Then they jump at the totally unwarranted conclusion that it is the Catholic Church that is the only remaining obstacle to the legalization of divorce in the Philippines. If the Catholic Church has been unable to stop divorce in all those countries cited above, what is so special about the Catholic Church in the Philippines that enables it to buck a world-wide trend? In the same breath, these critics of the "conservative doctrine about the indissolubility of marriage" maintain that Filipino Catholics don’t really listen to the teachings of their Church. They claim that there is no such thing as a "Catholic vote."

What is the key to reconciling these seemingly opposing views? I maintain that the vast majority of Filipinos are against divorce not primarily because it is a doctrine taught by their religion but because they see from the light of natural reason alone that the benefits to society of indissoluble marriages far outweigh the costs of causing unhappiness to the spouses of failed marriages.

The ordinary Filipino – and in my experience including Muslims and other non-Christians – has arrived at an intuitive knowledge of what social scientists all over the world have discovered about marriage as a public good. Take, for example, a recent publication entitled The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market and Morals edited by Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain, professors at Princeton University and the University of Chicago, respectively.

One of the findings of the research reported in the book is that a most important public good of indissoluble heterosexual marriages is the positive effect on children. Ample evidence shows that children raised by their married biological parents do better, on average, than those raised by single parents or stepparents. There is little research so far on the fate of children raised by same-sex couples. But up to now, experience with alternative family forms suggests that these unions will not be able to duplicate the personal investments made by married heterosexual couples in their marriages, and the resulting solidity and positive effects, the authors assert.

"To disregard the needs of children, the traditions that have understood these needs, and contemporary social science evidence offends natural justice," they observe.

A more detailed look at how marriage protects children is the subject of Maggie Gallagher’s contribution. Gallagher, author of a number of books on the subject, notes that marriage:

· increases the likelihood that children enjoy warm, close relationships with their parents;

· reduces child poverty; and

· leads to healthier children, who are also more likely to do well at school and graduate from college.

Another public good of marriage is cited by Harold James, professor of history at Princeton. He said that the family is not only a source of stability, but also of dynamism, creativity and innovation. A look at economic history, and the situation in many countries today, quickly reveals the importance of family-run businesses. More than threequarters of registered companies in the industrialized world are family businesses, and in Europe some of these include some very large enterprises.

Economist Jennifer Roback Morse takes issue in her essay with no-fault divorce. Turning marriage into a temporary contract not only has had serious social consequences. It also has weakened the institution itself, making it easier to argue for same-sex marriage, she argues.

Marriage, Morse explains, is a naturally occurring pre-political institution and plays a vital intermediary role in society. Its weakening leads the state to a far greater intervention in our lives. This happens through the expansion of welfare activities in dealing with the consequences of broken families. It also prompts the state to conceive of itself as the arbiter of marital and family structures, which can be remade in any variety of forms it pleases.

Consequently, society loses the functioning of a vital social institution – marriage and the family – that previously acted as a mediator between individuals and the state, Morse contends.

The economist also compares the marriage contract to a business one. No-fault divorce in reality is unilateral divorce, she notes, whereby one partner can simply break up a marriage, depriving the other of any possibility to contest the issue. Imagine the impact on the economy if this were the standard type of business contract, Morse points out. How would we do business if the law made no distinctions between those who kept the terms of a contract and those who don’t?

The ordinary Filipinowhether Catholic or notdoes not have to read the findings of experts in the behavioral sciences to know that the legalization of divorce in the Philippines can weaken the foundation of society itself. So critics of indissoluble marriages should stop blaming the Catholic Church for the mass resistance to the legalization of divorce. The Catholic Church is influential not because of its dogmatic hold on the population. The Catholic Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is accepted by many FilipinosCatholic or non-Catholic-because of the convincing evidences against divorce unearthed by reason and scientific investigation. We should not be barking at the wrong tree. For comments, my e-mail is bvillegas@uap.edu.ph.