I've both cohabited and married and, for me, marriage is far more of a commitment in every possible way -- financial, emotional, spiritual, social. But it's also harder and needs society's support.

Nancy, London,

Marriage is between a man and women.Thats the way God made it and the way it will be forever.
Same sex unions are unholy,because it is not,nor will ever be excepted by God,this is what is truly a man-made law are rule. Those who support or condone this will have to answer to the Lord Himself.

Dee, Lafayette , usa

Marriage is between a man and women.Thats the way God made it and the way it will be forever.
Same sex unions are unholy,because it is not,nor will ever be excepted by God,this is what is truly a man-made law are rule. Those who support or condone this will have to answer to the Lord Himself.

Dee, Lafayette , usa

to be married these days is not politically correct, in fact society in general views it with derision, it perfectly acceptable for same sex partners to form civil partnerships and fashionable for men and women to be unmarried but marriage - oh dear! how awful- especially when you are better off financially for not being married ,ie less tax more benefits,more family tax credits of course marriage is on the decline. Nu Labour does not support marriage.

sf, yorks,

A tax on batchelors? I thought Labour had just introduced one, at least on those earning less than £18500 a year.
Whether that will result in their getting married or voting for another party remains to be seen.

Dave, Southampton, UK

People got married and STAYED married in the past because there were few alternatives if you wanted Society’s approval. Single men over a certain age were regarded with suspicion and single women with pity. Nowadays, we are literally spoilt for choice. Consequently someone who in the past would have been deemed an ideal partner, is now dismissed as being too old, not handsome enough, rich enough etc. Men think they have a right to a partner on a par with Angelina Jolie, failing to realise that they seldom come anywhere near matching up to Brad Pitt. The same holds true for women who want the perfect male partner with the looks, height and bank balance of Brad Pitt, even though they are no match for Angelina. More realism in men and women when it comes to partners, married or co-habiting, might mean more happy couples in general. But as long as we remain shrilly insistent that our partners meet ALL our absurdly high expectations, then marriage will fail as will all other relationships.

Kate, Melbourne, Australia

Hi Tom, London -

I would agree with you that assuming that a marriage will fail is not a good outlook. But since the consequences are so severe it's still worth bearing in mind that they are possible.

It's not a great outlook to assume that you'll break a leg skiing, but it would be foolhardy not to take out insurance just in case you do. Essentially this is what a pre-nup is.

Since many people's main or only asset is their house, and this generally goes to the wife, a shocking number of men do lose everything. If it was their house in the first place, this is especially galling.

There are only two solutions. Either only marry someone who is, and will always be, as well-off as yourself, or take a pre-nup to try to protect yourself. Or, of course, don't get married. Read websites of a few solicitors and it's shocking.

By the way Tom, you never said whether you were divorced...?

Jon, Winchester,

Having recently parted from my partner of 8 years I can only thank my lucky stars that I never did give in and marry him. Had I done so I would now be faced with selling my home in order to finance a divorce and its consequences. At 51 I will never marryand I love my solitary single life. My mother (happily married) told me never to put myself in a position where I would be dependent on a man - wise words, thanks Mum.

Fiona, Cadiz, Spain

As a soon to be 18 year old and a student about to go to uni in september i both would love to get married but at the same time i am absolutely terrified. Marriage is definitely going out of fashion even though in juxtaposition weddings are getting bigger and bigger. Financially after having studied at King's College London for 4 years, I will have massive financial debts and will not be able to afford many thing e.g. get onto the property ladder and thus have the foundations of the security that i would think necessary for marriage. Maybe this is why a marriage rates are decreasing so raplidly? I agree with all of the comments posted, particularly with cty from china and iana from spain: people are becoming more and more selfish but maybe this is because it is becoming the necessary as living conditions, financial conditions etc are becoming more and more difficult?

