So is marriage the solution to all social evils?

[BrummieOnTheRun]

"...in the wake of a Tory report that says unmarried parents are driving a generation of children into crime and drug dependency...The Tories claim the rise in cohabitation and single parenthood is unleashing a social and economic crisis.
In an appeal to grassroots supporters, the party will this week put the promotion of marriage back at the heart of its agenda, warning of dire consequences if more couples are not encouraged to wed."

So is the solution marriage, or encouraging more household back into employment?
We married this year after 15 years of sinful co-habiting and I don't feel marriage makes a blind bit of difference to a good relationship. I see the lack of any working role models in these households as being the bigger issue.
But then I'm sure some of these kids are from single-parent households where the mother is killing herself with multiple jobs trying to make ends meet, so...???
Any opinions?
Full article here: /link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2496320,00.html}

What about all the people who would be considered as "good" married parent families whose children fall into drugs & shop lifting etc?

I don't think marriage itself makes the slightest difference. It's down to other factors, like the upbringing & what children are taught & who they are friends with amongst other things.

I am not currently religious (although have been for a large part of my life) and would feel it hypocritical to get married in a church.

I likewise don't see why I should "sign up" under the state - which also doesn't get a great big fat tick from me.

I don't flaunt my feelings about my partner in public generally and don't fancy getting everyone I know to come together just to do it.

I also find it pretty impossible to promise to commit to someone for the rest of my life when I know that so many marriages end in divorce. It all seems a bit unrealistic to me.

I was engaged and did all the planning etc. for the wedding before the engagement broke up, and have therefore got "my day as a princess" out of my system (very cheaply ).

DS was born in NZ and he could get an English passport if I was a UK citizen or if his father was a UK citizen but, in his father's case, only if he wasn't born a bastard! Dp is a UK citizen, I am not, and we not married. Fortunately, however, NZ decided quite some years ago to declare every child who is born legitimate - this seems so much more civilised to me, and, as his father was domiciled in NZ at the time of ds's birth he falls under NZ law and is there considered "legitimate" and able to obtain a UK passport! Bizarre but true.

I think it is sad and ridiculous to have this division between married and not married - surely what counts for children is that parents share together in the raising of their children. If the state wants to assist they should be looking at supporting family units - not window dressing.

Living together is "grubby and rough" yet, if I marry my higher earning partner I will have a much stronger entitlement to his ££, thereby making me liable to be labelled a "money grubbing little materialist". Either way I'm a grubber.

My thoughts...

Committed relationship is important but you don't need to be married to achieve that.

I think however that many boys (in particular) lack a decent role model.

Something is going wrong in society but packing everyone off to the altar/registry office isn't going to solve it.

This is SO simplistic of the Tories as to be laughable.

What makes strong, happy children who will not go into drug dependency and crime is a good role model, love and security, and good self-esteem - backed up preferably with being able to fulfill their educational potential.

There are SO many models in which to achieve those factors nowadays, whether in single-parent, co-habiting or married, homosexual or heterosexual households, etc etc.

Careless, negilgent, inadequate or unloving parenting can also happen across a range of different family types - the vision the Tories peddle seems targetted to such a narrow and prejudiced view of the world!

Cohabitation per se has nothing to do with how well or badly children are brought up and it is (typically) disingenuous of the tories to make any link. The reasons for cohabitation breakdown are to do with far more complex factors than just the lack of a wedding ring.

Message withdrawn

I know that more than most people with an unhappy 19 year marriage and divorce and how much better it has been for the children after.

In fact not marrying is the proper femininst position really, none of that father handing you like a chattel to your husband who then owns you and he keeping you in return for the domestic and sexual and childbearing services you give your man etc... Cohabitation like the gorgeous French Royal with 4 children I think follows her communist and presumably feminist principles very well. Whether she should be 20 stone and wear dungarees is another matter.

if you're more likely to break up then you're less likely to marry, therefore cohabit and well- break up. Lack of amrriage is hardly the causal factor, rather lack of commitment causal of lack of marriage. I randomly waffle.

