University of Kentucky UKnowledge European History History 1993 Debating Divorce: Moral Conflict in Ireland Michele Dillon Rutgers University Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Thanks to the University of Kentucky Libraries and the University Press of Kentucky, this book is freely available to current faculty, students, and staff at the University of Kentucky. Find other University of Kentucky Books at uknowledge.uky.edu/upk. For more information, please contact UKnowledge at [email protected]. Recommended Citation Dillon, Michele, "Debating Divorce: Moral Conflict in Ireland" (1993). European History. 29. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_european_history/29 DEBATING DIVORCE DEBATING DIVORCE Moral Conflict in Ireland MICHELE DILLON THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY Copyright © 1993 by The University Press of Kentucky Scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth, serving Bellarmine College, Berea College, Centre College of Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky University, The Filson Club, Georgetown College, Kentucky Historical Society, Kentucky State University, Morehead State University, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, Transylvania University, University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, and Western Kentucky University. Editorial and Sales Offices: Lexington, Kentucky 40508-4008 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dillon, Michele, 1960- Debating divorce : moral conflict in Ireland / Michele Dillon, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN (invalid) 0-08-131182-2 (alk. paper) 1. Divorce—Ireland—Public opinion. 2. Divorce—Moral and ethical aspects. 3. Divorce—Religious aspects—Catholic Church. 4. Public opinion—Ireland. 5. Divorce—Law and legislation— Ireland. 6. Referendum—Ireland. I. Title. HQ878.D55 1993 306.89'09415—dc20 92-42597 CIP For my parents, Michael and Peg Dillon; and for the next generation Contents Acknowledgments ix 1. Introduction 1 2. Irish Cultural Themes 11 3. Arguing about Divorce 31 4. Women and the Divorce Campaign 70 5. The Catholic Church and the Referendum 91 6. Newspaper Editorial Opinion 110 7. Television's Framing of the Debate 127 8. Values in Tension 144 Appendix A. Marriage Breakdown in Ireland 167 Appendix B. Divorce and 173 the Protestant Churches 175 Appendix C. Interviewees 176 Notes 205 Bibliography 215 Index As science does not, who is to answer the question: "What shall we do, and how shall we arrange our lives?".. .. Which of the warring gods should we serve? Or should we serve perhaps an entirely different god, and who is he?" —Max Weber Acknowledgments This book started out as my Ph.D. Dissertation in sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. My most direct debt goes to my dissertation committee, Todd Gitlin, Kristin Luker, and Nancy Scheper-Hughes, each of whose own scholarship I greatly admire. I would like also to thank Ann Swidler for her comments, encour- agement, and advice; Abigail Stewart and Conor Ward for com- ments on various chapters; and Peg Dillon and Geraldine Groarke for long-distance research assistance. My husband, Paul Wink, read this manuscript in its many forms; I value his intellectual and emo- tional companionship. I am fortunate also to have a caring and be- nevolent family and good friends. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the people whom I interviewed as part of this study (see Appendix C); to Jack Jones, director, Market Research Bureau of Ireland, who very graciously responded to my requests for access to MRBI poll data; and to James Cantwell, Catholic Press and Information Office, Rhona O'Byrne, "Today Tonight," and Con Kelly, the Cork Examiner, for their cooperation. CHAPTER ONE Introduction On April 23, 1986, the Irish prime minister, Garret FitzGerald, called a press conference at which he announced his government's intention to hold a referendum on divorce. The Irish electorate was being offered the opportunity to acknowledge formally the individ- ual's legislative right to divorce, an established right in all other Western democratic societies.1 The constitutional article prohibit- ing divorce legislation—"No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution of marriage"—would be deleted and replaced with the following four-point amendment: Where, and only where, such court established under this Constitution as may be prescribed by law is satisfied that: (i) the marriage has failed; (ii) the failure has continued for a period of, or periods amounting to at least five years; (iii) no possibility of reconciliation exists between the two par- ties to the marriage, and (iv) any other condition prescribed by law has been complied with, the court may in accordance with law grant a disso- lution of the marriage provided that the court is satisfied that adequate and proper provision having regard to the circumstances will be made for any dependent spouse and for any child of, or any child who is dependent on, either spouse. The form of divorce proposed was non-fault