Marriage is more than a consumer choice

Divorce does real damage and liberalising the laws will simply make it easier to abandon responsibilities

The Conservative party should change its name. Having buggered up Brexit and dumped the last vestiges of economic conservatism, it now wants to undermine marriage. How? By liberalising the divorce laws.

At present, you have to give a reason to show that you believe your marriage has irretrievably broken down. If you can’t do that then the divorce can still proceed but, in England and Wales, it takes two years if both parties agree to it; five if they don’t. Campaigners want to simplify things. No reason need be given for a split; your partner can’t contest it. The marriage would probably end after an administrative period of about six months, which is quicker than getting out of some phone contracts. The argument goes that this would remove the fighting and acrimony from separations. They call this no-fault divorce.

In a sense, however, we already have just that. Yes, right now you can contest a divorce but few people actually do, and so long as a couple has been living apart for the two years, the divorce is automatic anyway. In other words, the current system is designed to slow things down a bit and give couples a little while longer to think about the consequences of breaking up. And there’s evidence that this cooling off period can work. Every year no fewer than 10,000 couples who have started divorce proceedings change their mind.

Two groups could lose out if the law is rewritten. First: vulnerable partners. Imagine you have a stroke and you’re left disabled; theoretically, under no-fault your husband or wife could be out the door – “Nice to know you, goodbye!” – within six months. Marriage is supposed to carry obligations. If a spouse abandons you or turns abusive, having recourse to protest a divorce and make your case in court is surely a good thing.

Second: kids could suffer. Divorce does real damage; some evidence suggests children are – perhaps counter-intuitively – happier in an argumentative household than a broken one. Who wouldn’t want stability and both parents present? Indeed, the key societal role of marriage to is to provide security for children. It doesn’t matter whether you actually have offspring or not, that’s the purpose of marriage in principle and why it should be taken so deadly seriously. There’s a case for making it a bit harder to get wedded in the first place (perhaps we could send people on a course to learn about commitment and how to live with a heavy snorer) but there’s scant argument for making it easier to walk away.

So, why are the Tories exploring this? Because its leadership are largely a bunch of rich liberals, and no-fault divorce tends to be a rich person’s crusade. I note that Tini Owens – the woman whose divorce petition has become a cause célèbre for no-fault – says that one of the moments that eroded her marriage was when she and her husband had an argument in a Mexican airport. They couldn’t agree what present to buy their housekeeper.

Consider the direction of Tory policy since 2010. Yes, they have introduced a modest transferable tax allowance for married couples and civil partners, and they have also extended the number who can get married via same sex weddings. But this has to be weighed against the inhumane policy of limiting benefits to two children; the predicted effects of Universal Credit; and a squeeze on the incomes of single-earner middle-class couples. The Tories are reducing marriage to a consumer choice – something you can buy or take back to the shop depending on your mood and circumstance. They are individualists. They believe in agency, autonomy, freedom and, as a pay-off, are willing to tolerate selfishness and irresponsibility. Everything that was said about Thatcherism by its critics – that Mrs T literally believed greed was good – they assume was indeed its raison d’être.

Their version of kindness is not judging others. But anyone with experience of life knows discernment is helpful, especially when it involves the vulnerable and children; that just a dash of morality is necessary not only for a healthy society but for a free one. Ronald Reagan, the hero of libertarians, once said that his “greatest regret” was signing off on a no-fault divorce law as governor of California.

I’m not passing any verdict on failed relationships: my own have had the resilience of a clown car. On the contrary, one of the finest qualities of conservatism is that it resists utopian fantasies about human nature and recognises that we’re all capable of making mistakes or being plain nasty. That’s why traditionalists advocate rules and contracts to regulate behaviour. Marriage is a precious straitjacket and at the very least its endurance down through the centuries ought to recommend it to the Tories.

Aren’t they supposed to like old things? If Britain can resist republics and the metric system, we can give no-fault divorce a miss for a little while longer.