Download - IMPACT Magazine Online!

FROM THE
BLOGS
Ten year
marriage contract
Now that this matter of a proposed temporary marriage
contract has somehow subsided in excited
contemplation and spirited discussion, it might be but
proper and just to look into the matter with more calm and
prudence—in the light of on the ground concrete and practical
realities. Truth to say, such a demeaning look at marriage
and consequent frivolous proposition on its temporary time
frame, ultimately have one and the same victims, viz., the
men and women who go for such a temporary conjugal union,
specially so the children. This is not to mention their negative
impact on society as a whole when the adult and youth
concerned respectively disseminate their unsound personal
value systems and propagate empirical grave misfortunes
in their respective communities—as countries with Divorce
Law amply prove.
Men and women who enter temporary marriages basically
say that they are not serious about one another, that they take
the human family lightly, and that consider marriage but some
kind of for-the-moment diversion or a by-the-way option. On
the other hand, the children born of their exploratory union
are not certain what future holds for them, which of their
parents would get and have them, whom between their father
and mother would they come to love or to hate.
A temporary marriage contract for ten—more or less—
years, implies the following composite nauseating if not
traumatic experience when the husband and wife decide to
call it quits upon expiration of the spousal contract: One,
division of the domestic abode—which is disturbing. Two,
division of conjugal properties—which is troublesome. Three,
division of the children—which is traumatic. At the same
time, all these dividing ventures strongly imply division
of affection and mental posture, division of affiliation and
loyalty among the family members concerned.
It is both right and practical to forward the following
concrete and rational principles: First of all, those who
do not believe and/ or who cannot accept a lifetime conjugal
partnership should not get married at all. Second,
those who subscribe to a more or less ten-year marriage
contract, should be prepared to say how many temporal
marriages are they prepared to contract, how many homes
are they ready to break. Third, most important of all, those
who accept marriage with a given time frame should be
prepared to say and decide how many children they are
willing to divide.
By the way, to say that marriage is but a “contract”, is
in fact, neither true nor right. Reason: As such, marriage
would be no more, no better than a business contract, a lease
contract, a car contract, and million and one other contracts.
The truth is that marriage is a covenant, a compact, a vow—
all of which immediately imply constancy, permanence,
stability. This is why as a rule, men, women and children
with a broken marriage behind them, usually do not become
better persons for it. This is sad but true.
To say it lightly, marriage is not like a taxi that a man
and a woman flag down, ride in, and thereafter leave it as a
matter of course, when they no longer need it.
www.ovc.blogspot.com
Truth. Justice.
Peace
Thus stands the tripod whereupon development
depends from on and stands on. In the same way,
deceit, iniquity and dissension guarantee and
promote socio-economic retrogression. The triumph
of truth brings about justice. The reign of justice
ushers in peace. These observations are not simply
academically understandable but also empirically
true. When there is prevalent falsity, then there is a
regime of injustice and thus come to fore all kinds of
unending resentment and discontentment in different
places, in different degrees and different manifestations
as well.
Thus it is that even the Philippine Constitution provides:
“The State shall promote social justice in all phases
of national development.” (State Policies, Sec. 10). This
signal and candid constitutional provision equivalently
says: One, with social justice goes development. Two,
deterioration goes with social injustice. Three, take a
good look around and know how this country fares in
conjunction with the above cited not simply logical but
also realistic State Policy.
To put it more bluntly, injustice is a social curse.
When the powerful and the wealthy are above the law,
when the poor and miserable are crowding local jails
and prisons, when the law is used to oppress and not to
liberate, then something is not merely wrong but also appalling
and revolting. Injustice is the supreme guarantee
of individual disgust and/or social discontent. Justice
is such an elementary mandate that there is nothing
like injustice to foment not merely division, not simply
revolution but war even.
Take away but a candy from but a little child, and
this will most probably cry as a matter of course. The
child feels that the candy is his or hers. Thus when
taken away, the child is offended by the injustice of
losing it. If this is true with but children, it is not
hard to imagine what injustice does to an adult, how
does this feel, what the same will do. If one is poor
because this is aware or knows that he or she is indolent
and/or vicious, if somebody is prosecuted for
a wrong doing, and if someone is jailed because of
his or her proven wrongdoing, then the subject party
knows in conscience that justice is simply served—
even though the same may register strong protests
every now and then.
The cardinal question that now comes to mind is
precisely the following—a query that is admittedly
shameful to think about, as well as embarrassing to ask:
Is a dysfunctional justice system the main legacy of this
no less than some nine year old reigning administration
to the country? A negative answer thereto would require
much explaining to do, and would demand much more
to make it convincing.
www.ovc.blogspot.com
26
IMPACT • February 2010