Why don't you rent a tent and start holding revival meetings?

You show no understanding of history here. Sad for a brit.

Centuries ago in Britain, only powerful families could get divorces.

Well, the spread of prosperity over that time means a large middle class. Their affluence means they behave much the way great families did centuries ago. This always and everywhere happens with economic growth.

You can't have it both ways, lady, advocating conservative economics which promote rapid growth and advocating old ways in social behavior. Growth dissolves old bonds.

Oh yes, you can try, but that puts you squarely with the likes of Franklin Graham or Jimmy Swaggert. Ridiculous.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO, Canada

This is a very different perspective from that of your colleague, Carol Sarler. She asserts that what women really miss in relationship breakdown is nothing but the
" man sized salary ". Fair enough. It seems fairly clear from both viewpoints that commitment has little to do with romantic attachment.
To what, then, are women prepared to commit in order to ensure continued availability of said salary? I humbly suggest that when women discuss commitment it is universally about the commitment they expect to receive rather than what they are offering. Any attempt to clarify this quickly results in a shift of emphasis to rights.

James , Canberra, Australia.

I'm elderly,single,childless and unattachedso can't speak 1st-hand.(Tho' I would love to have married and had a family.)I may be being naive but surely if you think enough of someone to want to live with them(and have children together)then you are committed.If you are,then surely ,for yourselves and "in the eyes of the world"(which matters in a civilised,stable society)you show it by getting married. If you don't want to, then surely you are not comitted enough and therefore certainly shouldn't be considering having a child.

H.D., WsM, UK

The social experiments that are being conducted now in the name of the Nu Labour values of equality, progress and tolerance will undoubtedly reap a pretty bitter harvest in the future...

For anyone with a traditional or Christian perspective it's like watching a wreck occur in front of you while being told that it's actually a piece of art that you're witnessing...

However, popular attitudes will change as they have throughout history and are already changing in some quarters.

That's not judgemental, it's what's commonly known as natural law.

Edmund Sutherland, London, UK

Finally, this 'matter' is on the agenda. I teach the children of 'parents' who run their lives in such a way that should constitute emotional abuse. They sleep around or stay in bed while the child goes to school. They break up each others lives and expect the children just to 'go with the flow'. They commit crime, swear prolificly, are violent, argumentative, derogatory and racist.

How does this truth affect your 'middle-class' sensibilites? Steady yourself, the next one is a stinker:

The 'strain-of-thought' (to use a euphemism) that leads you to conclude that all single parents are on some feminist crusade is the same strain of thought that Gordon Brown uses to defend the current tax-bias against marraige. He said as much when asked about this issue recently, commenting to the effect ( if I remember rightly) that it is unfair to benefit only the children of married parents, as opposed to all children every where. Why not benefit marriage AND all children everywhere???

Cabbage and Ribs, London,

It is most likely the case that cohabiting couples that stay together would stay married if they had chosen to marry in the first place. It is propably also true that coahibiting couples that separate would propablt divirce if they were married.

Neil Davenport, London,

I think you're spot on, Camilla. A number of women I know in their 30s and in long-term, live-in relationships claim not to care if they get married, but I don't buy it. They simply fear that if they admitted it's what they wanted so desperately their man would run a mile. How sad, and I wish they were braver because they know they're compromising. Interestingly, these same women are keenest for details of others' weddings and look longest in the jeweller's window. They're not being true to themselves and, tragically, they're often wasting their fertility. I wouldn't move in with my now husband until we were engaged, and I asked him. Not because I was wanting to 'trap' him, but because I knew it was right. If he had turned me down I certainly wouldn't have settled for having his children until he decided whether he was 'ready'. Marriage is a public commitment where others promise to support you on the journey - surely that's the best chance you can give your kids.

Clare, London,

I'd be interested in what you think of the social liberalism of the serial womaniser or nymphomaniac - married or single - who are also considered fine. They have their freedom - are they happy? But there have been people like that through the ages - human nature - or do we need to look at them from the perspective of values and pass judgement on them?