Melissa, Stourbridge, West Midlands, UK

To Rosh, of London, I would say that "commitment" helps the will when the will is weak or under strain - a problem that affects us all, whether we're doing the cleaning, sorting out a quarrel, helping somebody with a serious disability or identifying the initial mistake in a tangled web of mistakes. When it's sorted you can crash out with confidence into the love and support of the person to whom you have made your commitment. It works.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

people are becoming more selfish in now days, especially under the living pressure,. and for most people. marriage is all about responsibility and given. if they could get most of the happiness in marriage from cohabitation and do not have to bear on any responsibility. the marriage rate slumped down is not a surprise for me

cty, zhejiang, china

Well I really don't know if marriage is out of fashion. I am in my 20s and I know countless girls that are obsessed in finding the one and getting married. Of course, one really can't get married until one has reached the early 30s, minimum. Unless daddy pays for everything and whilst he is at it, buys me a house then I can think of getting married. Marriage seems to be something more serious, something that you are supposed to do when you have the job, the house and planning to have kids. When you are retting a flat and just co-living, it does really seem serious. But that's my view, obviously there are many couples that are very happy to live like that.

Iana, Madrid, Spain

Endless discussion on marriage is as a result of lack of legal, socially acceptable alternative form of contract between two adults of opposite sex. Besides emotional and/or romatic attachment, issues of wealth and children are not clear and hence most divorces end up in court. If all laws were to be clear and transperent, marriage or no marriage would not have been a big issue to live a great life

madhukar, Dubai, UAE

I'm not surprised that there is a tendency for marriage to be something only for the older and wealthier. As a 30 year old woman who has just got engaged I cannot believe how much it can cost to get married. But I think it's a price worth paying. I've noticed a few subtle changes since I've been wearing my engagement ring. I get the impression that I'm viewed less as a "bit of nice totty - and possible affair material" by the married men in my office and have also gained the trust of the other (married) women (less likely to steal their husbands). And that's not to mention the warm fuzzy feeling I get when I think that my boyfriend of 7 years (at least for now) feels like spending the rest of his life with me. Had you asked me a year ago when I was cohabiting I would have said the only difference between that and marriage was the peice of paper but now I feel very differently.

Tina, London,

sorry, correction...

I find it funny that people still assume marriage constitutes a commitment. What exactly is so binding about it? Fact is, come the point when an individual recognises that they would rather incur the costs of divorce than spend the remainder of their life WITH someone they would rather not, there is only one option - that is divorvce. To say that "commitment" is binding outside of the will of the individual is some grand delusion that has some lingered in western society.

...Marriage should never have been the centrepiece for commitment, child-birth should!

Rosh, London, UK

I find it funny that people still assume marriage constitutes a commitment. What exactly is so binding about it? Fact is, come the point when an individual recognises that they would rather incur the costs of divorce than spend the remainder of their life without someone they would rather not, there is only one option - that is divorvce. To say that "commitment" is binding outside of the will of the individual is some grand delusion that has some lingered in western society.

Of course eastern society is somewhat different. The costs of divorce are FAR more substantial including social ostracization and stigma, and the difficulty of moving away from a dependent situation. Note the crucial distinction - social factors, not an individual commitment to commitment.

The comfort factor noted in the article may well exist, but it is the product the imagination. Nothing real.

Marriage should never be removed as the centrepiece for commitment, child-birth should!

Rosh, London, UK

You have fallen into a statistical fallacy by imbuing population statistics as cause-and-effect reality.

You say, "There are the obvious, proven, statistical advantages of marriage - you live longer, you're healthier, your children are better educated and happier ..."

The statistical methods used to gather those data don't prove that at all. Cross-sectional surveys only report what they find at a certain point in time across a selected sample. What you CAN say is that when you take a snapshot of all people, the ones who are healthier, and more stable and secure are more often married. It does not to support the notion that marriage CAUSES those qualities. A man who is a habitual gambler and alcoholic is less likely to be seen as a prime husband material, and less likely to be married. Blaming his unhappiness and poor health on the fact that he's not married ignores the reasons he's unmarried.

