Clegg & Marriage

[Marmora Man]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Magpie, I think you are confusing the issue by talking about single-parent vs two parent families. That isn't what the debate is about.

> The issue is about whether marriage results in a demonstrably more stable family environment (it doesn't), and whether the government should interfere in people's lifestyles and punish those who disagree (they shouldn't).

EXCEPT that marriage can be demonstrated to reduce the likelihood of break up and the creation of one parent families. A review of 2010 census data indicated that fewer than one in ten married parents have split by the time a child is five, whereas more than one in three, who were not married, will have split. Where parents were not living together when a child is born the break-up rate is greater than one in two. We do know that single parenthood tends to be closely associated with greater poverty for women and children, associated with poor performance at school, associated with greater levels of depression and other undesirable outcomes.

Supporting marriage, stating clearly that it is a positive move and making it something that young people and couples aspire to harms no one and would deliver positive outcomes.

I know I'm arguing against the routine EDF "right on ness" and general "Guardianista" approach. I also acknowledge the issue of correlation and causation, which can often confuse the obvious - but believe that:

a. The current benefits system actually encourages single parenthood - reducing a single mother's income if her boyfriend moves in or if she marries. (this may change if Iain Duncan Smiths proposals regarding a single unified benefit do come into being

b. If a couple are unable / unwilling to commit to marriage then this lack of commitment raises questions about their commitment to the two person unit and any eventual family group or children of that partnership.

c. All relationships go through highs and lows but that a commitment made in front of friends and relatives (religious, secular, formal or informal) is an encouragement to stick it out. This does not have to be a formal marriage - but this historic formal commitment has been shown to work best.

d. Causal "coupledom" maybe a lifestyle some choose and, as a libertarian, I would never seek to outlaw valid choice, however there nothing wrong in pointing out that statistically that it is not a recipe for ensuring a stable, life long relationship and good outcomes for children.

So in priority order for any potential grandchildren that may join the Marmora Man family I would prefer:

1. That they are part of a loving married family.

2. That they are part of a loving family where the parents have made some form of public commitment to their relationship.

3. That if there is just one parent the child / children remain firmly part of a loving and supportive family group and network that includes grandparents.

[Huguenot]

But you still haven't addressed the correlation/causation issue - and that's why it simply doesn't stand up.

There is no doubt that those people who are more committed are more likely to get married and stick together.

But taking two people who are not committed and making them marry does NOT make them committed.

This is patently obvious!!

Making people not marry DOES NOT suddenly make people reliable and loving.

[El Pibe]

I really don't think this has anything to do with right-onness and from what I can see there are no guardianistas arguing here either.

In fact if I'm not mistaken many posters who aren't convinced by your proposal are actually married, I know I am.

What I'm seeing are pretty objective appraisals of marriage's efficacy in fixing society's ills (ie the evidence is dubious at best, a wilful misreading of the stats at worst) weighed up against the negative impact that a morally judgmental policy could have.

[Jeremy]

MM, I think you're grapsing at straws.

You stated earlier that "I am not suggesting, and nor is that government, that marriage of itself will reduce the incidence of broken families". But you just directly contradicted that by saying writing "marriage can be demonstrated to reduce the likelihood of break up and the creation of one parent families".

So which do you believe? You say that you understand the causation/correlation argument - I'm not convinced that you do!

[david_carnell]

b. If a couple are unable / unwilling to commit to marriage then this lack of commitment raises questions about their commitment to the two person unit and any eventual family group or children of that partnership.

c. All relationships go through highs and lows but that a commitment made in front of friends and relatives (religious, secular, formal or informal) is an encouragement to stick it out. This does not have to be a formal marriage - but this historic formal commitment has been shown to work best.

Now you're just being plain obnoxious. There will be plenty of people on here in exactly that situation who don't particularly like being preached or moralised to in this manner. I'm just one of them.

I come from a family littered with divorces. I've seen more unhappy marriages than I'd ever care to. Suggesting that I should marry my current partner to fit your outdated stereotypes of what a "family" is not only patronising in the extreme but logically unsound and ideologically hypocritical.

As a social liberal I'm not in the habit of lecturing in how best to raise children. As a libertarian, I'm amazed you think government should be spending tax payers money on such a hair-brained scheme.

[Otta]

I think that once you are married, and especially after having a kid, you feel it's a lot harder to walk away, having to deal with divorce and all that. I imagine a lot of people make the best of it and stay in marriages, where they normally would have walked.