I didn't marry in a white dress actually, had planned too but felt gift wrapped when I tried it on and had yearnings for doc martens and dungarees the minute it went over my head LOL. Mother's feminist indoctrinations will out at inconvenient times ended up ewearing gun metal grey coat and dress.

Sister married wearing silver thigh high boots too.

Odd family, mine. But no weakling man would even bother with any of us, a family of matriarchs.

"I don't think however that doling out big married people's tax allowances or higher benefits if people are married or whatever is likely to affect their behaviour".

That might well be true (i.e. it might not encourage marriage), but certainly for many people in this country where 2 parents are working for an average wage and having to fork out for childcare on top of the tax and NICs burden, they'd be better off living apart and claiming the full suite of welfare payments. The Centre for Policy Studies did the comparison in a fairly damning report. So the current system is financially encouraging people to split up, leaving kids without male role models and role models who work.

IMHO (and preparing to be shot down!) anyone who suggest that many people don't figure that out for themselves and that it doesn't affect their lifestyle choices is a little naive. (And I'm not talking about people who end up in single-parent households through no fault of their own, or because they ended a genuinely bad relationship. I cannot begin to imagine how hard life is in that situation).

So I AM glad that one party at least is starting to recognise the importance of the family unit, but I do wish they'd stop banging on about marriage and concentrate on making life easier for working families (whether it's 1 or both parents) full-stop.

promised myself that i wouldn't get sucked into this thread but here goes ... the Tories are stuck for ideas and this is another soundbite that will die a death soon enough. I think this is the sort of argument that polarises people to such a degree that it is hard to have any sort of balanced discussion. I am married and it wasn't a political/religious or philosophical, however having a child together is a much more serious and long lasting commitment. I think living together/married etc if you are going to break up you will regardless - it is probably harder financially to break up if you are co-habiting as you have no rights to property or anything else and you could be left with nothing after years together. I think it is parenting that makes children who they are - and by that i mean joint/single/ parenting whatever plus a myriad of other influences. Not so sure that there is a single cause and effect.

I think marriage does make a difference. I have a lot of friends who have never got married, the majority in fact. I certainly don't feel superior in any way - they are entitled to free choice of how they live their lives.

But there is something about marriage, despite the divorce rate. Married people declare to each other that this is a bond for life. Now I am not saying that you can't be committed without marriage, because clearly you can - many of the people posting here are.

Nor am I saying that marriage is a guarantee of staying together - the divorce rate is testament to that. However, I suspect that it is easier to break the bonds if you aren't married. Any long term relationship is going to hit rough patches, and there are going to be real tests on staying together. But I can describe the difference personally for me when I got married, there was an acknowledgement that the ability to walk out of the door simply wasn't there in the same way as it had been before (for both partners).

I have done both cohabiting and marriage, and I think that the piece of paper does make a difference.

More than any of the above, all of which I accept is anecdotal, I believe that the benefits system (which through tax credits now captures a large proportion of the working population as well as unemployed) is biased against people who are married. If you are anywhere near the income thresholds, you are really better keeping your options open and not getting married.

I have seen many of my friends caught in this "trap" and unable to get married for fear of losing the flexibility to claim benefits if needed, housing help and support in the case of temporary separation or job/income insecurity.

In my opinion, it creates a climate of instability in lower income households, which is not in the long term interests of the families concerned. Bugger society I am afraid, it's the families and children themselves I am concerned for.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think to actively discourage marriage, in the way the income tax and benefit systems do at the moment, is wrong for families.

If this is what the Tories are on about, then I accept it. If it is just a meaningless tirade aimed at winning votes in Middle England then I want none of it.

I don't think the benefits and tax system does favour cohabiting couples over married couples? In what respect?

The law does favour marriage in respect of rights on splitting up.

Is it better for a marriage to continue unhappily because divorce is more difficult than splitting up when you are cohabiting?

