Article: The Government should not be supporting ‘marriage-lite’

Jan 2, 2018

For those who are interested here is an extract from an article I have written for the Conservative Woman blog covering proposals to extend civil partnerships to heterosexuals:

Shortly before the Government moved to legalise same-sex marriages in mainland Britain, the then Home Secretary Theresa May told the Daily Telegraph that ‘homosexuals will be missionaries to the wider society and make it [marriage] “stronger”.’

The Coalition for Marriage and many others disagreed. We argued that marriage would be severely undermined. In changing by law the definition of an institution that predated parliamentary government, David Cameron’s government committed itself to chaos.

If something as fundamental as the heterosexual nature of marriage can be redefined by the state, then why not the other traditional parts of it such as lifelong monogamy? Why not the very concept of men and women, come to that?

And so it has proved. If campaigners get their way we will soon have a bewildering smorgasbord of options in place of traditional marriage.

At present homosexuals and heterosexuals may marry and the former may enter into civil partnerships. The Times and the head of the Supreme Court would like couples who live together for two years or more to be treated, to all intents and purposes, as though they had married. Now the campaign for heterosexual civil partnerships would appear to have Government support with a vote on Tory MP Tim Loughton’s private member’s bill slated for February.

All these options – marriage, civil partnerships, and cohabitation – would end up with similar rights and privileges should these campaigns succeed. But only the married couple would have accepted the responsibility of monogamous, lifelong commitment.

The full article is available here: