Professional Documents
Culture Documents
They say, "Divorce will destroy a family." But is it not abuse and lack of
respect for your partner and for marriage that destroy everyone in the
family? Is it more important to save the image of the family than to
save the lives of everyone concerned? Isn't it hypocrisy that a religion
ruled by leaders who took a vow of celibacy, which many cannot even
keep, should dictate that couples stay in hell for taking marriage
vows?
I grew up in Catholic schools, so despite witnessing violence in the
family, I believed that we should stay together. I was afraid that the
future would be full of uncertainties if my parents separated. But when
it happened, I was actually in a better situation. Life might have been
more difficult financially, but I felt peace staying with my grandmother.
It took almost 7 years for me to find out what happened. Our former
friend and neighbor called to say my husband was the father of his
wife's (my friend's) 3rd child. His wife and my husband had been
having an affair for 11 years.
Now, is this the ideal image of a family? My friend has a new girlfriend,
but cannot marry her. My husband has been hiding from us since
2012, and his mistress is still married to my friend, even though she
and my husband aren't giving each other up. And even if they do, I do
not wish to have anything to do with a man who made a fool out of me
all those years that I dedicated my life to him. After my mind was
opened to possibilities, I was grateful that he walked out on us.
(READ: Relationship status: Happy and pro-divorce)
So for Senate President Vicente Sotto III to say that divorce, when
approved, should not allow the one filing for divorce to remarry, how
would that be fair for the aggrieved party? And if a senator insists that
divorce should be allowed only once in a lifetime, how would that be
fair to well-intentioned people who may fall for the wrong person more
than once? And for those senators who are allergic to the term
divorce, what difference do the words "dissolution of marriage,"
"annulment," and "divorce" make when they all end a marriage legally
and officially, and allow remarriage? (READ: Hontiveros: Divorce bill is
'pro-family,' 'pro-children')
We have senators who have remarried after annulment, one who has
become a husband to an annulled woman, and a few who have family
members who have been granted annulment. Sadly, many of us
cannot afford it.
We, victims, are only seeking justice through the formality of ending a
marriage which has long ceased to be.
People marry the person they thought they knew. Sadly, there is much
more that is revealed about them after the wedding. Even long years
of engagement or live-in arrangements cannot always guarantee
anything. It is that commitment and respect (including for one's self)
which are often abandoned or forgotten by at least one of the parties
that will eat up everything.
If they had survived the same ordeal before, may they remember that
not all people have the same level of strength or are getting the same
kind of support. If they have not been in the same situation ever
before, then they are not in the position to deny those suffering from
abuse the right to be totally free from the abuser.