NOT IN MY NAME!

Nov 16, 2008 Peeping Tom

---

A woman awakes during the night to find that her husband was not in their bed.
She goes downstairs to look for him.
She finds him sitting at the kitchen table with a hot cup of coffee in front of him. He appears to be in deep thought, just staring at the wall.
She watches as he wipes a tear from his eye and takes a sip of his coffee.
‘What’s the matter, dear?’ she whispers as she steps into the room, ‘Why are you down here at this time of night?’
The husband looks up from his coffee. ‘I am just remembering when we first met 20 years ago and started dating. You were only 16. Do you remember back then?’ he says solemnly.
The wife is touched to tears thinking that her husband is so caring, so sensitive.
‘Yes, I do,’ she replies.
The husband pauses. The words were not coming easily.
‘Do you remember when your father caught us in the back seat of my car?’
‘Yes, I remember!’ said the wife, lowering herself into a chair beside him.
The husband continues. ‘Do you remember when he shoved the shotgun in my face and said, ‘Either you marry my daughter, or I will send you to jail for 20 years?’
‘I remember that too,’ she replies softly.
He wipes another tear from his cheek and says…
‘Damn, I would have been released today.’
There are situations in which couples wonder whether they should have been married in the first place, whether life would not have been better living without their married partner. I can assure you that compared with the number of cases of happy marriages, these incidences of unhappy unions are very small indeed.
Where marriages have gone sour, divorce is sometimes contemplated. But should it and should our laws in Guyana be amended to make it easier for persons who are in a union in which either or both parties are unhappy to be dissolved through judicial separation or what is commonly referred to as divorce?
Should our laws be amended simply to facilitate divorce for the relatively miniscule number of cases where persons are said to be unable to be granted a divorce because our laws require the commission of one of three offences can be granted.
Those cases are cruelty, desertion without cause, and adultery. In Guyana, a person seeking a divorce has to establish either that his or her partner has been unfaithful while married (adultery), is cruel, or has deserted the marriage without cause.
We are told because these are the only three grounds upon which divorce can be granted in Guyana that there is a need for changes so as to make it easier for persons who may be living in “shell” marriages or who have grown adrift of each other or who have become matrimonially incompatible to be granted a divorce.
None of those supporting these changes seem to have addressed the critical issue of just how many cases we are dealing with in which divorce cannot be granted under the existing law. Are we going to change our marriage laws simply to cater for the exceptions? Are we prepared to undermine the institution of marriage simply because there may be a small number of persons who we feel ought to be divorced but who cannot be granted a divorce under the existing rules?
What about the interests of children who are born into these marriages. Should their well-being not be considered and should the law instead of making it easier for divorce, actually do the opposite: force persons in problem marriages to work out their problems knowing that a judicial separation would be difficult or impossible.
I do not buy the argument that there should be ‘no-fault’ divorces. I believe that the existing laws are quite adequate to allow for divorce where the partners have become incompatible. The law states that there can be divorce if there is desertion without cause for a period of two years.
Thus if a husband or a wife can no longer tolerate a situation, they can simply move out of the matrimonial home and after two years of this separation can, if there is no reconciliation in that period, apply to the court and be granted a divorce.
The stipulation of a two-year period, I believe acts against rash decisions, and gives both parties adequate time to reconcile. If that is not possible then a divorce can be applied for so long as one party has moved out.
Peeping Tom therefore does not support this nonsense about ‘no-fault’ divorce. I do not support the amendment to our laws to make it easier for divorces in cases where there is no cruelty, desertion of adultery. If you cannot tolerate the man or woman move out and move on, and if within two years the sparks are not ignited and there is no compulsion to reunite, then apply for a divorce.
If we accept that marriage is an institution and that this institution is important to the value of our society, then we should not allow marriages to be divorced without fault, without any waiting period.
What we are doing is destroying the institution of marriage because under the proposed law, a man or woman can wake up one morning, turn to his partner and say look I don’t want you anymore, I am going to apply for a divorce. Is that what we want?
Marriage is going to become a game of gambling. Someone will take a chance and marry, knowing that there is always the option of an easy divorce if things do not work out. This will undermine commitment which should be at the heart of any union.
I therefore cannot support the proposed amendment to our marriage laws. I do not know why the government at this time has chosen to move in the direction of what is being called a ‘no-fault’ divorce.
There have been rumours circulating that this law is being pushed forward to help Peeping Tom gain a divorce since under the existing law, Peeping Tom cannot be granted a divorce. I wish to assure all the rumormongers out there that Peeping Tom believes in the saying’ Till death do us part”
I have no intention of divorcing Big Aunty. I am happily married and have been so for decades. No law is being changed for the benefit of Peeping Tom. Not me!

---

---