Saying marriage makes you healthier, happier and better educated is unfounded.

Jeff, Los Angeles, California, USA

As usual a sweeping generalisation identifies the exceptions.

I'm not married to my partner, we have a toddler and another on the way. We're both graduates and have good jobs.

We'd like to get married, just not enough to actually go out and arrange it. It's expensive, you know?

The quite happiness and security you feel from being married (so I read here) we feel already.

Chris, Worthing,

Too risky these days, a pretty poor bargain by any standard, it's entirely one sided, why should an ex husband provide money that in theory at least, provides support for the rest of her life, while she provides nothing for the husband's future.
Take a look at the marriage vows, it's a two way street, BOTH parties VOW to care for each other !

Clive Burghard, LANCING, ENGLAND

I have been married going on 18 years. It is not outmoded and my children are much more secure than those who don't know who Daddy of the week is going to be.

Marriage is great for adults, but even better and necessary for the security and happiness of the children. Just think of the easy access that child predators get through lonely mommy. The stats for abuse of broken homes is staggering.

And women who think it is liberating not having a commitment, ha, ha! Joke's on you. You get all the burden with none of the comforts, same for the guys.

J, Santa Barbara, CA, US

Marriage provides security? Since when? As well as being overtly snobbish this article is complete rubbish. And the middle class are the worst offenders in terms of hypocrisy. I have lost count of the number of middle class couples I know, where the husband has an affair and the wife feels obliged to turn a blind eye simply because she can't bear to lose all the trappings that go with her 'secure' marriage. It's pathetic. There are no guarantees when it comes to relationships, marriage certificate or not.

Lynn Armstrong, Edinburgh,

If Eric Campbell below is right and 'marriage is an outmoded method of social control', then why doesn't the government advertise it more? I mean, I've seen infinite leaflets encouraging individuals to go into higher education, as better educated people bring a higher level of output to the economy (although with risks of higher inflation, as a result of lower unemployment). However, I haven't seen one single government campaign (via brochures, ads etc.) to promote marriage. If the state can control us better if we're married, Eric, why don't they push us into the commitment path? Or is silence a reverse psychology stratagem?

My other argument against Eric's view is that marriage is costy for the government: it's asking for liquidity (money demand) in the forms of mortgages and (family) car loans, it's lobbying for higher wages and better taxation, and is asking for better unemployment and child benefits, plus student loans when the children go into further study -to name but a few...

Petronela, Durham, United Kingdom

Tim,

pre-nups in the UK are ignored by the legal system manipulated by the feminists.

As a man, if you want a fair split you best not get married.

Edward, London,

Marriage is an outmoded method of social control. The arrogance of either Church or State thinking they have the right to grant a 'licence' for people to decide whether or not they will live together is breathtaking. As is the arrogance of this article.

eric campbell, harrogate, uk

In the US we have pre-nuptial agreements in which there is essentialy a no fault clause introduced into the relationship. If the marriage should go south, ownership of property is split along pre-designated lines. I have not seen anyone here who bemoans the "cost" of divorce mention this, are they not allowed in the UK?

By the way, gentlemen. If finding a non-flighty, non-feminism poisoned, marriage minded woman is as difficult in the UK as the US, has anyone looked into these Eastern European marriage sites? Does anyone know someone who has (and been successful, of course)? I am considering that option myself and would like some feedback , please.