Camilla Ostman, New York , USA

These are simply Christian values that have existed for more than 2000 years. Please keep it quiet though.......
Jeremy Forbes, London,
******************************
People have been getting married for considerably longer than 2000 years Jez. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this.

phil, london, uk

David Morrison ,married men are healthier than married women.Seems to me that men get something out of it.Married men get kids while married women generally find it impossible to run the house and kids and have a high flying career.For most ordinary mortals it isnt possible.
It would be possible to introduce ideas to children that would worry no one,such as what one looks for in a partner,what qualities are actually necessary.All popular culture tells kids is how to get drunk ,have sex, and have kids.It all may be talked about in school but I'm not sure it is only the how to of sex.Certainly there aren't many TV shows that show how healthy relationships can be exciting as well as sustaining.If married is presented as dull why would anyone bother?

Frances , Tunbridge Wells, Kent

What is interesting is that these are views are prtty much uniform. It is pretty obvious to everyone that value free social liberalism has utterly destroyed millions of lives, particularly at the lower end of society - whilst the gains delivered through the ability to partner hop and move on when anything gets tense seem overall to be outwieghed by the costs.

The ability of the middle class to ignore the destruction of stability and morals in what was the working class is no more because the middle calss is now facing an explosion of violent crime from strangers who simply don't care what harm they cause to others or indeed themselves. There are simply millions of people whose value system is so bankrupt that they can't possibly function productively in society.

The silver lining though of course is that we know we created problem through government policy, so we can reverse this by changing family law and benefits policies.

Verity, London,

Ha! "Middle Class"? No, "New Establishment". The trendy student politicos of the 80's are now formulating policy and opinion.
The New Establishment HATES the middle class. While considering themselves something other and better.

Hayden, Macclesfield,

A similar middle-class squeamishness hangs over the debate (what debate? the middle class establishment won't let us have one!) over unfit parents.
Am I the only one who finds it bizarre that society can identify children who are 'at risk' from their families and then LEAVE THEM THERE?!!
This kind of thing is about the middle classes being able to see themselves as nice, non-judgmental people rather than about the child.

Emily, Sheffield,

These are simply Christian values that have existed for more than 2000 years. Please keep it quiet though.......

Jeremy Forbes, London,

What an astonishing article ! As we all know, the middle-classes
built their social standing and place in society, through judging others against their own tribal instincts. Camilla has simply got wiser , which tends to come with age regardless of class or standing.

pathegreek, teddington, uk

"Maybe this explains why some UK charities now describe children who have never known an adult to put their needs first — a dismal fact that I have found myself coming back to over and over; a selfishness of desperate proportions."

I was particularly struck by these words. The point about marriage is that it was traditionally about a COMMITMENT for better or worse, for richer or poorer etc and that act of commitment involved the idea of giving a high priority to the needs of others... including children.

The attack on marriage which has happened since the sixties has involved promoting the idea that the most important thing in a relationship is the happiness of the individual, not the needs of others. So if you are happier if you leave, then get on and leave! People are now discovering that this damages not only children, but also themselves. Commitment is actually good all round.

Andrew Brown, derby, UK

congratulations on a balanced, well written article. we all delude ourselves from time to time or most of the time. and if we didn't, perhaps we and our parents would never have had any or as many children.
is there a better thing to do in life than raise a family with a chosen partner?
this article makes its point, softly, gently but decisively.
well done.

edward jones, Yeovil, England

In trying so hard not to judge single parents for their situation we turn a blind eye to a fundamental truth: if parents can make their relationship work, the children are much better off if they live together than apart. My experience as a visiting father has made this all too clear, despite my best efforts.

But staying together “for the sake of the children” is now seen as an anachronistic throwback like duty or honour. The retort is often that if you are not happy together your children will be better off if you split up.

