Pre-nupts: hedging your bets

At the time of the divorce referendum, the death of marriage was predicted by those opposed to divorce. Even those in favour had to admit that the institution was wobbling, and that the introduction of divorce wouldn't help.
And right enough, many more marriages are ending in failure. The number of divorced couples nearly doubled between the censuses of 2002 and 2006. Many more have been separated and others are not getting married at all.
However, the development missed by all sides in the divorce wars has been the demand that marriage be extended to various other parts of the population. Getting married, if not staying married, is still very popular.
Marriage is a two-sided pact. The practical end is a legal contract which commits the contractees to all sorts of financial and property commitments. The other end is the ideal of a universal institution designed to elevate the idea of partnership and secure the rearing of children.
The two new claims for marriage come from the live-in couples and the gay community. They mainly want the legal end of things as many of both groups are left high and dry when a relationship ends or a partner dies. The answer to this has been civil partnerships and there is widespread support for this across society as a measure of justice.
So for some people we have had to address the risk of not getting married. And now, it seems, we have to address the risk for those who actually do want to get married.
Last month an expert legal group recommended to the Government that pre-nuptial agreements be recognised by the state.
Many on the traditional side of the house will feel that pre-nuptial agreements are another attack on the institution of marriage. They're probably right. We're getting to the stage where everyone will be able to design their own marriages.
That sounds fair enough but it is the end of marriage as a universally recognised institution. What is the point if everyone can make up their own?
At the moment pre-nupts have no legal status. And even if the Government make the recommended change, they still won't have legal force. It will simply allow the courts to use the pre-nupts as a guide when divvying up the spoils of marriage.
I think I'm with the conservatives on this one. A pre-nuptial agreement is just hedging your bets. It is avoiding commitment.
I have argued before that marriage of itself can't guarantee anything and we know this from the break-ups, violence, cheating, etc. But many people in our society do have a deep respect for marriage and believe that it can help to make relationships last. Those people want to enter into an institution that is respected and durable.
Pre-nuptial agreements make a joke of the whole thing. It is the outworking of our feckless and shallow consumer society where people want to know the price of everything without seeing the value of anything.
If a man and a woman want to enter into a legal contract to share their lives with an agreement on how to split the goodies when it all goes wrong...then that's grand.
But don't call it marriage.