Maltese divorce referendum | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The legalization of divorce in Malta | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Saturation of colour denotes strength of vote |
A referendum on divorce was held in Malta on 28 May 2011. Voters were asked whether they approved of a new law to introduce allowing divorces, as at that time, Malta was one of only three countries in the world (along with the Philippines and the Vatican City) in which divorce was not permitted. The proposal was approved by 53% of voters, resulting in a law allowing divorce under certain conditions being enacted later in the year.
A private member's bill was tabled in the House of Representatives by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, a Nationalist Member of Parliament. The text of the bill, which had been changed twice, did not provide for the holding of a referendum. This was eventually provided for through a separate Parliamentary resolution under the Referenda Act authorising a facultative, non-binding referendum to be held.
The Catholic Church in Malta encouraged a "no" vote through a pastoral letter issued on the Sunday before the referendum day. Complaints were made that religious pressure was being brought to bear upon voters. Around 8 per cent of marriages in Malta are already annulled by the Catholic Church.
Ballot papers had both English and Maltese questions printed on them. The English version of the question put to voters was as follows:
Do you agree with the introduction of the option of divorce in the case of a married couple who has been separated or has been living apart for at least four (4) years, and where there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation between the spouses, whilst adequate maintenance is guaranteed and the children are protected?
The question, which resembled the proposal approved by Irish voters in the Irish divorce referendum of 1995, was somewhat controversial. It was claimed that it did not reflect the content of the private member's bill.