Google Find us on Google+

Conservatives kill off marriage in their pursuit of socialism

Oct 12, 2018 by

Tory scissors reach for marriage in their lurch to the left

Back in 1984, feminist academic and specialist in family studies [sic], Carol Smart outlined her plan to ‘undermine the social and legal need and support for the marriage contract’, and thereby bring about Herbert Marcuse’s socialist dream: ‘the elimination of the monogamic … and patriarchal family’ which stands in the way of Utopia.

This year, London has outstripped New York for the number of murders, rapes, and robberies at the hands of predominately black youngsters who have often never known a father. For many of these victims of the theory that marriage is an outmoded institution and we should migrate to a social heaven of multiple, sequential partners of all or any sexual hue, Utopia is a cold slab in a morgue.

Restrictive definitions of the conjugal family, showing how unrepresentative, ridiculous and outmoded it is, were already standard by the 1980s. And, so, it is no surprise that most of Smart’s plans have since been implemented, ranging from removing any ‘need’ for fathers from the law to discriminating against two parent families in the benefit system.

Recently, Sir James Mundy, President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice, opined that it did not matter that marriage was ‘platonic’ or that a couple had separate homes and children born from foreign surrogates. Marriage was no longer the basis for reproduction or parenthood, or involved living together, and, like same-sex unions, consummation did not apply.

Now, the final clean up is to be effected with the implementation of Smart’s demand to extend recognition to ‘different types of relationships’. Since homosexuals can marry and it is proposed that heterosexuals should have civil unions, cohabitees of different or same sex should, it is argued, have any remaining benefits of marriage – like inheritance and pensions.

The law having failed to redress losses flowing from the ways people ‘choose to live’, the ratification of what Mundy sees as an ‘intolerable injustice’ is ‘inevitable’. However, there is no intention to ‘impose the responsibilities’ of marriage on unmarried couples – responsibilities which, as plans go, are removed from marriage anyway.

A House of Commons Briefing Paper (December 2017) proposes that after a year of marriage, the union along with the household created by it may be dissolved on demand under a ‘no-fault notification system’ without penalty to any leaving party. This is in recognition that people ‘change all the time’, and that if they become discontented, they should be able just to call it quits and get on with a new life. Everyone will be equally entitled to keep a foot out the door ready to jump if a better opportunity presents itself.

Marriage thereby becomes the only contract that can be broken unilaterally without citation of fault by the other contracting party and with no adverse consequences to the one ‘wanting out’. It is egalitarian sharia, where ‘I divorce thee’ or ‘I dump you’ is said not three times but once, and then by either sex. With no need to cite grounds for divorce, no ground rules or expectations for marital behaviour, and any advantages available to others who do not even have to sign a piece of paper, marriage has been abolished in all but name.

Singing from the same hymn sheet as Sir James Mundy are others from the senior ranks of the judiciary (like Baroness Hale, President of the Supreme Court), the Family Mediation Taskforce, Resolution (a national organisation of 6,500 family lawyers), the Nuffield Foundation and The Times.

So is the supposedly pro-family organisation The Marriage Foundation founded by Sir Paul Coleridge. Ironically, the Foundation has repeatedly highlighted a crisis of family disintegration. Cohabitees have become a fifth of parents and account for over one half of family breakdowns. Children now have only a fifty per cent chance of living with both parents up to the age of fifteen. Children without both natural parents have more problems with health, education, delinquency and sexual abuse, and they cost the taxpayer in excess of £48 billion per year.

Along with academia, the judiciary are immersed in the quasi-Marxist broth of postmodern deconstructivism and identity politics. Back in 1982, Baroness Hale (barrister Brenda Hoggett) declared, ‘Family law no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage or any other union’ and ‘Rather than discussing which remedies should now be extended to the unmarried, we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purposes.’

Much anti-marriage propaganda centres on the notion that what is wrong with divorce is ‘conflict’. If we could get rid of that, no one could possibly be hurt or ‘damaged’. The mirage of the ‘good divorce’ promises that if divorce were fully accessible, without reason or cause cited, acrimony and accusations would be annulled.

In this cod-psychological therapeutic take, if people were freed from their mistakes, they might float along in a harmonious blissful haze, unconsciously coupling and uncoupling unhindered by such nasty old relics as rules, standards, distinctions and judgements of right and wrong. As in the new Girl Guide Promise, people can make up ‘their own values’, their personal oxymoron stating that ‘anything I do is right, and right is anything I do’.

But if you can opt out of marriage without even giving a reason, it is unclear how animosity can possibly be avoided. Being value-free is far more likely to induce and inflame conflict. People like to know why something is happening, particularly when dramatic changes of fortune are involved. Conflict and argument are intrinsic to human societies. Evidence from cohort studies suggests that children may be more adversely affected when their parents smoothly uncouple because it leaves them confused and at a loss to know why. At least when there is conflict or bad behaviour, separation can be an understandable relief.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts


Share This

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.