based and similar to that available in the United States, Great Britain, and other Western societies. In its other conditions, however, the Irish pro- posal was relatively restrictive. By American standards, the impo- sition of a five-year-failure clause appears excessively so, given that most states in the U.S. either prohibit judicial discretion to deny a divorce, or, in the case of a contested unilateral non-fault divorce, require a period of one year or less of separation. Viewed from a European perspective, the Irish five-year failure requirement ap- pears less extraordinary. With the exception of Sweden and the Netherlands, which come closest to granting divorce on demand, 2 Debating Divorce other European societies take a much stricter view of marriage and its dissolution than does the United States.2 In announcing the divorce referendum, Garret FitzGerald also declared the government's intention of introducing new family law measures to accompany the amendment. This proposed legislation would set down guidelines regarding, among other points, age of marriage, a new family court system, and mediation, reconcilia- tion, and separation procedures to be followed in the case of mar- ital breakdown. Following the announcement of the government's proposals, a national opinion poll found that over half of the electorate, 61 per- cent, expressed their intention to vote in favor of the amendment.3 This level of support was consistent with previous surveys that sought to measure the public's attitude toward the removal of the divorce ban. Since 1971, when the question was first asked in opin- ion polls, the number in favor of removal of the ban has increased from a minority of 21 percent to a peak of 53 percent in 1983, with 77 percent expressing support for the introduction of divorce in certain circumstances.4 The government, therefore, in deciding to hold a referendum to establish whether the Irish people wanted to introduce divorce, had strong indicators that there was significant support, at least in prin- ciple, for divorce, and they had evidence of marital breakdown.5 The initial poll published following the announcement of the gov- ernment's proposals bore witness to pro-divorce sentiment. As the campaign progressed, however, subsequent polls indicated that the level of support for the introduction of divorce was dropping. And after nine weeks of a vigorous campaign during which pro-divorce and anti-divorce forces presented their respective cases to the pub- lic, the amendment was defeated, with two-thirds, 64 percent, of the electorate voting against it.6 The defeat of the divorce amendment can be seen on many levels and interpreted from many angles. It certainly presents as a curi- osity. It seems anomalous that Ireland, a well-educated, urban, con- sumer society and a full member of the European Economic Community since 1973, differs so sharply from its fellow Europe- ans in its prohibition of divorce. Ireland's reaffirmation of the ban in the late 1980s presents as an oddity in much the same way, for example, that Switzerland's exclusion of the franchise to women in the 1970s presented. Introduction Table 1. Irish pre-voting attitudes and intentions °/<> in favor %i opposed Nov. Apr. June Nov. Apr. June 1985 1986 1986 1985 1986 1986 Gender Male 55 61 54 45 39 46 Female 50 62 36 50 38 64 Region Urban 62 69 47 35 29 53 Rural 40 52 42 60 48 58 Province Dublin 66 72 50 34 28 50 Leinster* 55 56 49 45 44 51 Munster 47 60 36 53 40 64 Connacht/Ulster 38 55 45 62 45 55 Social class Middle class 63 66 49 37 34 51 Working class 52 63 45 48 37 55 Large farmers 42 45 37 58 55 63 Small farmers 32 54 36 68 46 64 Total 52 61 45 48 39 55 (N) (490) (570) (403) (450) (360) (492) SOURCES: Market Research Bureau of Ireland/Jrofc Times, Nov. 1985; April 1986; June 1986. * Leinster excluding Dublin. But anomalies are usually more than just that. Frequently they provide markers or keys to understanding the culture and the sa- lient questions at issue in a society. The fact, therefore, that in Ire- land a divorce amendment was introduced, and yet defeated, may 4 Debating Divorce provide insight into how a society grapples with issues of tradition and modernity. From this perspective, it says something about cul- tural tensions in Ireland, but it has also more general application to other societies dealing with related questions. Another reading is to see the debate and the whole issue of di- vorce as one dealing with values and the way in which people try to reason about values. This is a complex question and has been the object of study and theorizing for a long time. It was Max Weber in particular who focused sociological thought on the place of val- ues in social action,7 and his discussion of the relationship between values and rationality continues to stimulate analytical debate among contemporary sociologists.8 From this perspective, the Irish divorce debate gains universality by virtue of the fact that it dealt with perennial questions of human values: What shall we do and how shall we live? These are questions every society confronts.