I have been married and this time I have no wish to be married . The children weren't protected by marriage the first time , on divorce they were awarded 5p each per week in maintenance by the court. I have now brought those children up ,bought a home . I don't wish to be forced to share that with someone I am not even married to. At what point on living with someone would they start to be entitled to shares??? When is government going to leave us alone .Freedom and democrasy????wait for America to invade!!!

P. James, Neath, Wales

Who says marriages don't work....come down to Indian sub continent and attend some great tamasha(jamboree) of "Great Indian Wedding", with all its pomp n show ,extravagance and hullabullo.Marriage is like festival time and there are festival seasons, some auspicious days and times when people plan for getting married , depending upon the celestial stars and plenary movements. As a tradition, marriage is considered like a ageless, timeless bond, as steadfast and sturdy like the rock of Gibraltar .....but with changing times and cosmopolitan society, the definition of "marriage" as an institution is getting changed. It is becoming fragile and fractious , with short-lived and ephemeral nature.That's the obvious reason why rate of divorce and separation is growing fast and high. Like it or not, willy-nilly, marriage is till date the most acceptable societal norm, unlike' live-in' relationships, lover's commune ,co-habitation and illegal couplings.So marriages still works, with no choices.

Sanjeev Dheer, New Delhi, India

The answer to all this is exceedingly simple. Heretical, but simple. Marriage is a state of mind and no more. People can give it all manner of attributes to suit their own ,presumably jointly held, views but that is their business and that of no one else, certainly not the state.

The simple answer is not to keep finding more groups upon which to heap illogical status and privilege but to abolish all such. End any legal differentiation between the single and the married. Let people find their own solution to their own lives. Marriage is what you make of it, not what others would impose upon you.

D.L. Stephens, York, England

Brilliant article. Would love to think a copy despatched to all MP's.

W.T.Greenland, Liverpool, UK

let's stop picking at nits, shall we?
if the two people who create a new life will not rear the child to be a responsible, caring member of society, the answer is simple: do NOT have a child!
elegant, simple solution.
behold: no police, no jails, no wars .......
modern day garden of eden, anyone?

zane, danville, virginia u s a

I am male, wealthy, single and young. To be honest i think i will have the "snip", hire a maid, and enjoy the "balmy friday nights" as Paul Owen so nicely phrases it !

WIth splits on divorce the norm... why should i bother getting married, nagged, generally bothered and then lose half my money!

Rich Man, London, uk

live apart but be married. have no children. and seperate
bank account. treat each other as mistress and lover. holiday together meet when both wish it. and the result will be joy abounding. should a child appear from your union then you can make the usuall arrangements. for co-habitation
and the best of luck.

max bernstein, london, u.k

It's a good point that over 60% of marriages last. One in the eye for people who think that life-long commitment means a loss of personal freedom / human rights!

And I like the idea that the birth of a child should create a marriage if none already exists... How irresponsible and uncaring are those parents who think that they have any rights compared to those of their child!,.... to be loved and cared for (or at least paid for!!). Obviously a "divorce" should be possible if one of the pair is already married with kids.

All sounds a bit biblical though!

Zwingli, Stetten, Germany

Yes, marriages fail, life is not perfect. The majority of marriages do not fail though, and is by far and away the BEST way of raising a family, and has been proven to be so. Marriage is about commitment, and working through difficulties in your relationship. That is what the marriage vows are all about. Not only that, but you are making a public commitment to each other. People should try a little harder to stick at it. As for the very flippant comment about "for the sake of the children", what better reason do you need to make your relationship work? Sure some relationships fail despite the best efforts, but we should not alter very sound laws around marriage to suit the current mode. In response to TomTom from Leads, cohabiting siblings should ensure thier property rights are maintained by becoming tenants in common, and making decent wills, as should the parents of the bereaved child. Why should the child then be homeless just because his parents were not married?

