Mary Dejevsky: If you want the benefits of marriage, take the plunge

If two people decide not to register their relationship, or if they just don't get round to it, what duty should the law have to them?

Share
Related Topics

It is a pity there is not more crossover between newspaper readerships in Britain, because if there were, we might be more honest about the contradictions that currently attend the country's collective relationship with marriage. Yesterday offered a graphic illustration. While The Times, followed by The Independent and others, reported a call by the most senior family law judge for legal protection for cohabiting couples, the popular press exulted in the still unconfirmed news that Kate Moss was to marry. Her nuptials, to her rock star partner, Jamie Hince, it was said, would take place in July. The country, no doubt still recovering from the 29 April wedding extravaganza, will be invited to wallow in another. I'm pretty sure they won't pass up the opportunity.

Compared with almost anywhere in Europe, and certainly compared with the US, Britons have managed to keep in their mind lavish weddings as the romantic start to a marriage for life, while eschewing the institution in record numbers. You now have a situation where £30,000 (rather more than the average annual salary) is not considered an unreasonable outlay – the castle, the dancing, the long-distance honeymoon – and lack of time and money is then cited as justification for not marrying.

Small matter that a civil marriage costs £77 all in, and you can do it at the local register office in your lunch hour; the ceremony, as much as the substance, has come to be the thing. And with no social censure for cohabiting, and producing children (how quaint this now sounds) out of wedlock, a romantic celebration is mostly what is left.

But it is not quite that simple. A residual idea of substance remains. Survey after survey shows that marriage is the ideal for which most people strive, not least that much-vilified group, teenage single mothers. Marriage is also still regarded, just about, as the respectable norm – as a somewhat chastened, but unrepentant, Ed Miliband might testify after the tongue-lashing he received about his cohabiting status from callers to the Jeremy Vine show last month. People may have qualms about marriage themselves, but when it comes to those who represent them, well, they would really rather they conformed.

So if the Government decides, as Iain Duncan Smith and others would like it to, that it should encourage the married state – because it is associated with more stable families, better prospects for children and wider social stability – it still has something to work with. But it had probably better seize the moment, because the proportion of cohabiting couples rises by the year, and the residual sense of marriage as the norm may not last forever. It is to cater for the wreckage of this rising number of not-married partnerships that Sir Nicholas Wall, head of the High Court's Family Division, made his intervention.

Which is where I should lay my cards on the table. As someone happily married for many years, who embarked on the project pretty much as a joint romantic adventure, I thoroughly recommend it. But I am not indifferent to the argument that marriage produces more stable partnerships only because of the sort of people who take their vows.

If there were no such thing as marriage, then maybe these same individuals would make a success of cohabiting, too. For all the starkness of figures showing that more than one in four cohabiting couples break up within five years of the birth of a child, compared with fewer than one in 10 married couples, that may have as much to do with character and circumstances as it does with the institution. So you won't find me urging Ed Miliband to "regularise" his situation and make "an honest woman" of Justine, though it does seem rather an oversight on his part not to have registered himself as the father of his first son.

Marry or not, as you choose. Where the law is concerned, though, I feel that it should be reciprocal. If two people enshrine their relationship in the law, they deserve its protection – and the converse should also be true. If, on principle, for lack of commitment or for financial reasons, two people decide not to register their relationship, or if they just don't get around to it, what duty should the law have to them? None whatsoever, I would say, beyond what one or other might try to reclaim for themselves, at their own expense, through the civil courts.

Sir Nicholas argues that when long-standing cohabiting couples break up, one – usually the woman – loses out. She may be left with children, no claim on the joint home and no guaranteed means beyond her own earnings and state support. To which I would respond, with hardened heart: you should have thought of that. And if one partner then invokes the mythical protection of common-law marriage, a myth which still – apparently – enjoys currency, I would say: more fool you. How much airtime and newsprint has been spent with authoritative figures insisting that "there is no such thing as common-law marriage". Do we need expensive public-service advertising to spell it out?

So yes, there will be hard cases. But hard cases, as we are constantly told, make bad law. And bringing cohabitation and marriage into statutory alignment – or going a long way towards doing that – only risks new unintended consequences. In truth, it could be seen as punitive, rather than protective in intent, discouraging the richer cohabitee from sticking around. And where would it leave civil partnerships, introduced specifically to give same-sex couples the legal status they sought? If anyone understands the difference between a legally recognised relationship and one that is not, it is those who have striven so hard for that right.

Of more benefit than changing the law would be to strengthen the case for marriage – less for moral than for coolly practical reasons. One explanation for why the institution has declined so sharply in Britain is that the incentives – above all economic, but also social – have been deliberately shrunk by successive governments. Indeed, for those receiving benefits, any incentives are mostly the other way. Reverse that, and let's see what happens. Just refrain from making the argument as a sermon; sell it as self-interest instead.



m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Project Coordinator

Competitive: The Green Recruitment Company: The Organisation: The Green Recrui...

Project Manager (HR)- Bristol - Upto £400 p/day

£350 - £400 per annum + competitive: Orgtel: Project Manager (specializing in ...

Embedded Linux Engineer

£40000 - £50000 per annum + competitive: Progressive Recruitment: Embedded Sof...

Senior Hardware Design Engineer - Broadcast

£50000 - £65000 per annum + Benefits: Progressive Recruitment: Working for a m...

Day In a Page

Read Next
The Port Eliot Festival  

How to keep it real in the digital age this summer

Simon Kelner
 

Our sanctions will not cripple Russia. It is doing a lot of the dirty work itself

Hamish McRae
The children were playing in the street with toy guns. The air strikes were tragically real

The air strikes were tragically real

The children were playing in the street with toy guns
Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite – The British, as others see us

Britain as others see us

Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite
Countries that don’t survey their tigers risk losing them altogether

Countries that don’t survey their tigers risk losing them

Jonathon Porritt sounds the alarm
How did our legends really begin?

How did our legends really begin?

Applying the theory of evolution to the world's many mythologies
Watch out: Lambrusco is back on the menu

Lambrusco is back on the menu

Naff Seventies corner-shop staple is this year's Aperol Spritz
A new Russian revolution: Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc

A new Russian revolution

Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc
Eugene de Kock: Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

The debate rages in South Africa over whether Eugene de Kock should ever be released from jail
Standing my ground: If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?

Standing my ground

If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?
Commonwealth Games 2014: Dai Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Welsh hurdler was World, European and Commonwealth champion, but then the injuries crept in
Israel-Gaza conflict: Secret report helps Israelis to hide facts

Patrick Cockburn: Secret report helps Israel to hide facts

The slickness of Israel's spokesmen is rooted in directions set down by pollster Frank Luntz
The man who dared to go on holiday

The man who dared to go on holiday

New York's mayor has taken a vacation - in a nation that has still to enforce paid leave, it caused quite a stir, reports Rupert Cornwell
Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business, from Sarah Millican to Marcus Brigstocke

Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business

For all those wanting to know how stand-ups keep standing, here are some of the best moments
The Guest List 2014: Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks

The Guest List 2014

Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks
Jokes on Hollywood: 'With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on'

Jokes on Hollywood

With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on