Some truths are so blindingly obvious and yet, despite every reason to
embrace them, we chose instead to turn our backs and walk the other
way.
Take the case of marriage. Over the centuries its form and substance have
morphed, but throughout all of these permutations it has remained a bedrock of
societies around the globe. Polygamous, arranged and now same-sex marriage have
all been embraced at various times. The place and status of women within the
institution have drastically changed, too.
A legally-binding union between individuals sealed through the act of sex
has been the foundation from which children have been expected to grow and
develop. Even allowing for divorce, marriage has been seen as a place of
permanence and stability. As an institution it has transcended race, wealth,
class and religion. This has been the case throughout all recorded history – at
least until the present age.
It is only in the last few years that we have seen seismic shifts in
attitudes and practices toward the necessity for marriage. In this country,
between 1850, when records began, until 1964, some 93 per cent of children were
born within marriage. Fifty years on and we now find that almost half of British
babies are born to unmarried parents. It will only be a short while until being
born within marriage will put you in a minority.
As more and more children grow up outside of wedlock, the universal truth
that marriage as an institution is good for our society is fundamentally
challenged, if not irreversibly negated. We know that marriage is good not
because it is the cultural norm, but because the evidence says so. It is not any
kind of revelation: it has been proven empirically over many years. And still we
find new research to reinforce it. Only last week the Marriage Foundation published statistics contrasting the family
prospects for children born to married parents and those not (including
cohabitation). The disparity is stark:
Currently, two thirds of women who get married and have children remain
with the father for life. Among women who never marry, just one in ten will
avoid splitting from their partner.
This is set to deteriorate at a rapid rate over the next few years. Only
5 per cent of the 48 per cent of 20 year-olds who will never marry are predicted
to stay with their partners until their child hits their
mid-teens.
The prospects of a secure upbringing for children of married families is
not exactly fantastic, but it is even worse for their peers. Based on these
predictions, which follow current trends, a GCSE class of 30 students will
have at the most just one
student whose biological parents live together outside of
marriage.
What this means is that unless their parents are married it is highly
probable that a child will either not ever live with their father or will go
through their parents’ separating at some point as they grow up. And the
consequences are serious. Data released this
week has found that children experiencing
separation are more likely to get into trouble at school, do worse in their
exams, suffer from eating disorders and abuse drugs or alcohol. Children who
experience broken family relationships are far, far more likely to live in
poverty and suffer the wide-ranging consequences.
There are, of course, plenty of exceptions to the rules, but this is the
state of play for hundreds of thousands of children who will take all of this
through to adulthood and most likely end up doing to their children what was
done to them.
The blindingly obvious truth is that we need marriage to be valued,
encouraged and supported for society to be healthy. Logically, we should all
care enough to make that effort because it affects us all. Instead, we have
bought into a lie that has been both spread subconsciously and pushed by certain
‘progressives’ – namely that marriage is just a life-style option; unnecessary,
restrictive or worse. ‘Saving yourself for marriage’ is now an alien concept,
confined to the dark ages and archaic religious thinking. Stability and security
have been supplanted by individualism and a rejection of
responsibility.
Does anyone care? Is it only in our churches and other places of religion
that the virtues and expectations of marriage are acknowledged and appreciated?
Is it only in places of worship that marriage as the better way still exists?
And in how many churches will the biblical teaching regarding marriage be
mentioned in hushed tones out of a desire to be inclusive and to avoid giving
offence?
Politically, out of the three main parties at Westminster, only the
Conservatives have made the case for government supporting the institution of
marriage with the Married Couple’s Allowance. It is to be introduced next year,
but it’s really little more than a token. Labour and the LibDems see any such
policy as a type of social engineering and so to be avoided at all costs: they
havevehemently opposed
it.
However, by doing so, they cause more harm than good: they negate even
their professed objective of being on the side of the poor and driving down
social exclusion. This is most clearly demonstrated in the last Labour
government’s implementation of Working Tax Credits. By neglecting the importance
of the family structure and by failing to recognise marriage, the resulting
system made it financially disadvantageous for couples to marry. For many
couples on the lowest incomes it makes sense to live apart, as Working Tax
Credits ensure that couples receive the same income as lone parents. This has
resulted in a a far more detrimental form of social engineering than anything
the Married Couple’s Allowance will ever produce.
The biggest fall in marriage commitments over recent years has been among
the lowest socioeconomic groups. According to the Office for National
Statistics (which divides the population into seven
groups), in 2001, when the figures were first collected, those in the top
category were 24 per cent more likely to marry than those at the bottom.
Thirteen years later, that figure has rocketed to 48 per cent. Marriage is
increasingly becoming the preserve of the well-off. Outside of the welfare
system, marriage largely brings economic security. But within, it causes harm
and brings uncertainty. And there is no doubt that the wealth gap between rich
and poor is widening. Benefits and housing, which have traditionally been
favourable toward young single mothers, have done nothing to
help.
The result is a welfare system which, rather than building up those who
need the most support, is seen to produce and perpetuate segregation and family
instability. Those who defend the status quo are doing no favours to
anyone.
With so many politicians afraid to discuss this topic, and too many
opposed to any move to that strengthen the institution of marriage, it is once
again left to a handful of think-tanks and
those outside the political system to make the case. As we move towards next
year’s General Election, it is a good a time for church leaders to be making a
robust case for a sea-change in political and social attitudes. The Church has
an authentic voice that can be used to champion what it knows to be good. The
commotion and disquiet caused by same-sex marriage demonstrate the robust and
passionate concern that many Christians hold for the sacred institution. This
needs to be harnessed and directed towards reviving and supporting the bedrock
of society, because ultimately marriage benefits everyone. If we don’t bother,
there will soon be too few married couples to register its value or worth. And
the poor will only get poorer. Cranmer
Blog.