God Bless England

Tim, Draper, Utah / USA

As a single nineteen year old male, can i just say that refreshingly for me i can't wait to make that commitment to an individual that binds me legally, emotional and spiritually to another person. But maybe my optimism is unfounded, but i still believe marriage is the ultimate sacrifice you can make to another individual and to yourself

Jon, Brighton, Sussex

Since the 1960s,the liberal left has increasingly attacked marriage and other traditional values whilst continuously promoting lifestyle politics in the name of freedom and choice. In the 1980s Thatcher openly declared that there is no such thing as society only individuals pursuing their own ends.
Today we see a consumer led individualism that is unstoppable. The "me society" is a permanent feature of modern Western liberal democracies and will continue to be met by superficial social engineering that cannot remedy the absense of real social cohesion. In the midst of fragmentation, competing interests and diversity, the time has come to declare that some values are superior than others. Let us start with marriage. Is marriage between a stable, loving and responsible man and women superior than the alternatives we are constantly compelled to accept? I often ask myself this when working with problem indivividuals and their families. It's impossible to be non-judgemental!

k mason, stevenage, Britain

We are being brought to our knees because our "rich" nation cannot afford the chaos we have created. We are paying the price for insistence on our supposed "rights" and anger over "past wrongs". We have abandoned our children in our pursuit of personal fulfillment and greed. Our present loss of freedom and insecurity is only a down payment on what is coming.

jeremy males, evanston, , Illinois

"With the average cost of a wedding about the same as a deposit on a house (£15,000-25,000)"...

Interesting that people often say that - I think the perception that a wedding ought to be an expensive ego-show is one of the things that may put people off it when they're not in a position to afford a grand reception and all the gimmicks. In celebrity magazines there's a weekly pantomime-wedding with WAGs and ex-pop stars as bridesmaids. TV is as bad - "Friends" dedicated a series of twenty-five episodes to the planning of Monica and Chandler's wedding. And EastEnders wheels out a wedding every Christmas only to split the characters up by Easter .

Too much emphasis on the wedding and not enough on the *marriage* - if people see the only difference between cohabitation and marriage as "a [expensive] party" or "a piece of paper", no wonder they're not keen. And no surprises at the high divorce rate among the wealthy who married for those same, wrong reasons.

Amy Allen, London,

In Romania, during communist governing, there used to be a both a tax for bachelors and bachelorettes (for those over 25 years old) and a tax for married couples who did not have children, regardless of the reason. Of course, that was an absurd measure, but there's a trivia fact.

It's amazing how fewer people chose not to lead a married life. They should maybe think of their unborn children.. if this was a 'trend' that's been hanging around forever, then neither of us would be here now, reading, commenting and getting mesmerized by those who choose a safer but duller situation.

As for the high rate of divorces, it must be due to a change of morals and principles, a simpler rather than more restrictive frame of mind. Commitment has to do with one's view on life, but fewer people are good communicators, and I think that's what one should start working on, if they feel there's something missing...


Petronela, Durham city

Petronela, Durham, UK

When you look at how shoddily (generally speaking) men are treated, in a divorce situation, where children are involved. It is no wonder that men resist marriage. It is interesting to note that women resist marriage, as well. Good for them!

There are always particular circumstances where men have behaved in a disgusting fashion. The reverse is also true. However and according to all known facts, men are, usually, discriminated against in the courts.

No and before the attack starts, I'm not speaking through any experience of my own. However, I am referring to documented experiences and those of my friends. My female friends share my point of view and despair of the situation because, they say, that it's the children who suffer.

This should not be a battle between the sexes, it should be a battle for common sense.

Marc, Paris,

I got married because I wanted the same name as my children. As a teacher, I know there is a subtle bias against black single mothers, as it presumed you are if your surname is different. I was also told by a 'respectable' airline that I could not make reservations for my partner and daughter, because my name was not the same.

Marriage has made a difference. I am almost treated like an endangered species - Caribbean and married - wow! The benefits system is stacked against families with fathers present, why does the government bleat on about single parent families, then make it nigh on impossible for any other kind to get assistance in rough times? So marrieds and cohabitees on low incomes lie if they need help. If single parenting is really the scourge of our time, make it easier for people to get married!

