Sir Paul Coleridge spoke last week about his newly established Marriage Foundation, which seeks to halt the ‘appalling and costly impact of family breakdown’.
A marriage stone lintel, which marks the initials of the newly married couple, and the date of the wedding. A nice connection with the previous post about marking lintels for the Epiphany
He certainly knows how to frame a provocative soundbite:
Almost every dysfunctional child is the product of a broken family
Matthew Holehouse reports:
Sir Paul wishes to encourage people not to have children unless their relationship is stable, and if it is stable, to encourage them to get married.
“Marriage, as the best structure in which to raise children, needs to be affirmed, strengthened and supported. Recycle your rubbish by all means, but be very slow to recycle your partner,” he told The Times.
“We have to rid ourselves of this dream that we are going to find the partner who is perfect in every way: emotionally, physically, intellectually – it’s just a nonsense.
“People want to change horses mid-stream – it’s the disease of the modern age. Soon you find the new partner is as flawed as the last. It is like a hydra: you cut off one head and get rid of a boring partner but inherit 26 new problems, your new partner’s children, family and so on.”
Family breakdown is the “scourge of society”, he added. “It affects everyone, from the Royal Family downwards. In about 1950 you weren’t allowed in the royal enclosure at Ascot [if divorced]. That would now exclude half the Royal Family.”
“It is a myth that children, even older ones, don’t care. They care greatly and a break-up shocks the whole foundation of the family, it never recovers.”
“My message is mend it — don’t end it. Over 40 years of working in the family justice system, I have seen the fall-out of these broken relationships. There are an estimated 3.8 million children currently caught up in the family justice system. I personally think that’s a complete scandal.”
Leaving aside the practical question of exactly which laws and tax-incentives might support the institution of marriage, it’s remarkable that Nick Clegg can characterise marriage as simply a private commitment without any public/social implications.
In a Lib Dem disagreement with the Conservatives about tax breaks for marriage couples he said there was a limit on what the state “should seek to do in organising people’s private relationships” [my italics].
Getting married is probably the best thing that ever happened to me. But just as a liberal I think there are limits to how the state and government should try to micromanage or incentivise people’s own behaviour in their private lives [my italics].
This contrasts with David Cameron at the Conservative Party Conference last October, where at least he recognised the importance of marriage for children, and by implication for society in general – even though there are other equally important questions about how he defines marriage.
Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It pulls couples together through the ebb and flow of life.
It gives children stability. And it says powerful things about what we should value. So yes, we will recognise marriage in the tax system.
Tim Ross reports on some of the differences within the coalition.
[In a speech to the Demos think-tank] Mr Clegg will say: “We should not take a particular version of the family institution, such as the 1950s model of suit-wearing, bread-winning dad and aproned, home-making mother – and try and preserve it in aspic.
“That’s why open society liberals and big society conservatives will take a different view on a tax break for marriage.”
Mr Clegg will argue that liberal values are more important than ever as the world faces deep economic uncertainty and risks turning inwards.
“Conservatives, by definition, tend to defend the status quo, embracing change reluctantly and often after the event,” he will say. Senior Conservatives retaliated Mr Clegg yesterday. The employment minister, Chris Grayling, told Sky News: “We are two parties in the coalition. Of course there are things on which we have different views.
“We as Conservatives believe strongly in supporting marriage and the family. The Liberal Democrats take a different view. We accept that family is not always the same thing as it has been in the past. “But we have always argued that we should support the family, that we should support marriage in the tax system.
We think we need to strengthen the institution of marriage in our society.” He insisted that the “differences of emphasis” did not mean the Liberal Democrats were not “valued partners” in government.
Mr Grayling’s stance was supported by Gavin Poole, executive director of the Centre for Social Justice, a think-tank founded by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith.
Mr Poole said Mr Clegg’s argument “flies in the face of all the evidence” demonstrating how important marriage is to well-being of children.
I really (so urgently) would like to see so very much more pre marriage/vocation counsel, guidance, education, teaching and discernment, throughout our, our children’s lives, our society, and even more in our churches than there is at present, and not just the hope for support beyond marriage. We have the balance and education on this so wrong. Only then marriage breakdown may be less prevalent.
If marriage is a true vocation, it is a vocation that was not touched upon or studied at my school, college , etc. It was not talked about or discussed within my secular family life, other than the lovely example of my mum and dad (but this of course is only my experience and not a future partners). Discernment for a vocation is long. The trouble is that coming from a happy family, you do not consider or expect or presume that unhappiness could be a part of a longterm relationship. You have just faith in the very love and examples that you know. And this is one sided.
As a child turning into an adult, for me it was about wanting to be with a marriage partner, like my parents whom loved each other. And thats a very dangerous place to be, because socially we were not encouraged to date much and have an experience of many different types of people. We were not educated on personality types, or issues that could arise, or differences or conflict resolution or planning or Anything, We were not encouraged to have many friends of the opposite sex. So when somebody presumed to love you in the same way that you saw your parents loving each other, that was to become my commitment.
Maybe there should be marriage discernment courses or agencies that persistently go around to schools, colleges, churches and community centres, educating people on marriage discernment, before a lifetime commitment is entered into. God’s Love, when it is truly bestowed upon two people, is undeniable, until this happens you have no understanding of the infinite depth of this Love, a Love which even if/when things become difficult God is there to hold and share and support and Love through all. I have said it before, but entering into a Christian marriage is a deeply spiritual covenant, and unless somebody fully understands that covenant they should not be allowed to marry within a Christian Marriage. It is such a devastating inequality not being brought up with a Christian education.
Unfortunately, in the very next paragraph of his speech David Cameron said the following:
“But we’re also doing something else. I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage.
And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”
I believe that Mr Cameron’s support for “gay marriage” undermines the special position in society of (and people’s understanding of and esteem for) true marriage, which can only ever be between a man and a woman, for life. I believe that the consequences in years to come for the well-being of the family, and of children in particular, will be serious, going against the excellent work of people like Sir Paul Coleridge.
“Soon you find the new partner is as flawed as the last. It is like a hydra”
My experience of working amongst people who have divorced or changed partners leads me to suggest that it may be that each person is flawed; you can’t change yourself by getting a new partner, in much the same way that we don’t change when we buy that much yearned for new pair of shoes or shirt.