Marriage

Never mind all this gay stuff — when is parliament going to get on with the marriage legislation we really need? I’m talking about the law banning men from proposing to their girlfriends in public. It’s been happening for years. Local radio was always the worst offender. ‘Gareth, I think you’ve got something you want to say to Julie, haven’t you?’ the vapid Simon Bates wannabe would leer. In fact I blame Simon Bates for the whole phenomenon: he legitimised this mawkish sharing of supposedly private emotion. Those of you old enough to remember his ‘Our Tune’ feature on Radio 1 will know what I mean. To the rest of you

I was sitting on the stoop with a cigarette after dinner while my wife browsed the television channels to see if there was anything we might want to watch. Eventually she called out: ‘There’s Treblinka: Death Camp Survivors. Or The Vicar of Dibley. Up to you – I can’t decide.’ I just thought I’d share that domestic moment with you.

The right of gays to have a civil marriage in a non-religious service is once again an issue. There have been large and slightly violent protests in Paris as well as on-going judicial contortions in the US. I know my support for gay marriage appears to put me in a minority among conservatives. But perhaps I could ask a question of my opponents? One of the things that opponents of gay civil marriage always say is that gay marriage would ‘undermine’, ‘distort’ or otherwise ‘demean’ existing marriage. Many people – continuing to mix up civil and religious marriage – claim that the ‘sanctity’ of religious heterosexual marriage will be undermined

Watching the shipwreck of the Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce court case has made me feel guiltily relieved that, at the age of 42, I haven’t yet married. The operatic scale of the disaster makes it appear emblematic of all the other couples who make each other unhappy all the time in smaller, less dramatic ways. That two people can bind themselves together for life, raise five children together and yet remain so emotionally unintelligent about each other and the world in which they live says several things to me. It makes me think that they may have got married for the wrong reasons, most likely because they were young

There’s another one of those fatuous “studies” in the papers today, based upon that favourite newspaper device, the false correlation. This time it’s about marriage; if you want to make your marriage work, move to Dorset, because part of it has the highest number of married couples in the country and they are more likely to stay married. The implication is that there must be something magical about Dorset, and that if you moved to, say, Wimborne, or Curry Rivel, any marital problems you might have had would immediately evaporate. Of course the reason more people are married in Dorset is that the average age of the population there is

The disadvantage of live phone-in radio programmes is precisely that you don’t get to weigh your words. No doubt Nick Clegg would have expressed himself a bit differently on the subject of a transferable married couple’s tax allowance if he hadn’t had the subject thrown at him by a caller. But in response to a question on the issue, he said: ‘The more people will look at this, the more they will think… why should you be giving, whatever it is, £3 a week to married couples?’  Naturally, people took this as indicative of just how out of touch the ruling elite is from everyone else… three pounds a week?

I hope you all had a splendid Christmas and New Year. Mine was, if you care about these things, more eventful and hectic than I’d planned or otherwise anticipated. Each January I tend to have a Wodehouse Week, returning to the great man for cheery sustenance in the bleak midwinter.  It will be a rum thing, reading Wodehouse while engaged to be married. Anyway, back on the grid now and the great thing about writing and blogging is that it’s a commendable distraction from wedding planning. The grindstone never seemed so appealing. Time too, I suppose, to post the answers to my Christmas Quiz. So here they are. Hope you

The problem about relative poverty is precisely its relativity. The child poverty index, which measures whether a family’s income is below 60 per cent of the average, is a case in point; when incomes go down, bingo, so does child poverty. Which means that one sure fire if controversial way to improve the Government’s child poverty record would be to drive down everyone’s earnings. Iain Duncan Smith, Work and Pensions Secretary, made just this point yesterday when he made a speech about whether the definition should be rather wider than it is. ‘As we saw last year,’ he observed, ‘when the child poverty level dropped by two per cent –

It has taken the police nine years to secure convictions for murder against the parents of 17 year old Shafilea Ahmed. Murdered by her parents in an honour killing, they spun a web of lies to conceal the true circumstances of her death for years. A wall of silence surrounded the case until 2007 when police finally made a breakthrough, and charged the parents. Cases like Shafilea’s occasionally capture the public attention and then recede from popular consciousness, but what can authorities do to end honour based violence and forced marriages? There was a distinct lack of political will under the last Labour government to tackle this problem. Most acutely, the problem of honour related crime affects families of