Diane M, London,

As a 30-yr-old bachelor I could be accused of bias here, but maybe a tax on divorcees (or at least a heavy fine) would be fairer? It only seems to take one major argument for today's spoilt generation to go running to mummy and daddy declaring 'irreconcilable differences'.

By the way, before anyone rushes to condemn that suggestion, I'm only joking; but young people really do expect everything to be handed to them on a plate these days, and have seemingly little inkling that a marriage requires work and compromise just like any other relationship; immediate gratification is routinely prioritised above long-term happiness.

Adam Neilson, Birmingham,

It was the Hardwicke [First Mariage] Act of 1753 that made a distinction between common law marriages and those conducted in a church. Before then marriage was a contract between two people who decided to live together. This placed obligations on their local community should either party die, especially as regards to the welfare of children. These ‘common law’ marriages had the sanction of various religions and it wasn’t until the Reformation that there was any real attempt by the catholic church to enforce it being one of the sacraments. There is some suggestion this was to raise even more capital.

Up until 1753 the only function of a church was to ‘bless’ the marriage although posh people tended to do it differently. So all one can say about the common view of marriage nowadays is that it is reverting to the historical norm, posh people do it their way, the hoi polloi do it without bells and whistles.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

First you say

>Those who marry today tend to be older and wealthier. It seems that society is separating along socioeconomic lines


next you say


>There are the obvious, proven, statistical advantages of marriage - you live longer, you're healthier, your children are better educated and happier


Lets make a cognitive leap and side step the marraige part:-


Those who "live longer and healthier, that have children that are better educated and happier today tend to be older and wealthier. It seems that society is separating along socioeconomic lines"

Go figure..

David Holden, Chester, Cheshire

If I have a few bob, why marry someone who can get bored with me and help myself to my savings? No thanks.

QX, London, UK

But are not tall he same trends evident in most other European and North American countries? I believe they are a fact of our times, regretable though they may be .

Bill, Guildford, UK

Carolyn,

To clarify:

I find it worrying that the received wisdom from my civic centre was that I would be best off if I did not marry/ cohabit with my partner, and worrying that it was assumed that all relationships are transient and unreliable. The strong implication was that my partner and I should cunningly maximise the benefits we were eligible for by keeping our relationship legally unrecognised. Surely this is a bad attitude?

You need to put it in context, too. If you are unemployed and hard up, you will face the constant suggestion that you should deny yourself 'luxuries'. In a community where unemployment is high, this insidious attitude can make it seem that marriage is a luxury only the well-off can justify or aspire to.

*I* don't disagree that marriage should be about love. But if local authorities present marriage as the idiot's option, the loving and commited will find other means of expressing those feelings.

Lucy, Chester-le-Street,

Seems that UK-based men are starting to realise that a physical heterosexual relationship within the UK is a risk too far. Misguided, Feminism generated legislation means that a woman who wakes up with a bad case of buyer’s remorse has been given carte blanche to scream "Rape". Alcoholic beverage consumption being the concomitant of coercion and coercion being a function of rape. And after a decade of marriage, Feminism has encouraged women to considered themselves a victim and become fractious. Thus to precipitate separation and divorce, with the inevitable drain on emotional and financial resources.
So here's the plan boys: Make taking a foreign-born spouse an integral component of your emigration plans. Trust me, it's a win-win while the alternative, namely a British wife/live-in female partner and residing in UK is a lose-lose. Everyone's miserable

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan

I grew up not so very long ago when it was cool to reject marriage and commitment. I have no shame in saying that I am very concerned now because I am unmarried, without partner, and have no children.

But even now as im hitting my late 30's and meet a women of similiar age I still hear them rejecting marriage, commitment and children at the very first date. I have heard them say they will wait until 40 or more before thinking about having children giving not a second thought to the difficulties at that age. And Ive heard the "I will never want children" all to frequently. But when I meet eitheir of those two groups I dont hang around because theres no point.

I want marriage and kids. I need a purpose in my life that doesnt evolve round only me.

