting in Ireland when it comes to these kinds of debates – the pretence of balance is kept up by inviting participants from both sides of the debate and applying the stopwatch to their respective contributions, but that is where any semblance of fairness stops.
It has become increasingly obvious that the majority of broadcasters and journalists in Ireland are polarising our society: they are overwhelmingly left-leaning on social issues and display a so-called liberal, anti-Catholic bias. They call the shots, frame the debate, make editorial decisions to use ‘personal stories’ rather than actually engage in any intellectual or reasoned debate. The result is that, before a contrarian even reaches a television or radio studio, the odds are stacked against him or her.
When was the last time you heard any Irish politician proposing supports for marriage?
Soon we will begin to follow the example of the US: left-leaning liberals tune into the mainstream media, while right-leaning conservatives tune into alternative media. It is rare to see the two in the same room having a genuinely impartially moderated and civil debate. And society is much the poorer for it.
But to return to the issue of divorce, the proposal before us seeks to take divorce out of the Constitution and allow politicians to make the rules about how and when one can get a divorce. In truth, this horse bolted a long time ago. In 1995 to be exact, when we voted divorce into law in this country by a very slim margin.
That, more than anything else, signalled a seismic shift in our attitude to marriage. It was more significant than even the 2015 referendum. Why? Because from then on it meant anyone could walk away from a solemn promise for any reason whenever he or she liked.
The point is, if a marriage vow no longer means what it says, it can mean anything. What does a marriage contract mean in law if you can walk away when you like, for any reason, and do so – unusually in relation to breach of contract – with no penalty for breaking your promise?
Critics will say, “but the divorce rate in Ireland is incredibly low compared with other countries!” These same critics who boast that Ireland has a low rate of divorce are the very ones who want to make divorce easier and quicker. And the thing is, when you make something easier to do, more people will do it.
Indeed last year, a Euromonitor report on Ireland predicted that divorce will increase by 2030, while there will be a drop in marriage and birth rates. In an interview with the Irish Independent, Euromonitor International’s economic and consumer data manager said that the main reason Ireland’s divorce rate lags behind other countries relates to our constitutional ban on divorce until 1995, coupled with the fact that the divorce process requires couples to be living apart for four out of the last five years.
The point is that if this is removed, we will follow the well-worn path that we see in other countries where ‘quickie’ divorces lead to increased rates of divorce. The more sinister aspect is that the availability of such divorces fundamentally alters society’s perception of what marriage is.
No longer is it ‘until death us do part’; rather it is ‘for as long as I am getting what I want from this arrangement’.
The thing is, when you make something easier to do, more people will do it
In an era of increasing divorce rates, falling marriage rates and falling birth rates– which have tangible consequences for our society, not least the fact that with an aging population we won’t have enough younger people to pay our pensions – when was the last time you heard any Irish politician proposing supports for marriage? When was the last time you heard anyone proposing that people should be encouraged to get married or to stay together?
The truth is that most marriages that break up are low-conflict, and do not look that different from those marriages that stay together; perhaps with a little help and support, many more couples could work things out.
***
For those of us who believe in marriage as a life-long commitment, perhaps the time has come for us to demand that the State recognise our commitment for what it is: a life-long indissoluble union. Those of us who wish – of our own free will – to bind ourselves to our spouses for life cannot do so under the current civil law. Solemn promises are open to being set at nought, as so many in this country have found out to their distress.
Perhaps it is time for the State to recognise two forms of marriage: marriage that can be dissolved and indissoluble marriage. The prevailing worldview – according to the political and media establishment – is that the State should facilitate consenting adults in making their own commitments of choice. That being the case, shouldn’t consenting adults be able to commit to life-long indissoluble marriage if they wish?
If people were given the choice between two forms of marriage, it might even encourage them to consider carefully what it is they are promising on their wedding day – and that could only be a good thing.