Many people still behave as if love is something that happens to you, not something that is under your control in any way. In this age of emotional intelligence we should know better. If a relationship that was once loving becomes difficult it is sometimes possible, to get love back. The key is for both partners to be committed in the first place. Having children without being committed to your relationship – whether you are married or not – is just selfish.

Gideon Mitchell, London, UK

Good article. I agree completely with your comment that squeamish middle-class liberals are being terribly selfish by trying to impose a morally and judgementally flat earth on people who (unlike them) may have fewer recources to cope with it.

The other factor that militates against people getting married is the 60's philosophy of personal happiness being the principal goal to which all should strive - therefore instillng a deep selfishness into the heart of every institution that has accepted that philosophy.

Marriage is fundamentally about being unselfish: promising to make, if necessary, another's welfare more important than ones own. The traditional marriage service with its list of woes: for worse, for poorer, in sickness, all life long was written specifically to accentuate the gravity of this promise. It doesn't sit easily with the pursuit of self-happiness. But paradoxically, it makes those entering into it happier rather more reliably than the big Me.

Roddy Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand

Brilliant

Michael, Toronto, Canada

"Marriage is an open-ended commitment to be faithful to one another, to build a life together, if possible to bring new life into the world, and to nurture it. That is part of what we mean when we speak of ‘the sanctity of marriage.’ In today’s secular culture, we have kept the emotions but abandoned the commitment."

-I wish I could remember who said it, but -- after 28 years of marriage -- I find it to be very true.

Marty Murphy, Brooklyn, NY

Well, you and your friends are sure producing lots of kids.
Doing your bit for global warming, I suppose not.

Mike , Berlin,

I've known all my life that marriage is the best option for society as whole. It's what my parents and grandparents taught me, because it was an assumption that had been transmitted to them after being proven right by several thousand years of human experience. I am sick and tired of living with the social disasters created in a short period by people who prefer more self-indulgent options, so I can only give you grudging thanks for coming into contact with long-known realities so belatedly.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

It's interesting that shacking up, especially going on to have children, isn't nearly so common here in the States. If what the author says is true however, then there should be less divorce here - and there isn't.

Toni Hargis, expat, Chicago, USA

What you say may be right but it is too late. No man should marry. For men, almost all men, marriage is a trap - once married always paying. It matters not that the husband behaves impeccably during a marriage, his ex-wife will take him to the cleaners on divorce. Any reason or no reason it matters not. Family law imposes no discipline in marriage. Divorce on a whim is the modern way.

Children are damaged without having a stable home life giving warmth, love and structure but we have had generations of women telling us how useless men are and such like so that now everyone believes it. Consequently men are perceived as expendable. Worse any man's interest in his own children is considered suspect - we are all of us baddies.

Before we can heal marriage we have to address the perception of men/ fathers and we must have some discipline in family law. The no fault-no blame position and consequent settlements are definitely a factor in men's lack of willingness to marry.

David Morrison, Airdrie, UK

Shona's boyfriend has left her. He said he “wasn't ready”.

Feminism's final victory. Men start carrying on like women.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

There's clearly a fundamental error in your reasoning here. It may not be the marriage that is the buffer between staying together and not, but the strength of the relationship in the first place. Perhaps the 50% of cohabitees who split up were less committed in the first place than those who stay together, piece of paper or not. Given the high divorce rate, I think the 50% of cohabitees who stay together are doing well, how do you explain the fact that they don't need a 'buffer'?

Sophie Bane, Liverpool,

Camilla, didn't you read Carol Sarler's piece on fathers yesterday? They're completely worthless to children, apparently, while women (according to Carol) are principally interested only in the money a man brings in.

So let's just forget about marriage. Women don't need men, and nor do children. And if men avoid marriage, they also avoid being brutalised by the courts on divorce.

Abolish marriage and everyone wins - men, women and children. Just ask Carol Sarler.

David Space, London, UK