Maybe there are times when a couple of "worked" to stay married and the children have become damaged as a result and so when they do split up eventually the children are a statistic in the single parent families who have problems

I like being married.

Hope my daughters do, too, FWIW.

Think the Tories are barking up the wrong tree here! I know loads of people who have been together for years without getting married and are bringing up children in a loving secure environment.

However think Xenia has a point, you can't argue with the stats which show that unmarried couples are more likely to split up before children are five. My prejudice tells me this might be mainly youngsters but I could be totally wrong on this.

I think this Govern is entering a hornets nest giving unmarried couples same rights as married. If you want the same rights, the answer is simple: Get Married!! It only costs about £70 down the Town Hall - don't have to pay £20K for posh wedding. Just because you are living with someone does not mean you want to have to pay them off if it does not work out. It could be a casual relationship going on for quite a few years. This is not an area the Courts should be meddling in, I have no idea where you would draw the line. By the way, I don't mean that the non resident parent should not support his or her children whether married or not.

This whole idea that it costs a fortune to get married is baloney.

It cost £75.

There seems to be a big trend to having very expensive weddings now. There always were some people who wanted to spend vast sums (ie rich people) but now there is a massive pressure to have the "perfect day". As if marriage is all about ONE DAY (albeit a very important day) rather than a long term committment. The stag and hen dos are often abroad and cost around £500 to attend as well.

The amount of money spent will make absolutely no difference to whether the couple will stay together. Got no problem with big weddings but not if it involves getting into debt.

Message withdrawn

Well, my partner and I didn't plan our first baby; I became pregnant after we'd been together a few months, and as a result I have no damn idea whether we'd be together or not if I hadn't. I am not hog-whimpering wild about marriage principally for what I grandiosely call political reasons but also because I'm buggered if I'm going to be pushed into accommodating social and state pressure to hitch my wagon to DP's star.

DP started working for a well known high street retailer about 18 months ago and after 3 months was entitled to discount on purchases in store.

If we had been married I would have qualified at the same time but as we aren't I had to wait a year so I could prove that I was worthy enough and wasn't just going to fleece the company for discounted goods then run off.

We've been together for 23 years and for the first time I felt slightly affronted that I wasn't treated as an equal but that's old-fashioned companies for you!

PeachyIsNowAChristmasFruit
Love the mental pic I've got of you & your sister!

Xenia - you've nearly got me feeling sorry for you! Why on earth did you stay in an unhappy marriage for 19 years? No wonder you think that all women should go out to work so that they can be financially independent.

wheresthehamster -
Funnily enough it was attitudes like that that made us think that we should get married. We knew that we were committed to each other, but our employers, pension fund, insurers, mortgage providers, the state etc just didn't appreciate it. So we thought that - as we were being really sniffy about the piece of paper 'not meaning anything' then really we might just as well go and get it and keep everyone else happy. Then we surprised ourselves by getting just a teensy bit emotional when we were standing in front of our friends and family making our vows. It was a lovely day and didn't cost much. But I'm sure we'd still be together if we hadn't done it - we had bought a house together six years previously, bought a larger property with a view to starting a family and I was 4 months pregnant with ds1.

Hi glenn, humour me, because I do think this is the case, but I am quite prepared to look at it another way.

Take the example of a couple of about 25 yo with two children, where the woman doesn't earn enough to cover childcare single handedly. Say he earns about 25k - not a ridiculously low salary for a man that age.

However, he cannot afford to run a household on that round here, including rent, council tax etc etc.

A couple can live informally together without really declaring it benefit-wise. So they are better off pretending that they aren't really together, and he moves out periodically - which may be true.

All in all it is better for them financially if the woman pretends to be a single mother, with a sometime partner in and out of her life. THe state maintains the household on and off when times get hard. But it creates an instable undercurrent in their relationship. The man holds very few cards in the power balance. She has the house, the kids etc. He really becomes a sort of lodger who contributes financially.

Not good for his self esteem, or for the commitment to make things work. If they got married, however, it would be a lot harder for her to claim that he isn't really there.