Marriage politics

Marriage, or rather the lack of it, is much in the news. Today, Alan Johnson is scheduled to deliver his expert opinion on the subject. Cameron has also been pontificating recently on the same subject along the lines of restoring the Married Couple Allowance within the tax system.

It is becoming more and more difficult for any politician to ignore what I highlighted here, that the lack of a resident father has a deleterious effect on the academic performance of boys. Politicians are a little more cagey though about getting to grips with some of the other possible social consequences of the lack of a resident father on the social behaviour of, particularly, boys and young men.

As always with politicians they fail to grasp the ramifications and repercussions of simplistic changes in policy and/or believe that the answer lies in adjusting possible monetary bias in the tax and welfare system. The issues are particularly complex.

Firstly there is the decline generally in the number of contractual marriages, whether via secular or religious ceremonies or entered into here or abroad. Secondly, there is the age at which couples either marry or cohabit and the effect this has on the age of the mother at the birth of the first child and the size of the completed family. Thirdly we have the phenomenon of fatherless families, and whether these come about due to the breakdown of a relationship in which the father was present at first, or alternatively was never present at all.

There are also overarching factors in each of these key areas. What has caused the present situation, what may be the result we would wish to achieve and what role, if any, government should play in bringing change about. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly of all, the effects of government action or inaction on differing categories of couples, e.g. their location, income group, ethnic group etc., needs to be understood and accurately gauged.

The Guardian recently drew attention to a reported rapid decline in the number of first marriages during 2006. The same article also highlighted a rise in the age of first marriage in both men and women. There are two issues here. Firstly, is this decline in marriage numbers significant and if so how? Secondly, what of the increasing age of marriage partners.

The short answer to the first is that it is probably irrelevant. Marriage as we know it is and was merely a method for society to recognise a contract between two individuals. The interest of the church in this process was just one facet of the desire of the early Christian church to extend its power as far as possible in order to regulate individual's lives. Other religions also seek to do this.

What is important, however, is the milieu in which co-habiting couples produce offspring. Society at large has no interest, other than a moral opinion, in a couple who live together and produce no children; except to insure that if they part, the physical proceeds of the temporary partnership, house, furniture etc, are divided fairly between them.

The situation changes the moment that a couple have children. The rest of society then has a significant interest in the relationship insofar as a breakdown of the liaison is likely to deleteriously affect society at large, either in the cost of bringing up the children or in their subsequent behaviour, as well as the future well being of the children concerned. It is in society's interest that families stay together.

It is quite naïve to suggest that government should not take a standpoint on this issue. While the outcome for some children may not be affected by being brought up in a single parent household, for substantial numbers of children it is a significant negative factor. Furthermore, there is an additional financial burden placed on the rest of society if the state either supports the single parent in idleness, or forks out for child care so the parent may work.

Reconciling the interests of society and individuals in the upbringing of children is an area in which the state could and should act. The state is the only alternative due to the diminishing role of the Christian church and the need to deter possible bids for an enhanced role from other religious groups. The state has the power, although not necessarily either the will or the wisdom, to act purely in the interests of society at large rather than any special interest group. Acknowledging the interest of society generally does not prevent couples seeking further validation from any religious group whose approval they may wish to seek.

What of the increasing age of first marriage? As was pointed out here, this is of very great significance, not in itself, but in the demographic and social consequences which ensue from variations, not in the age of marriage per se, but in the age of the mother at the birth of the first child. In particular in the effects of differential age at first birth among defined groups within society. A fall in the mother's age at first birth in one group compared to another will relatively rapidly cause an increase in the numbers of the first group vis a vis the second.

As indicated in this report, all the signs are that overall the age of the mother at the birth of the first child is increasing. It is impossible, though, to draw any conclusions as to how this is affecting specific groups. All we know is that overall fewer people are bothering with a ceremony to sanctify, legitimise, or both as the case may be, their relationship. Nor do we know whether the age at first birth is increasing equally or differentially across all categories within society.

The problems associated with state action in this field are manifold. Conflict is inevitable over the degree and nature of state interference, notwithstanding that the state has been implicated in the situation we have now. Taxation, welfare benefits, housing provision, and no doubt other areas of national and local government action, in addition to increasing secularisation, have all had a negative effect upon the propensity of individuals to form enduring family units.

It is difficult to see that the state should actually have any role other than to create an environment which encourages binding contracts between individuals who start families, and actively discourages the formation of single parent families. It is very important that whatever regime is instituted should not favour any particular group within society.

We also have a situation now where the growing influence of Islam is stimulating the Christian churches to try to claim back some of the influence they have lost. Inevitably there will be conflict as different religious groups jockey for position and influence. Marriage is one of those areas where just about everyone has an opinion.

The range of actions required demands co-ordinated research and remedial policies across many government departments. It is difficult to see any current or prospective leader having the strength of will or the vision to bring this about. The outcome is more likely to be governmental paralysis or piecemeal tinkering rather than considered and effective action. I suspect the problems will worsen.