Why Divorce Won't Be Legalized

By Bernardo M. Villegas,

Published in the Opinion & Editorial Pages, The Manila Bulletin, Sept. 29, 2006 www.mb.com

THOSE who are advocating the legalization of divorce in the Philippines argue that the Philippines is the only Catholic country in the world that does not permit divorce. They cite Spain, Italy, Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Poland, Ireland and Portugal as examples of predominantly Catholic countries that allow the dissolution of the marriage bond.

Then they jump at the totally unwarranted conclusion that it is the Catholic Church that is the only remaining obstacle to the legalization of divorce in the Philippines. If the Catholic Church has been unable to stop divorce in all those countries cited above, what is so special about the Catholic Church in the Philippines that enables it to buck a worldwide trend? In the same breath, these critics of the “conservative doctrine about the indissolubility of marriage” maintain that Filipino Catholics don’t really listen to the teachings of their Church. They claim that there is no such thing as a “Catholic vote.”
What is the key to reconciling these seemingly opposing views? I maintain that the vast majority of Filipinos are against divorce not primarily because it is a doctrine taught by their religion but because they see from the light of natural reason alone that the benefits to society of indissoluble marriages far outweigh the costs of causing unhappiness to the spouses of failed marriages.

The ordinary Filipino – and in my experience including Muslims and other non-Christians – has arrived at an intuitive knowledge of what social scientists all over the world have discovered about marriage as a public good. Take, for example, a recent publication entitled The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market and Morals edited by Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain, professors at Princeton University and the University of Chicago, respectively.

One of the findings of the research reported in the book is that a most important public good of indissoluble heterosexual marriages is the positive effect on children. Ample evidence shows that children raised by their married biological parents do better, on average, than those raised by single parents or stepparents. There is little research so far on the fate of children raised by same-sex couples. But up to now, experience with alternative family forms suggests that these unions will not be able to duplicate the personal investments made by married heterosexual couples in their marriages, and the resulting solidity and positive effects, the authors assert.

"To disregard the needs of children, the traditions that have understood these needs, and contemporary social science evidence offends natural justice," they observe.
A more detailed look at how marriage protects children is the subject of Maggie Gallagher’s contribution. Gallagher, author of a number of books on the subject, notes that marriage:

• increases the likelihood that children enjoy warm, close relationships with their parents;
• reduces child poverty; and
• leads to healthier children, who are also more likely to do well at school and graduate from college.