Gavin Hamilton, Coulsdon, Surrey

Giving rights to people who live together certainly doesn't undermine marriage in any shape of form. There are many reasons that couples don't get married i.e. partners maybe reluctant to marry or refused to marry thought the relationship, there maybe cultural reasons, domestic violence issues... whatever the reasons at present the law is letting them down. For years people have assumed that they had cohabite rights only to find when a long term relationship has broken down that they have no rights what so ever. The changes in cohabite laws will correct the gaps that in the law that have been outstanding for a very long time, this will give equality to both sexes and help the disadvantaged or those left holding the baby. I would argue that the only people who fear these changes are those in power with much to lose and don't like not having the control over their partners. What's the use of having discrimination & equality laws if they're not applied to every arena of life!!!

Nindy Kaur, Newcastle upon Tyne,

What an absurd article! For a start, more than one marriage in two ends in divorce, not one in three. And of those that survive, many are miserable. Secondly, marriage provides security only to children and women who want to "scale down their careers". It provides no protection to breadwinners, still normally men, while stay-at-home dads have not so far benefited from any protection, still automatically losing custody of children on divorce.

Instead, breadwinners risk losing their homes, families and financial security if their partner finds the going a bit tough for whatever reason, or simply decides they fancy someone else.

For marriage to be worthwhile - and more importantly just - it needs to have advantages to all. Our savage divorce laws mean it is often a source of huge risk instead of any kind of stability, especially for men. It benefits the stay-at-home mum far more than the working dad.

David Space, London, UK

Libby Purves is absolutely correct. Surely the whole point about marriage is that it is a declaration by the couple that they wish society to view them as a legally joined couple. Ditto civil partnerships. Co-habitees are surely making a statement that in their view, their relationship has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of society, in which case why on earth should the rest of society recognise that relationship?

Cliff Pooley, Cheltenham,

"...decree that the birth of a child creates, ipso facto, a marriage – with all the property and pension rights which that implies"
That is pure, unadulterated genius. It's been my observation that those least able to look after children are often the most likely to have them and what better way to preclude that possibility or at least sober up the emotional toddlers and co-dependants. Many co-habiting couples are just needy of a companionship but unable or unwilling to meet the full responsibilities of an adult relationship. If they want to live like teenagers for the rest of their lives let them, but once a child is born they should be made to bare the burdens (and pleasures) of that awesome job.

Richard, Woodham, UK

Libby,

brilliantly, sweetly logical as always.

But to be fair, do allow for the ladies to be married to multiple chaps, too, now that the DNA tests show that a lot of the "fathers" are not "the" fathers.

chris, Cork, Ireland

"it could simply decree that the birth of a child creates, ipso facto, a marriage "

And then see how much further the abortion rate rises. Already the rate stands a quarter of all conceptions, as reported today: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/FM1_34/FM1_Conc_Sup_2004.pdf

Do we really want to see this appalling statistic rise further?

Recusant, London,

Putting the sexual preferences of the adult world before the wellbeing of children is the ultimate child abuse of Western Secularism.

George, Stockport, UK

How about turning your suggestion around. Insteasd if saying that the birth of a child creates a legally enforcible marriage, why not say marriage creates a legally acceptable environment in which to have a child, with those breeding outside of such an environment, being penalised in some way. Not necessarily invoking the law every time - perhaps just stigmatising them. Wait a minute -that's how it used to work 50 years ago when most of the social problems involving children currently afflicting the country didn't happen!!!

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

G'ah! Get with the times! Why are people so obsessed with marriage? Does having a knees-up and wearing a meringue suddenly make you a good person? There are a lot of countries where people are less into marriage. And are they lesser countries? No, they are not. In fact, countries like Sweden, where living together instead of getting married has been commonplace for ages, is a heck of a lot more civilised than Britain.

Please drag yourself out of the 50's and into the 21st century.

I wholeheartedly agree with Chris from Hong Kong.

starling, Lancaster,

live apart but be married. have no children. and seperate
bank account. treat each other as mistress and lover. holiday together meet when both wish it. and the result will be joy abounding. should a child appear from your union then you can make the usuall arrangements. for co-habitation
and the best of luck.

max bernstein, london, u.k

Putting the sexual preferences of the adult world before the welfare of children is the ultimatie child abuse of the secular society.

George, Stockport, UK

The divorce rate covers serial offenders; yet this Charter of Concubine Rights does nothing for siblings sharing a parental home nor an unmarried child rendered homeless by a parent's death and confiscatory death taxes.

