The Bible does say divorce

Rhona Canoy .

SO… I wrote about the divorce situation here in the Philippines a while back, thinking that would gain some ground eventually. Although there has been more discussion in Congress about the bill than ever before, progress on this matter seems to be more difficult than pulling teeth. Still facing a lot of opposition from the Roman Catholic community, I decided to look a little deeper into why there seems to be such resistance.

Because the opposition to divorce is based on religious teachings, the question is what particular aspect of religious tenet serves as the foundation for this protest? To seek clarification, I did some cursory research into what the Bible says about it and, much to my surprise, it’s actually a gender-biased (certainly sexist) point of view. In various parts of the new testament, including the gospels and several letters to various cultural groups, there is actually reference to particular conditions under which divorce can be allowed. And all conditions point to the female as the guilty party.

Divorce, according to the new testament, can be granted if a written notice is given to the party being divorced and, more importantly, only if the female is guilty of carnal relations with another man. That’s the ONLY time when a call for divorce can be given any weight. That’s actually the specific circumstance when the term “committing adultery” is clearly defined. Nowhere does it say (or maybe I didn’t read far enough into the tome) that if a man fornicates with a woman other than his wife, that is called adultery as well. Nowhere, but several times, and references are made by several sources, it is clearly stated that adultery is committed when a woman has sexual knowledge of a man other than her husband.

This, of course, intrigues me. Taking into consideration that these references were authored by males, and reflect attitudes more common several hundred if not a couple of thousand years ago, it is quite understandable that there is a strong whiff of male chauvinism here. Not only is the woman the only perpetrator, the male with whom she has sexual relations with is never really discussed in the matter other than being the object of the woman’s extramarital lust.

What happens after the discovery of the crime is even more offensive, or (at least) females should find it offensive. The woman is then likened to a prostitute, and it is because of this that even if she is divorced from her husband, she can never remarry because she is already considered dirty and any other relationship she enters into after committing adultery will be tainted and dirty as well. The man, on the other hand, may remarry if the woman is as chaste and pure as the driven snow. Or desert sand.

On the other hand, references to divorce in the old testament are more liberal, but still just as sexist. According to Moses, the discoverer of the laws written in stone, it isn’t even about committing adultery (which, by the way, IS engraved on that stone). Thou shalt not commit adultery does not also say thou shalt not get divorced. A man may divorce his wife as long as he writes that piece of paper stating his intent to cast her out of the marriage. For any reason. Because she’s ugly. Because she can’t cook. Because she nags too much. Because he’s bored. Because he found someone younger and more stupid. This last one is my contribution. But basically for any reason, divorce. And only the man may instigate it.

Segue to present day Philippines. The only country on the face of the earth where divorce still is not allowed. Excluding the Vatican, which is considered a country and where I doubt there are enough married couples considered to be residents there who can form a consensus. Which then brings up the bigger question. If marriage is considered a legal partnership because it requires a document affirmed by the state, then what does religious belief in what the Bible says have to do with not allowing divorce? Our Constitution, even the much-dissected 1987 one, says that the separation of church and state is inviolable. Inviolable.

It therefore presupposes that the reason why Congress is afraid to pass the divorce law is because of fear of losing political support from the millions of Roman Catholics who are just as free-handed in leaving marriages for flimsy reasons that would make Moses proud. And yet, on the other hand, our government respects the shariah law of our Muslim brothers and sisters which allows divorce and polygamy, as a matter of similar respect for their religion as well.

Honestly, I have spoken to several “esteemed” atornis in our city who have said that they actually do suggest to clients to convert to Islam, if only to avail of the legality of divorce. I suppose this advice can be classified under the “end justifies the means” folder. But skewed logic, if you ask me. And now I’m really confused as to why there is such difficulty in passing the divorce bill. When in fact, many of those lawmakers who don’t want to offend the Catholic community would benefit from it. And it could, if based on the Bible, be so beneficial to the males of the species.

As I’ve often said, legalizing divorce doesn’t guarantee that many marriages will be terminated. Just as not legalizing it doesn’t guarntee that marriages will stay intact. Marriage, after all, is a joint effort and requires a tremendous amount of work. And the Philippines, lone holdout to the civil privilege of divorce, continues to wait in the darkness for marital liberty.