Robert.S, Aberdeen, UK

Exactly what kind of 'psychic security' does the risk of losing half or more of everything you've ever worked for provide?

Malcolm Lochhead, London, UK

With the average cost of a wedding about the same as a deposit on a house (£15,000-25,000) and with the Church powerless to enforce the social stigma of a "sinful union", cohabiting in a committed, stable relationship was the obvious choice for my parter and I.

Happily, we're not the ones banging on about being unable to get on the property ladder.

Matthew, Bath,

It's not a matter of "fashion", it's a matter of sense. Look up "marriage strike". Feminism has gone far beyond its initial purposes, and the consequences of its inbalanced efforts for "gender equality" are only just beginning. I'm a 22 year old male, and I intend to never enter into an official marriage. Doing so is emotional and financial suicide these days.

Edward, London,

I am 42 and unmarried. Reflecting on the past 20 years I can see a pattern which has its roots in the way my father treated me and my mother (which I was blind to). My father is a bully and puts conditions on love, and has manipulated me for most of my life. I marvel at my friends whose fathers love them. I actually have no idea if my father loves me. And I spent my childhood trying to win his affection, which translated into trying to win men's affection resulting in bad relationships that left me bruised and hurt. But guess what? After being single for several years, I got in touch with an old flatmate of mine, who is pursuing me...it's a strange feeling, but one I am getting used to. Fingers crossed!!

Anna, Glasgow, Scotland

There used to be a direct tax on bachelors over 30 until 1970s in my native Poland. Some politicians there recently actually tried to bring it back. Any excuse is good to raise taxes...

Adam, London, UK/Poland

With divorce law being onerous and inequitable it won't take too much longer for the middle classes to catch on to the fact that marriage is nothing more than a legal con trick in which the less able are able to prevail and benefit from the efforts of those more able than themselves.

Susan T, Peterborough,

Alternatively, it can be said that people get married because they are not sufficiently secure psychologically (or financially) to sail their own ship.

David, Cheshire,

I think that in the past, many people got married for society's sake in the sense that premarital sex was frowned upon.

They got married so that they could have a sex life.

Once the term 'illicit sex' no longer had any significance, then there was no need to 'put on a show' for the families' benefit or to spare them public embarrassment.

The solution, if one is really needed, is to revive the religious norm (whatever religion (with a few exceptions, they seem to have this rule in common)) that it is wrong not to wait.

But I think society is too far gone for that.

Deborah Yiuwing, Great Yarmouth,

why i wonder do women pursue the men who dont want to marry when there are many men who would love to i wonder? most women these days want a their tall dark and handsome prince who has a powerful job and good money.
whoever said 'being the right person is as important as finding the right person' was a sage.

a , London, London

It's all about "benefits" silly. A "single mother" is a biological impossibilty.

Tony, Rugby,

There are a lot of unhappily single women out there who would love to be married, but with so many of today's young men unwilling to "lose their freedom", marriage is simply not an available option. A lack of marriage-inclined men is the problem.

Alexandra, London,

In Ireland, about 20 years ago, I was told that a single man (did it include women?) paid higher rates of income tax than a married man. Can any Irish confirm?

Dave, Wrexham,

Chance would be a fine thing for this unwilling singleton.

J. Wilkes, Gloucester,

Class-I don't believe so.
The trend is clearly related to values.
Lefty Liberals don't get married ;have children out of wedlock;have employment issues ;have "alternative"lifestyles etc,etc.
Those who have conservative(not the Conservative party)values get married ;get and keep jobs;save money;have a single family structure ;are people of faith;take responsibility for their actions etc etc.
The white underclass used to have conservative values,but the attack on these values by the lefty liberals have taken a toll and weaned them away to a life of welfare dependency;underachievement;ignorance;promiscuity;etc etc.

C.Elder, Boston, Mass.,USA

Well Jon, if anyone assumes at the start of the marriage that it will fail, a lifelong commitment in the form of marriage is probably not for them.