Clearly you can only have "family in law" but not in utero

TomTom, Leeds, England

The statistic of one marriage in three failing is a loose statistic and as such is not accurate. This measure of failure from a government statistical standpoint is only based on marriages that actually end in divorce.

The reality is that there are many more marriages that have failed that have not led to divorce - many partners in a marriage stay together in deep unhappiness, out of fear of leaving, for financial dependency reasons or "for the sake of the children".

Many other marriages have broken down and the partners have moved away and live apart. So the bland assumption that two thirds of marriages succeed is a naive one.

Chris, Hong Kong,

Well said and what a fantastic idea about creating marriages upon creating a child. Can we backdate such a law? Up and down the country we would have millions of 'marriages' overnight and the feckless hordes would be given something to think about as they drunkenly fumble this balmy Friday night.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

I agree with everything you have to say about marriage , and the good thing that it should be. Howver, if we want to preserve the bset that marriage stands for, we need to make sure that the law upholds its basic principles, even in divorce.
Unfortunately that is not currently the case. The current system is designed to line lawyers pockets in a drawnout game, where he or she who can put the other under the most duress, (either through financial pressure, or worse, using the children as pawns in their game )wins. In many cases an individual who floors themselves to ensure security and stability for the children loses out to a partner only interested in grabbing as much as they can. The extreme cost of the system means that a fair hearing in court is beyond the reach of most. The time taken to get a hearing is excessively long, and worst of all, according to my divorce lawyer, "the law isnt here to uphold whats morally right, ...!"
Overhaul this before extending it to cohabitees.

KW, Suffolk,

Well done for being so clear about the strengths of marriage.
There is a wrong that needs righting - too many mothers are abandoned by unscrupulous fathers who take the money and fail to meet their parental responsibilities. Actually the Law Commission have made a superb attempt to address this issue. However I fear the unintended consequences of these reforms may lead to many more injustices.
The one vital area that the proposals do not address is men's commitment. New research shows that marital stability is tied to men's - but not women's - commitment. Marriage works largely because men make clear decisions about their future. If the new proposals encourage men to be more deliberative, then they will work. I just find it hard not to conclude that men will simply become ever more elusive.
The anti-commitment comments, mostly by men, following your leader yesterday support this. I don't see legal reform as the solution.
Harry Benson, Bristol Community Family Trus

Harry Benson, Bristol, UK

Two thirds succeed. You are right to emphasise that.
Still more would succeed if the prevailing attitude was that effort must be made and that marriages should work and failure is a tragic abberation.
This doesn't mean putting up with an abusive partner, this means the partner behaving properly and not being abusive, or adulterous. Some marriages will fail for those very good reasons if the other partner renages on the promises but this need only be a smaller proportion.
More articles like this will turn the tide and reinforce the idea that marriage is the way, and must be given every support, and that effort must be mutual.
Incidently living together sharing a "common budget and bed" did, ipso facto, create marriages in 1930s Soviet Russia. A distinction was drawn between registered and unregistered marriages for certain purposes. Men did find themselves pursued for maintenance by several wives and it got very complicated which may be why the law changed.

CA Metcalfe, East London/Essex,

So women can take easier, more fulfilling jobs while the men have to go out and bust a gut to pay for them?

Darren, Brighton,

libby, you are a brave woman in a liberal world. i applaude you.

people who have not been married should never question the deep and resounding vows of marriage.

domestic cohabitation is not marriage, i know, i married the man i lived with and if one cherishes the promise they make, they know marriage is tough work; cohabitation is just living together.

fi, mountain view, usa

I had a Civil Partnership ceremony with my partner of 20 years in March 2006, In April this year he died. Whilst there is still a legal minefield to go through I am mostly protected because of the CP. My Brother-in-law died 5 weeks after my partner; he never married his partner of 35 years. She had an abusive first marriage and would not countenance it. She is left with nothing. She cannot even inherit provisions in my partners will; they will go to my brother-in-laws children of his first marriage. It is hard and unfair but in her article Libby Purves is right, even if you have a moral objection to marriage, make provisions don't stick your head in the sand.

barry, Hornchurch, Essex