Let's imagine a woman called Angela, who has two young children, between the ages of six and eight. She is married to an abusive man. In 2010, it is incredibly hard for any woman suffering domestic violence to leave a home. There are so many obstacles placed in the way. Many worthwhile charities have shown just how hard it is for anyone suffering domestic violence to leave. Indeed, there are already so many financial obstacles to overcome. So many emotional, terrible choices to make.
Does Angela leave her children behind with an abusive father, because she is scared she cannot afford to look after them alone? Or does she decide to stay, as so many victims of domestic violence do, hoping that the father will direct his hate at her, instead of her children? Although people would like to pretend otherwise, financial decisions, especially ones that will lead to poverty and hardship, do force people to remain in intolerable situations.
Now, of course, David Cameron's tax cuts for married couples will not (I doubly hope) lead to poverty or hardship for those who do not qualify. However, it is a symptom of something we have long feared about the Tories. I mean, do they really consider the only "stable" family, a family with a marriage certificate?
I want to ask David Cameron several questions:
Do a man and a woman living together but who have not yet married qualify for tax breaks? If not, why not? Does he think it is right that the Government sends out the signal that certain ways of living are better than others? Does he believe that two men, or two women, raising a child together, living in a "stable" "civil partnership" should qualify for tax breaks, as well? Could he share the reasoning behind his view that marriage is infinitely stable? Does he believe it is right to put unnecessary pressure on people to stay trapped in loveless or even dangerous marriages?
This raises important points about the Tory proposals. Firstly, we see their priorities. For the Liberal Democrats, it is taking the poorest people out of income tax altogether, and providing a fair system of Government, education and taxation. Those are our priorities. For the Tories, it is providing inheritance tax cuts for their friends, and leading a Christian Right-style charge for the sanctity of marriage.
Don't get me wrong. I love marriage, me. Marriage is great. Nice, when it's nice, and all that. But is "marriage" the great solver of the world's wrongs? Does Cameron expect the gun crime and knife crime to end the moment 10%, 20%, 30% more couples stay married? Does he honestly expect his narrow, narrow, bigoted view of "stability" to cure the ills of Britain's supposedly "broken society"? I've seen marriages that are wonderful; I've seen marriages that have hidden secrets, marriages that have locked dangerous, violent people in with defenceless children and terrified women. It is not good enough for the (supposedly) Prime Minister in waiting, to say, "Marriage solves everything." No, it really doesn't.
Good parenting can solve a bit. Loving parents can solve a lot. Respect, community, tolerance, love, acceptance... that can solve even more.
It also upsets me that we have seen the style of Cameron's (possible) Government. Not a big, guns-blazing initiative. But rather, a sneaking, encroaching, slimy policy that buries a festering amount of bias, intolerance and outdated views.
If Britain has a broken society (and I dispute that it does, every time I see good things done by people we assume are "evil", "thugs", or "chavs"), then we do not need a conceited, smug traditionalism to solve it. We do not need a sneaky, underhanded policy of "tax breaks" for married couples, as if marriage is something that by its very nature should be congratulated and held up on a pedestal. Marriage is not an inherent good, not matter how much forces on the Right would have it otherwise.
Guns don't kill people, people do. If that is right, then let us also say this: marriage doesn't make a better society, people do.
0 comments:
Post a Comment