Marriage/Family
Jan. 22nd, 2010 09:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueSo the conservatives are plugging 'family values' as part of their electioneering. I can sort of understand, and appreciate where they're coming from. I just think they've got it wrong.
To my mind, a 'family' doesn't actually need to be a matter of blood kin. Nor does it fall neatly into the 'family unit' of husband, wife, 2.4 children.
Giving tax credits to married couples ... well, it's not much of a credit anyway, but it's just not the right approach - lets face it, if the tax credit makes any difference to your decision to get married, then you're getting married for the wrong reason.
The world has changed, and I think for the better - it's no longer scandalous to be an unmarried couple cohabiting. Divorce isn't the end of the world either.
But it also changes the other way, in that 'community groups' in many cases start to break apart a bit - a 'family' which is husband, wife, 2.4 children isn't actually all that good - children are a lot of effort, and if you have no extended family to call upon, are you really giving them the best possible upbringing?
I think not.
Anyway. The irony is, that with marriage becoming shorter term, and less 'pushed' it actually gives an opportunity to strength it. Am I alone in thinking that if you make a promise like _that_ you'd better mean it? I'm not going to say that divorce is a bad thing, but .... well, I'd much rather have couples not getting married in the first place. Don't make a promise you don't know you can keep.
So anyway, I digress. That's why I think the conservatives have it wrong - not that 'forming a family' is bad, but because their scope is too narrow. I actually think we should be looking at forming larger families - that for every 'breeding pair' there should _always_ be other adults who take up part of the responsibility for the children. Once upon a time, that might be aunts, uncles, grandparents, but there's no real reason there needs to be. Why not have 'uncle in law' and 'aunty-in-law', and actively encourage the overlapping support of children?
Because that's what this boils down to really - a couple can get along quite well, on an ad-hoc basis. The reason that 'family' is considered a good thing, is because it gives children stability in their upbringing. I'm not going to dispute that, but I think that a 'family' is something we should be thinking more:
Mother, Father, Children, and another 4 adults who will pick them up from school, take them to the park, and put them to bed from time to time.
And whilst we're at it, lets look a bit more at what it means when you say 'until death do us part' - I don't think we should be making promises that we can't keep. But that doesn't mean it's either 'promise together forever' or 'promise nothing'. Why not have something inbetween? I mean, we see marriages with pre-nuptial clauses already. That just strikes me as nuts - promise to be with someone forever, but just in case you're not, arrange how to divvy it up afterwards.
Why not instead just look at a 1 year 'exclusive relationship, partnership and cohabitation contract'? Include a rolling renewal - each year on your anniversary, ask each other the question - do you still want me - and then off you go. Carry on. OK, maybe more than a year is better suited - perhaps you want one a bit more focussed on a child's upbringing, so you set the term accordingly. I just sort of liked the resonance with 'a year and a day'.
Why not? Make your promise, keep it, and decide each year if this is still the person you want to be with? That way, if you really do say the words 'until death do us part' you get to do it when you really mean it.
To my mind, a 'family' doesn't actually need to be a matter of blood kin. Nor does it fall neatly into the 'family unit' of husband, wife, 2.4 children.
Giving tax credits to married couples ... well, it's not much of a credit anyway, but it's just not the right approach - lets face it, if the tax credit makes any difference to your decision to get married, then you're getting married for the wrong reason.
The world has changed, and I think for the better - it's no longer scandalous to be an unmarried couple cohabiting. Divorce isn't the end of the world either.
But it also changes the other way, in that 'community groups' in many cases start to break apart a bit - a 'family' which is husband, wife, 2.4 children isn't actually all that good - children are a lot of effort, and if you have no extended family to call upon, are you really giving them the best possible upbringing?
I think not.
Anyway. The irony is, that with marriage becoming shorter term, and less 'pushed' it actually gives an opportunity to strength it. Am I alone in thinking that if you make a promise like _that_ you'd better mean it? I'm not going to say that divorce is a bad thing, but .... well, I'd much rather have couples not getting married in the first place. Don't make a promise you don't know you can keep.
So anyway, I digress. That's why I think the conservatives have it wrong - not that 'forming a family' is bad, but because their scope is too narrow. I actually think we should be looking at forming larger families - that for every 'breeding pair' there should _always_ be other adults who take up part of the responsibility for the children. Once upon a time, that might be aunts, uncles, grandparents, but there's no real reason there needs to be. Why not have 'uncle in law' and 'aunty-in-law', and actively encourage the overlapping support of children?