And I think that to say many people lose everything on divorce is a gross exageration. Divorce usually means both people are worse off, but very few people actually lose everything. It does, however, bemuse me that divorce is used as a reason not to get married.

Tom Edwards, London,

And as Ms Mills has recently shown, there is already a Very Heavy tax associated with marriage. Regardless of one's own behaviour, there is always the possibility of an enormous bill being landed on one by the divorce system to which marriage makes you liable.

I know many people who can never marry, or never marry again, because they cannot take that risk. It will take most of the rest of my life to pay off the divorce from my adulterous and spendthrift ex-wife. Many people are not as lucky, and may lose everything.

The situation is so bad that people are writing their own agreements to try to avoid the law. And that's just the ones who can afford it. Remember that Paul McCartney can afford it. It's people with only a little money who really can't afford to lose it!

No wonder people don't want to marry. What's in it for me?

Jon, Winchester,

Lucy, you should get married for love and commitment and not for money. If you cannot risk marriage financially, then maybe you are using it as excuse to avoid commitment.

Carolyn, Surbiton,

If marriage is so great why does the government have to intervene to save it?

Esther, London,

To Arthur, Newcastle - the government certainly does not make it more economical to be single! I am single and have lived alone (in homes I own) for the last 6 or 7 years. I've recently had to take in a lodger as living alone was becoming financially crippling. The bills of two people - on two salaries - in one home are only a fraction more than for one person.

Council tax single-occupancy discount is one case in point. Is one person really 75% of two?

Laura Porter, London,

The underclass, as you put it, have not always historically married. Certainly in Victorian times, this was not common, so to pretend that this is an unknown experience for society isn't true.

Anyway, marriage isn't the cause of a successful relationship, it is just a possible symptom. People in stable relationships are more likely to get married, but it is not the case that marriage in itself ensures security in a previously unstable relationship. Certainly a 45% divorce rate would indicate otherwise.

A stable relationship, at which both partners work at, can remain stable whether in marriage or in cohabitation. Instead of encouraging everyone to enter into a legal status that might not be suitable for them, we should concentrate on the reasons why people might be in unstable, unhappy, desperate relationships - and the answer won't be that it's because they're not married.

Tom Edwards, London,

Welll, as far as the more reluctant to say the word "yes" in the early stage of a relationship, is the woman (not the man) maybe a heavy tax on spinsters might be more appropriate. What will be the next step against the man? Free scissors licences?

Neile, Avon,

To John Scott, I think you should consider the fact that the government have intervened already, by making it more economical to be 'single' (or atleast not live together, or marry).

Weirdly, it used to be the other way around, in that you got a better tax break if you were married. No idea why they changed it. Probably just wanted to butt in for the sake of it.

Arthur, Newcastle,

Augustus also threatened the deprivation of citizenship for 'inappropriate' relationships and sought to punish people who did not produce enough children. Do we really want the state intervening in our lives to that extent?

Please, always stop and think: is this an appropriate sphere in which the government should intervene? Bar obvious issue such as security, the simple answer is no. In which case, much greater justification needs to be given for any governmental involvement at all. We would all be much happier if politicians and civil servants remembered this.

John Scott, London,

I wish I could agree marriage - or formalised commitment - is simply 'good' for us. But the socio-economic divide that Melanie McDonagh cites deserves more than a passing mention.

I am an educated middle-class woman with a degree from a good university. I live and share expenses with my partner (he is 21; I am 23), and we hope to get married. On querying my council tax recently, I was advised that my partner and I (given our relationship is not legally registered) should apply separately for benefits, to maximise the money we receive.

Where I live in the North-East, many people are unemployed, not through choice, but because there are simply too few jobs. I expect I will soon move away, get a job, and get married. I am lucky.

What about the people who would love the 'pyschic security' of marriage, yet do not feel they can risk it financially?

Lucy, Chester-le-Street, England