This is not a good thing for any child growing up in a home with two parents who hardly get on.

I am also happily married with two kids by the way. And I don't read the Guardian.

[*Bob*]

What figure are we up to now as regards percentage of marriages which fail? Is it 40% or 45%?

What's the projected figure for the for the next few decades? 50%? 60%?

How high will the figure need to get before 'marriage doesn't work'?

[binary_star]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

"yep I understand statistics too"

Then why quote correlational relationships as thought they imply causation AGAIN? I know why...

[Magpie]

I don't see any evidence from those who disagree with MM that there isn't a causal relationship, just opinion. People accusing MM of bias in interpreting the data, should be aware of their own.

Recognition of marriage through the tax system does not penalise anyone else - so I don't see the harm in doing so.

[El Pibe]

The point is you have to prove that a data correlation is a causal relationship, especially if you are to base policy and spending precious tax money on it.

It's not up to the doubters to disprove it, that's how science works!

Even if it is proved as causal, you then need to get beneath the raw figures and prove that it's a good thing in terms of social engineering and that you won't be condemning people to be stuck in bad relationships because of that promise you made to your peers, in front of your mum etc.

Even MM is more or less admitting that it's a gut-feel thing, and that's not convincing me that it'd make good policy, but more tax bucks have been spent on worse thinking before (NHS IT revolution anyone?)

[david_carnell]

Recognition of marriage through the tax system does not penalise anyone else - so I don't see the harm in doing so.

Err......where do you think the money for a benefit payment or tax cut for married couples comes from? A tax cut for married people is a tax rise for everyone else (all else being equal of course).

I can't believe in this day and age this is even an issue.

[Marmora Man]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> b. If a couple are unable / unwilling to commit to

> marriage then this lack of commitment raises

> questions about their commitment to the two person

> unit and any eventual family group or children of

> that partnership.

>

> c. All relationships go through highs and lows but

> that a commitment made in front of friends and

> relatives (religious, secular, formal or informal)

> is an encouragement to stick it out. This does not

> have to be a formal marriage - but this historic

> formal commitment has been shown to work best.

>

>

> Now you're just being plain obnoxious. There will

> be plenty of people on here in exactly that

> situation who don't particularly like being

> preached or moralised to in this manner. I'm just

> one of them.

>

> I come from a family littered with divorces. I've

> seen more unhappy marriages than I'd ever care to.

> Suggesting that I should marry my current partner

> to fit your outdated stereotypes of what a

> "family" is not only patronising in the extreme

> but logically unsound and ideologically

> hypocritical.

>

> As a social liberal I'm not in the habit of

> lecturing in how best to raise children. As a

> libertarian, I'm amazed you think government

> should be spending tax payers money on such a

> hair-brained scheme.

A certain degree of hysteria seems to be creeping in. I'm not telling you what to do - I'm simply stating an opinion. You are free to disagree as you obviously do but don't tell me I'm preaching. I haven't suggested you marry your current partner (which by the way is a phrasing that doesn't imply permanency - tho' I'm sure you didn't mean it to be read that way).

However, you will not, I am sure, dispute that some children are brought up in less than ideal circumstances where poverty (of thought and finance), deprivation and lack of aspiration are rife, others are lucky enough to be brought up in a comfortable, stable and loving environment. There is a spectrum of situations in which children are reared between these two extremes. The majority of marriages tend to be toward the positive end of the spectrum, as are many unmarried families. However, the negative end of the spectrum does have, as a characteristic, more unmarried, single parent, multiple partner households. As I have implied before - suggesting that those at the negative end of the spectrum marry is not a solution. However, giving people in that situation and their offspring encouragement to aspire to a more stable way of life as epitomised by the majority of marriages is surely a good thing.

BTW - its "hare-brained" not "hair-brained"

Someone else has commented on divorce rates - according to Wikipedia "One in every three UK marriages between 1995 and 2010 ended in divorce. The rate of divorce had been dropping this century. In 2007 the divorce rate in England and Wales was recorded at 11.5 people per every 1000 ( less than 1.2%) of the married population. This was the lowest divorce rate since 1979. In 2010, divorce rates rose 5% over 2009 (taking it to 1.26%)." As state before the beak up of marriages with children is at a far lower rate than the overall statistic.

[Huguenot]

BTW - its "hare-brained" not "hair-brained"

Apparently it's been spelled both ways since the dawn of print. 'Hare' as in mad march hares makes sense today, but one couldn't actually claim it has to be one way or the other, nor what the original root was.

