Dani Garavelli: Vows that don't ring true

Published on Wednesday 23 June 2010 19:20

IAIN Duncan Smith has a point when he says celebrity culture is having a negative impact on marriage. But it's not lavish Hello!-style ceremonies - with their designer dresses, umpteen bridesmaids and marquees the size of a small country - that are the problem.

In a speech to mark the start of Marriage Week, the Work and Pensions Secretary claimed the pressure to have a Wayne and Coleen-scale extravaganza was putting young couples off making a formal commitment. Those who really couldn't afford it, he said, ended up cohabiting and sometimes lying about it so as not to lose out financially.

But people have always spent too much on weddings, with parents scrimping and saving for years to ensure their daughters had a day to remember. While too much focus on the material trappings may indicate skewed priorities, splashing out a bit lends it a sense of occasion that nipping down to the registry office with a couple of witnesses wouldn't.

Having to save up for a wedding buys couples time, too: time for the heady lust that drives many rash decisions to dissipate; time for them to ask themselves if they are really ready for lifelong commitment.

No, the problem with celebrity marriages is not the OTT dos, but the absence of any effort to make them last. On many occasions the wedding seems to have more to do with drumming up publicity for a forthcoming book, or creating a premise for a new reality TV show than it has to do with forging a lasting relationship.

No agony aunt in the world would have advised Jordan to tie the knot with cross-dressing prize fighter Alex Reid. But what are celebrity unions for if not to boost your profile? And if you discover you hate each other? Then what better way to celebrate your first anniversary than to serve the divorce papers? Rumours have been circulating that Katy Perry is seeing a marriage therapist a mere three months after she exchanged vows with Russell Brand. The source of her dissatisfaction? The fact that Brand posted a photograph of her without make-up on their Facebook. OMG, as they say. How would this pair cope if they were ever faced with real problems experienced by the rest of society, such as redundancy, a miscarriage or having to care for elderly parents?

And what about Ashlee Simpson and Pete Wentz, who last week filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Irreconcilable differences, after less than three years - have they any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Despite all the evidence that in La La Land and elsewhere, wedding certificates aren't worth the paper they're written on, IDS is convinced they're the way to go. In his speech, he rhymed off statistics designed to show that marriage is a stabilising force.Married people, he said, are more likely to stay together than those who choose to cohabit; and even those married people who do split up are less likely to do so while their children are small.

That relationship breakdowns damage society is beyond debate. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation they cost 20 billion to 40bn a year. Children being brought up outside a two-parent family are 75 per cent more likely to fail at school and 70 per cent more likely have a drugs problem.

But comparing the staying power of married couples to those who cohabit is none the less fatuous. Only a small proportion of those who live together - and Ed Miliband may be among them - have chosen lifelong commitment without the ceremony on a point of principle. Some will have moved in together for practical reasons; some will be trying to make a go of things after an unplanned pregnancy; others will be road-testing their relationship to see if they're really suited. As a result, they are self-evidently more likely to break up. To incentivise marriage - in other words to offer these swithering, uncertain couples a financial carrot to take the plunge - can only lead to more heartache.

What we should be doing is to encourage couples of all descriptions to think more carefully before they have children, a course of action that involves more commitment than marriage and yet is often embarked upon with less deliberation than you would give to the purchase of a hamster.

Isn't it strange that in a society where we are bombarded with public information films that there is no drive to make us think about the need for emotional and financial stability before starting a family? At the same time we ought to be supporting those couples - married or otherwise - who already have children by tackling those pressures most likely to lead to splits.

Earlier this year, IDS himself backed a Norwegian scheme which encouraged feuding couples to "walk through" the impact their divorce would have on their children. It is proactive measures like these which will help reduce family breakdowns; not the stigmitisation of the unwed. Although - as Jude Law and Sienna Miller break up (again) - a few celebrity role models wouldn't go amiss either.