BEFORE every election we get the usual b.s. about the candidates’ stand on such silly subjects as divorce or same-sex marriage, as if the world revolved under failed marriages and the kind that cannot be celebrated by priests, but which nothing in the law stops two men (or women for that matter) from striking a binding bargain.
And yet, far more important, is his or her stand on giving away part of our country to a bunch of terrorists operating under the wing of Malaysia, despite the feebleness of that federation, and the natural pugnacity of Filipinos that made them feared under Marcos. But now, we are a democracy and weak. But back to divorce.
To consider divorce seriously, we must take marriage very seriously indeed. It is impossible to avail ourselves of the benefits of divorce unless we take marriage as the indispensable starting point for extending those benefits, and in what amounts. Merely freedom, of course, is quite a lot by itself, as shown by the readiness of spouses to walk away from home without another place to call their own.
But property rights are a big factor in determining the concrete values of marriage and divorce. It is argued that there are so many legally recognized customs practices, situations, judicial precedents, and specific
statutes governing the property rights of couples parted by death or divorce that there is no need for the formality of marriage. Sure, but without that formality, each of those rights must be argued rather than conclusively assumed.
Argument takes time and money which are the same thing, especially if one of the spouses doesn’t have either. It doesn’t have to be hard, but it can be a lot easier, if these rights start with the formality of marriage. Otherwise, how do you treat the surviving partner if the deceased left no will, like a spouse or a cohabitant? What constitutes cohabitation? 20 years or more? But what if loving partners are parted by death within a year? How do you tell cohabitation from a fling? Some flings feel like eternity. How do you grade entitlements? What about damages for an accident, or what British law elegantly calls solatium, solace for the grieving spouse.
For lack of formality, there isn’t a spouse, just a penniless someone crying her heart out. Filipinos, being a naturally elegant race, slip a tightly folded piece of currency in the widow’s hand. It is done among the old rich and among the old poor with no offense taken. None of that is possible with the facility of a fine gesture unless we start with the formality of a marriage. That is why even as we urge the passage of divorce, we must maintain with equal vigah the sanctity of marriage. You cannot have one without the other.
And finally in its own right, there is this to say for formal marriages. Somehow, a fleeting fancy or a passing irritation stops short of an affair or a walk out the door just because a mere scrap of paper has the strength to stop what shackles of iron cannot. Nor a man or a woman from breaking their word. That is a value to be cherished, like the words of allegiance to our republic, one and indivisible, with freedom and justice for all and not only sharia for some. Keep well.