Because that's what this boils down to really - a couple can get along quite well, on an ad-hoc basis. The reason that 'family' is considered a good thing, is because it gives children stability in their upbringing. I'm not going to dispute that, but I think that a 'family' is something we should be thinking more:
Mother, Father, Children, and another 4 adults who will pick them up from school, take them to the park, and put them to bed from time to time.
And whilst we're at it, lets look a bit more at what it means when you say 'until death do us part' - I don't think we should be making promises that we can't keep. But that doesn't mean it's either 'promise together forever' or 'promise nothing'. Why not have something inbetween? I mean, we see marriages with pre-nuptial clauses already. That just strikes me as nuts - promise to be with someone forever, but just in case you're not, arrange how to divvy it up afterwards.
Why not instead just look at a 1 year 'exclusive relationship, partnership and cohabitation contract'? Include a rolling renewal - each year on your anniversary, ask each other the question - do you still want me - and then off you go. Carry on. OK, maybe more than a year is better suited - perhaps you want one a bit more focussed on a child's upbringing, so you set the term accordingly. I just sort of liked the resonance with 'a year and a day'.
Why not? Make your promise, keep it, and decide each year if this is still the person you want to be with? That way, if you really do say the words 'until death do us part' you get to do it when you really mean it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 12:07 pm (UTC)http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_family/family/cohabitation_and_marriage_legal_differences.htm has a bit more on it.
*shrug*. As you say, there's stages of commitment. I'm just trying to advocate that having more might not be such a bad idea - I mean, you can kind of already draw up 'cohabitation contracts'.
I'm curious though about the finances - you seem to be saying that cohabitation is financially equivalent to married, but separating can put you better off financially? Would you mind clarifying that a little?
If that's so, then I think I would agree somewhat - I don't think there should be 'financial reasons' coming into the equation.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 01:17 pm (UTC)As soon as you put the ESA money in you're entitled to lots of extras. Housing benefit would pay the mortgage, council tax benefit. Aside from the basic benefits, there are lots and lots of extras like free milk and veg coupons, free prescriptions, vouchers for opticians and dentists, and a whole lot of other Government schemes to help children living in poverty.
Meanwhile, if Peter took care of one of the children it would be even more money. He'd get single parent rates of child and working tax credit paid, too.
I worked it out a while back, reckon we'd be better off by at least £10k a year. The downside is having to manage 2 households.
But if I were to move in with a friend who was also on benefits then we'd both get more money, because then it's a household with 2 adults not living as a married couple. And they may also get carer's allowance for staying at home with me in the house.
Our situation is a bit more extreme than most because of the disability aspect, but the money's about the same as a family with 3 kids splitting up. The more kids there are, the larger the financial gain from splitting. A single parent with 5 kids can live really quite comfortably, whereas a married couple with 5 kids would struggle.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 01:26 pm (UTC)I guess that's from the assumption of the difference between household income, vs. individual income? Hmm.
That's given me something to think about - as far as I'm concerned marrying someone _should_ be about that lifetime commitment, and have no 'strings' attached, financially speaking. But that means you should neither be better off, or worse off as a result.
Although I guess on the flip side, I do think that 'raising a family' should be based on some kind of longer term arrangement - whether it's marriage, a contract or a mortgage.
But I guess that comes back to interaction of benefit system with taxation system which is altogether more complicated.
Thanks for that.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 02:02 pm (UTC)I guess that's from the assumption of the difference between household income, vs. individual income?
Partly. It's also based on household expenditure. As a single parent your household expenditure will be nearly as high with or without a partner. And, if the working tax credits for a single parent taper appropriately it encourages single mums to work, which they would otherwise find very difficult. For some reason the Government is big on getting kids into childcare and parents to work rather than making it easy for parents to raise their own kids. But that's another rant entirely...
I'm not saying that marriage is the /only/ way to commit to a long term relationship. That can be done as informally as just saying so to your partner. There needn't be an outward sign of it at all. But it does need to be there.
Although kids usually move out of the parental home at about age 18, I don't think having an 18 year agreement would work. If a marriage is breaking down it needs support and advice and commitment and hard work and respect to keep it together. If those things are not there, simply having a shorter term agreement on the matter won't help. It's one thing to decide, "This till death thing isn't working, so lets re-think this and make a new agreement." It's quite another to start out that way.
You're right that a family is still a family without any children in it. But if the intention or willingness to raise kids is there I would put it under the same category. But then you'd have to distinguish between couples who want kids but can't right now and couples who don't want kids. The only way to be fair on it is to ask "have you made a commitment to stay together for the length of time it would take to raise children if you had them?" An 18 year contract would do the job, but like I said, don't think that would be too popular. So marriage is the obvious way, and "are you living together in the way a married couple lives?" is another, for those people who don't value marriage as an institution.