Letters | 12 July 2018

Marriage proposal

Sir: Matthew Parris’s proposal that marriage be abolished, and civil partnerships installed in its place, is absurd (‘The term “marriage” needs to be untangled’, 7 July). This would not simplify the ambiguous connotations that the word ‘marriage’ has come to hold; rather, it would diminish its importance at a time when it is greatly needed. Committed and legally recognised relationships are a salient component of a functioning society: providing a stable environment in which to raise children, and serve as a welcome source of privacy in an era where such a concept is scarce. However, the distinctive quality of matrimony — at least in a Christian sense — is that it is a sacrament: the establishment of a covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God.

If Britain were to replace marriage with a secular alternative, one of the features that defines our country as Christian would be relinquished. Civil partnerships would grant the state greater influence in private life, while paving the way for aspects of our culture and history — which have formed much of the social and moral basis for modern society — to be fully abolished. Those who value such matters ought to be intransigent on this issue.
James Smith

Liverpool

The childcare crisis

Sir: Tanya Gold’s statement that there is an au pair drought in the UK (‘A cry for help’, 30 June) is something of an understatement. Au pairs have long been the secret weapon of the middle classes. Private nannies are largely the domain of the very wealthy, whilst the majority of families make use of day nurseries and a dwindling childminder market, recently stripped of many capable souls who have buckled under the weight of Ofsted.

Ms Gold may be ‘grateful that my son is now at school’, but who drops him off and picks him up? If pre-school childcare options in the UK are costly and random at best, then wrap-around care options for school-aged children are a shambles.