THERE is no shortage of pithy quotes about marriage. "Marriage is an institution; and who wants to live in an institution?" "Marriage is the triumph of hope over experience." Well, hands up to that one. My first union was an unmitigated disaster except for the child it produced but, undeterred, I married again, more successfully thank God.
So I'm not against marriage. But nor do I believe right-wing family campaigners who are currently on the warpath because they believe the Labour Government has systematically followed an anti-marriage agenda by stripping away the tax breaks and fina
ncial benefits that once came with the wedding certificate.
They appear to suggest that marriage is the bedrock of a well-adjusted society and that if only every couple, or at least all parents, were married there would be less crime, vandalism and drug abuse, children would perform better at school and communities would hold together. In short, they believe marriage is necessary and "a good thing" that should be financially rewarded by the state.
In fact they blame the state's lack of financial support for marriage going out of fashion and the number of single mothers outnumbering married ones in the 25-9 age range.
This is the same mad lobby who think girls intentionally get up the duff so that they can have the privilege of a grotty council flat and an extra three bob on their benefits.
Marriage is about romance and a damn good party. People neither get married nor refuse to get married on the basis of how it will affect their tax bill. In the real world, the alternative to single parenthood is not marriage; it's better contraception, or at worst, abortion.
The real reason marriage has gone out of favour is that women have equal rights and opportunities. In the days when women didn't work, marriage was essential. Even some feckless men felt obliged to make an honest woman out of the girl they'd got pregnant because otherwise she and her child would be destitute and shunned. Mercifully, along with sending children up chimneys, those days are gone.
Nowadays, people don't get married because they have to, but because they want to . . . that is, both of them want to. Among the single parents the family groups so quickly condemn are legions of girls who thought they were in a loving relationship and may even have expected wedding bells, only to see their beloved vanish over the horizon when the double blue line appeared on the testing kit or when the first nappy change was required. That happened to me and I was married.
According to one lobby group, the Family Education Trust, even when dad stays around in a cohabiting relationship, the children are just as likely to be unhealthy, under-performing and get into trouble. According to them, it is the marriage certificate that makes the crucial difference.
What rot! There are oodles of cohabiting couples of all social classes who, for one reason or another, have chosen not to marry. Their neighbours, some of their friends and their children's school will be blissfully unaware of whether they are married or not and will care even less.
The number of people getting married is at its lowest level since 1895. In other words, marriage has been fashionable for just over 100 years, a relatively short time, historically speaking.
Although some people opt for a registry office do, marriage is essentially a religious ceremony. Its waning popularity is likely to have much more to do with church rolls falling than government policy on tax and benefits.
Money may have some part to play, though. Who in their right minds would think of shelling out thousands of pounds on a lavish reception in this financial climate? If that's the kind of celebration you're after, it's much wiser to live together until such time as the tide turns and both jobs are secure and then push the boat out.
If family campaigners really want to increase marriage rates, that might be the answer; press for government-funded wedding receptions. After all, who can resist a good party?
If nothing else it would prove to these right-wing obsessives that marriage has little or nothing to do with a stable society and everything to do with their own prejudice.
Brown's scrawlIN the furore over Gordon Brown's special advisor and the juvenile plot to post scandalous, smutty stories on the internet about high-profile Tories, much was made of Gordon Brown's note of regret and his failure at the time to apologise.
Much more shocking to me was the appalling state of the PM's handwriting. It was such an illegible, messy piece of work that most newspapers had to print a translation. I covered the transcript up and spent ten minutes, squint-eyed, trying to decipher his scrawl to no avail.
Admittedly a hand-written note seems more sincere and personal, but only if you can understand it.
With all the Government emphasis on education, wouldn't you think they could afford a wee writing tutor for the big man?
