On the debate of whether or not the party that’s had an affair is allowed to start up the decree of divorce or not! Off of the Front Page Sections, translated…
The debates in the Constitution Courts got started, the debate is on “whether or not the party at fault in a marriage is allowed to start up the process to divorce”? the side that’s in support of the current law, believed, that the party who was wrong at first, should NOT be allowed to benefit from her/his own illegal actions (having an affair and be allowed to divorce one’s own wife!), in restricting the right to file for divorce would be justified for the ethics code of love that people are living by. The side that believed that the current law should be unconstitutional stressed that the laws guarantee the freedoms of marriage, including the rights to divorce, that the laws needed not step in, to an already, broken marriage.
This is something that needs thorough evaluation, the values, the benefits, and also at the same time, the matter of, “consequences”, an issue that needed thorough, contemplation. Is it unconstitutional for “the party who’s to blame to not have the right to divorce”, this is dependent on the individuals’, interpretations of the, matter. But in the constitutional debate and the legal realm, and when people start discussing this matter, there’s a trending belief that needed to be evaluated over: marriage is freedom, and it shall NOT be bound by the morals and the ethics!
This group set ethics, moral against freedom, believed, that modern day countries’ constitutions protected the freedoms, to allow the individual to go up against the majority, so ethics, moral, and personal feelings (marriage and divorce), the freedoms, should NOT be restricted.
Under this belief system, “freedom” is a neutral value, with the ethical considerations taken out. Those who preached personal freedoms, are considered advanced and modern; and when those who’d preached about ethics, and values, that’s, oppression. Similar beliefs are used in debating the validity of same-sex marriages. Some who are for same sex marriages claimed, “two people who love one another, why are they restricted by the country to love each other?”. While anyone who’d equated marriage to ethical values gets attacked.
Another case was in the decriminalizing of adultery. The Grand Justices, although didn’t deny the responsibilities of both party being faithful to one another in the marriage, but the reasoning books stated, “in a marriage, personal freedom ranked higher than the functionality of the society”. Which showed the grand justices’ leaning toward “freedom as priority” more.
And yet, putting “Freedom” opposite of “ethics”, believing that the constitution protects the former, and not the latter, this is, quite problematic. In recent times, the major debates of laws have to do with the ethical values, the reasonings behind the laws. Marriage (same-sex, adultery and divorce), punishment (death penalty), forced apologies, abortions………. if we don’t have a proper conversation with the ethics, the morale of these, then, the problems simply, can’t be, solved. But, as people get into argument on the issues, they’d always dodged “ethic”, the MOST important consideration of all. The side that supported freedom believed, that ethic is the leftover from the caste systems, the side that fought for the ethics only stated that current situation, traditions, are a product of, ethical values that’s passed down from ages ago, not mentioning the interaction of the modern values with these age-old beliefs.
A lot believed, that laws and ethics should be separated like church and state, or that these are the most basic of freedoms that humans are endowed, that simply can’t be restricted by morality. These beliefs of freedom that’s “demoralized”, is slanted. The debates of ethics, the arguments of law, can’t avoid.
Marriage is a form of contract too, but, how come, the “contract” between two people needed the law to enforce, to, guarantee? This is a matter of, “ethics”, and, on the marriage itself, or the assets, people need to discuss thoroughly on. Personal freedom or not, what constitutes as a “breach of contract”? And, what’s the difference between identity and the laws on assets?
Anyways, the forefront of freedom is ethics, forgetting ethics, morality, the claims of freedom would be without confound. The beliefs of freedom need to respond to ethics, stating ones’ own values clearly; the conservatives should NOT use ethics like a magical spell, not talked about the contents, and just using it as a motto. In the legal debates of ethics, if there’s the lacking of the delicate conversations of moral values, then we would become like the Pharisees, using the edicts to hurt people, and feeling that they are, just. Same should be considered in the debate of whether the party at fault should have the right to divorce.
And so, this goes beyond the law, there are still the socialization, the ethic code, the expectations of society to consider in the matter of whether or not the party at fault should have the right to divorce. And I do NOT believe, that the party AT fault should have the right to divorce, because you’re the ones who’d fouled up in the marriage first, and that’s why, you do NOT have the right to call your spouses out, to divorce them, the spouses that weren’t cheating are the ones who have the rights to divorce, that’s only fair, after all the ones who’d not cheated aren’t the ones to screw around outside the marriage.