While as a Christian, I believe that marriage is unbreakable bond between husband and wife. I do also believe that it isn't just to enforce such belief to those who don't want to subscribe to it.
Many 'progressive' minded people are clamoring to allow married couple to have option when they needed to, when the said marriage was pointing heedlessly to the opposite direction of what it supposed to be when they take oath together either in altar or by the Family Code that governs the ideals of marriage here in the Philippines. Though with such loud clamoring in the progressive side of the society, the silent majority still holds upon the ideals of the Church that marriage should not be broken and should be kept sacred. In this account we may uphold the idea of 'majority wins' however we must account that the progressive minded person have moral convictions why they necessarily needed divorce and it is just as what the Church is advocating.
Usually people who lobby divorce, by their own means, subjected their arguments centering about the welfare of the child and the mother and then the family as a whole. Usually such accounts could be attributed to left leaning people who uses victimization agenda to push it through justifying the need to end relationship if domestic violence occurs. This is in fact just, if domestic violence is committed either by husband or wife, as it affects the child physically and psychologically. The idea of 'Keeping together for the child sake' when everything is irreconcilable would only make the child's life difficult especially during developing years. However domestic violence scope is broad that it may account physical punishment exercised by many Filipino parents.
Though the pursuit is noble, the law enabling Divorce is a two edge sword that could be use to advance personal gains instead of more complex family building doctrine that aims to build a good society. We should account both the minorities and the majority, the society as a whole, of what would serve better for out future generations. I do think that the best way to approach this is through a libertarian view that suggest to minimize government intervention to individual decision. Instead of being, as it seemed today, a social fabric that waves the definition of our society by force, it should instill a idea that all men are free to choose whatever they want and that the government should remain as the arbitrary body. In this case, government should leave the marriage or union to institutions that caters it and should focus itself on the economic perspective alone. There would be no property named under both husband and wife, unless decided upon by the individual, and also the married coupled are thereby to follow rules set by the 'institution' that accommodated their marriage or union in which such institution was freely chosen by the parties. In such case we may have more option to choose from, we could chose to be married in an 'institution' that allowed divorce or in an institution that doesn't allow it. If the very idea of 'having an option' concerns those who lobby for divorce then libertarian approach would suit them well.
For now the divorce is set in motion by Senate Bill 2134 or the Divorce Act of 2018 last January. It may have a real opposition from the Catholic Church but I'm sure this would soon be overcome if the legislature would dedicate itself from passing it.
0 Reactions:
Post a Comment