[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Divorce’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY OSCAR CRUZ
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
AS COMMONLY and simply understood, divorce is the legal definitive ending of marriage-in-fact. It is the division of a coupled man and woman, the disunion of spousal unity, the dissolution of marital commitment – plus the division of nothing less than a family as a whole, with the children born therein suffering the most for the split of their own parents.
Divorce is disuniting an intimate union. It is breaking up a composite unit. It is breaking a domestic community.
Divorce does not build but instead breaks up a serious and deliberate consummate unity. Much less does it affirms but instead undermines human dignity and integrity in the matter of a spousal solemn promise, a deliberate conjugal commitment previously made with celebrated glee and much expectation.
This is in no way meant to despise, much less to condemn those who subscribe to and thus practice divorce – including those who have been long since longing and proposing the legislation of divorce in the country contrary to the sound culture and noble tradition of majority of Filipinos. It is but telling the ground reality of divorce – with romanticism set aside and with but objective reality in mind.
In other words, while it is somehow unfair to condemn divorce promoters, it is neither easy to admire them in sincerity and truth. Instead of building up a conjugal relationship, divorce eventually destroys it. Rather than reconcile a couple having difficulty living together, divorce simply cuts their marriage bond.
In lieu of strengthening the conjugal bond and promoting the stable and continuing parental – supporting, caring and formational role of a couple, divorce simply does away with all these. It is not easy to find children rejoicing for the divorce of their parents.
It is the connatural or innate longing of human emotion that makes a man and a woman fall in love, to eventually express their mutual affection and bilateral longing through a formal marital union – for “as long as they both shall live.” The meaning and implications of questions such as “Who knows what happens next?” “Why not give it a try?” “So what if it does not work?” plus such statements as “There is always a way out.” “It is not the end of everything.” “It is better to try and fail than to not have tried at all,” and the like are neither the right thoughts nor the proper disposition on the part of a man and/or woman getting married.
Reason: The said questions and statements are thought of and asked by couples who ultimately believe in and subscribe to a divorce option when there come to fore the so-called “irreconcilable differences” in their marriage – notwithstanding the latter’s inherent and substantive attributes of unity and indissolubility. Those who subscribe to divorce should not get married at all, much less have children from their de facto union. This is but an advisory. But such is the truth and reality.
Truth to say, attraction specially when but sexually inspired – be this but simple longing and/or downright desire – is not really enough to enter into an indivisible and insoluble Marriage Covenant even but considering the saying that “No couple can live on love alone.”
In the world of realities, marriage commitment evidently presumes and accordingly demands normal personality constitution and conjugal competence, common domestic concern and industry, standard enduring concern and understanding – to name a few attributions for marriage intents and purposes.
In other words, those who do not believe in marriage for life, who takes marriage but as personal matter, who get married for convenience, who look at marriage as but a last recourse, who enter marriage for having nothing else better to do – these are the men and women who cannot but believe in and subscribe to what marriage is really all about, should be the last ones to get married.
So it is that by merely taking into account the words and nuances of more known and popular genuine love songs – like, “I’ll be loving you always…”, “Dahil sa iyo, hanggang mamatay…”, “I’ll be loving you eternally…” and so many other love songs of the same substance and ardor plus the standard Marriage Vow professing love “…until death do us part,” it is not really to see that by Natural Law, such genuine love is the premise of the Marriage Covenant anchored on indivisibility and indissolubility – both of which realities automatically and emphatically a priori excludes divorce from honest-to-goodness marriage./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
