Let's kick marriage while it's down
It was with weary resignation that I read about the Law Commission's proposals to water down further the status of marriage by according the same or similar financial rights to unmarried, cohabiting couples.
I am deeply upset by this development and was going to post a long rant explaining exactly why. However, reading the Telegraph comment pages yesterday, I saw that Mary Kenny had already voiced most of my concerns.
Basically, her concerns (and indeed, mine), are threefold:
1. The proposals undermine an individual's freedom to contract
2. The proposals imperil an individual's property rights
3. The proposals restrict an individual's freedom to decide whether or not to marry.
I would expand Ms Kenny's third point by saying that it represents yet another example of the increasing infantilisation of society. What business is it of the state to impose the rights and responsibilities of a marriage upon a cohabiting couple? It strikes me as absurd that a couple who do not marry (whether as a result of ignorance, apathy or design), and who have therefore not made the same public and formal commitment to each other as a married couple, should expect the same financial treatment. Honestly. If a couple is mature enough to be cohabiting, surely they are grown-up enough to consider the consequences of so doing and to decide to marry if they feel they need the greater financial protection afforded by that institution. If a couple decides not to marry, it's not the state's job to intervene. These people have deliberately chosen to put themselves into that situation. This is especially true now that we have civil partnerships: no couple, whether childless, gay, rich or poor is unable to put into place the legal framework to secure their position.
It strikes me that this is another loopy intitiative by a bunch of liberal, sock and sandal wearing bearded lefties, aimed at redressing the so-called injustice that occurs when a cohabiting couple with children splits up and one partner is left, quite literally, holding the baby.
Why it takes such far-reaching legislation to address what is essentially (from the state's point of view) a non-problem eludes me.
Furthermore, exactly how do we propose to enforce this? Will we deal with claims through the already overburdened family court, or will we use the risible Child Support Agency?
This whole scheme is ridiculous and should be booted out with all due haste.
I am deeply upset by this development and was going to post a long rant explaining exactly why. However, reading the Telegraph comment pages yesterday, I saw that Mary Kenny had already voiced most of my concerns.
Basically, her concerns (and indeed, mine), are threefold:
1. The proposals undermine an individual's freedom to contract
2. The proposals imperil an individual's property rights
3. The proposals restrict an individual's freedom to decide whether or not to marry.
I would expand Ms Kenny's third point by saying that it represents yet another example of the increasing infantilisation of society. What business is it of the state to impose the rights and responsibilities of a marriage upon a cohabiting couple? It strikes me as absurd that a couple who do not marry (whether as a result of ignorance, apathy or design), and who have therefore not made the same public and formal commitment to each other as a married couple, should expect the same financial treatment. Honestly. If a couple is mature enough to be cohabiting, surely they are grown-up enough to consider the consequences of so doing and to decide to marry if they feel they need the greater financial protection afforded by that institution. If a couple decides not to marry, it's not the state's job to intervene. These people have deliberately chosen to put themselves into that situation. This is especially true now that we have civil partnerships: no couple, whether childless, gay, rich or poor is unable to put into place the legal framework to secure their position.
It strikes me that this is another loopy intitiative by a bunch of liberal, sock and sandal wearing bearded lefties, aimed at redressing the so-called injustice that occurs when a cohabiting couple with children splits up and one partner is left, quite literally, holding the baby.
Why it takes such far-reaching legislation to address what is essentially (from the state's point of view) a non-problem eludes me.
Furthermore, exactly how do we propose to enforce this? Will we deal with claims through the already overburdened family court, or will we use the risible Child Support Agency?
This whole scheme is ridiculous and should be booted out with all due haste.
posted by Token Bird at 5:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home