Report comment

Anon at 1015. I, too, regret that the vacuous celebrity society of TV seems to fill so much of the life of so many under the age of 35, despite their supposedly better education because of all the expensive reforms of the school system.
Otherwise, I am in accord with Anon at 1355 and Job Five. In what other circumstances does the State think it has a right (and for what rational/reasonable purpose) to force two people to observe an oral promise, without consideration, that they made to each other? The only practical reason for marriage is reduced taxation.
Oh, but marriage is 'sacred' and for life. Really? Well OK , if you're Christian or, in fact, if irrevocably 'for life', RC, and even they are getting civil divorces. Why on earth did they think their mutual promise, sacramentalised and certified by a priest, needed any additional certification or reinforcement by a secular State registrar? Even Catholics didn't regard it as 'sacred before 1184 and a priest was only needed (barring exceptional circumstances) after a decree of 1563.
The State can't even rely on a marriage cert to establish which man is responsible (financially) for any children, and is, apparently, pretty incompetent at enforcing it on reluctant fathers even with DNA evidence.
I'm all for crucifying parents who do not properly look after their children but a marriage cert won't be much use for that while the welfare of children is so far down government's list of priorities.