[*Bob*]

Divorce rates are certainly at a low.. for the moment. As a marriage rates, of course.

Are you against civil partnerships for hetero couples, MM?

[HAL9000]

The point being that both hare and hair were acceptable spellings of hare as in rabbit - it never meant hair as in beaver.

[Marmora Man]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Divorce rates are certainly at a low.. for the

> moment. As a marriage rates, of course.

>

>

> Are you against civil partnerships for hetero

> couples, MM?

NO - I'm just in favour of stable relationships and believe marriage to be a better form of stable relationship.

[binary_star]

As someone who can't legally marry my other half in the UK, I suppose I'd better let my "current" partner of eleven years know we won't be able to have a stable relationship until the law changes...

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> >

> > Are you against civil partnerships for hetero

> > couples, MM?

>

> NO - I'm just in favour of stable relationships

> and believe marriage to be a better form of stable

> relationship.

[binary_star]

If the stats above are right (a third of marriages end in divorce) then we should probably be giving tax breaks to UNMARRIED couples since they won't be divorcing and costing the public purse any money. Oh and if you think about it with MM's statistical hat on, married couples are far more likely to get divorced than unmarried couples so therefore I think we can say with some degree of cofidence that marriage actually CAUSES divorce.

Ridiculous thread.

[HAL9000]

... with MM's statistical hat on ...

See - I knew he was a fucking Scientologist!

[binary_star]

Jeremy Wrote:

> You say that you

> understand the causation/correlation argument -

> I'm not convinced that you do!

Absolutely!

[*Bob*]

Marriage does not suit everybody.

Civil partnership does not suit everybody.

Personally I believe marriage and civil partnership should be options available to all - as they are in some other enlightened countries (where the fabric of society has yet to crumble).

But no - because conservative Britain is afraid of equality. It fears that marriage will be undermined by equality. It won't of course.. it would just reveal the facts as they stand: how - like in France - millions of people would gladly give marriage the heave-ho in favour of something else which gave them the same rights, were it to be offered.

[binary_star]

I agree with you there Bob.

You know in 2010, 509 civil partnerships were dissolved in the UK and 6281 were registered the previous year. By my calculations that's a 0.8% failure rate over the year, including anyone who had already registered their partnership in previous years. Source is from ONS here

I'm just in favour of stable relationships and believe marriage to be a better form of stable relationship.

You can believe what you like...

[Senor Chevalier]

binary_star I think your contention is that the failure rate of civil partnerships is lower than marriage. I think civil partnerships are in ramp up and have not reached a steady state yet so I don't think it is a fair comparison. I think there may be a bias in that presumably those that have taken the plunge on CP are the early adopters who may be less likely to fail than once it is more mainstream. I think if you also stratified the data by duration you'd get a different result. So how many marriages that took place in 2010 failed in 2011 and how does this compare with CPs? Same question for 2009. i.e. plot failure rate by duration. I reckon you'd get a different result. Well maybe.

Quite happy for M and CP to coexist, but far less happy with shaky stats being used in this Drawing Room on either side of the argument (and to be perfectly clear I am not saying that yours are the shakiest on here...)

[binary_star]

No I'm not making that point SC, I realise the stats aren't comparable but as CP hasn't been around all that long (relative to marriage) there's not much else to go on. What I think I wanted to say is that when people make a commitment to each other that is a stable relationship, whether it's formalised (via marriage or CP) or not. I think it's pretty insulting to suggest to any couple, irrespective of sexual orientation, that marriage will somehow validate, make stable or "better" their relationship. I happen to think it's nonsense and I don't agree that longevity necessarily equates to stability either. But you know, I'm a bit unstable not being married and all!

[????]

CS are effctively marriages aren't they - it's the millions of people who 'live together and it doesn't work out who you (and *bob*) should be looking at compared to marriages. Or, more precisely, the two (marrieds and living together) that have children. But that's just semantics.

Come on MM, this is just politics at best and stoooopid beyond belief. Married couples (or the wealthier ones) are already rewarded with exemption from IHT. Even by this theory, surely resources would be better going to 'broken homes' rather than stable ones?

Playing to the gallery that's all this idea is - look what ill thought out rewards of the past have done to our finances. Gordon's fantastic univeral pensioner fuel allowance of ?200 being a prime example. Now costs the country a fortune and increasingly goes to huge (and ever growing numbers) of wealthy, healthily pensioned baby boomers but almost impossible to remove politically.