The role of marriage in tackling poverty

If the Kirk hierarchy is so concerned about Scotland’s “poverty-ravaged communities” (your report, 23 September) then why has it so far been silent on its single biggest causal factor?

Just about every social study has concluded that children brought up in a home by two, married parents are less likely to suffer from poverty, either as children or later in life as adults. Those whose parents stayed together are themselves less likely to divorce in their own adult life. Marriage is therefore, arguably, the single most successful antidote to poverty.

Cardinal O’Brien and Bishop Tartaglia are to be commended for their public condemnation of the UK and Scottish Governments’ plans to abandon the Biblical (and one might say only sane) definition of “marriage”.While the Kirk’s silence signals indifference or even tacit approval of the proposed changes, Care, the Evangelical Alliance, and others have given voice to the concerns of ordinary Protestants like myself, abandoned by their national church – whose “committees” and “convenors” seem content for the institution of marriage to be turned into a blasphemous circus side-show.

I am no fan of John Swinney, the SNP or independence, but prioritising growth in the economy, jobs and apprenticeships for the young would seem good places to start addressing poverty.

The Kirk might do well to help in addressing the real poverty of ideas and self- respect which blights our society instead of simply advocating more financial benefits as a sticking plaster.

It might also find the courage to speak out in defence of marriage, and heed Jesus’s words to his disciples about preaching truth to a world increasingly in denial of both scripture and reality: “The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.” (John, 7, 7)

One might even say, in a bitter historical irony, that “as the Kirk fiddles, Rome burns”.

Philip Lardner

Parkinch

Erskine, Renfrewshire

Besides being a blessed relief from deceitful political and impenetrable financial pronouncements, Hugh McLachlan’s essay on same-sex marriages (Perspective, 23 September) is a beacon of clarity on a subject normally clouded by emotion and prejudice.

The only need for any formal marriage at all is the legal aspect, for instance responsibility for the welfare of any children produced, which to my mind suggests priority for civil marriage.

I was particularly intrigued by Prof McLachlan’s reference to the false use of “homophobia” in this regard, and it occurs to me that in connection with this momentous change in lifestyle, other vocabulary might now be inappropriate.

We talk glibly of “illegitimate” children, whereas the term properly applies to parents, they being the ones acting illegally.

The common dictionary definition of “mother” is “a female parent”, but science has complicated the meaning of father/mother by facilitating sperm/egg donors and surrogate mothers, offering permutations in marriage factors, including illegitimacy.

This question can’t be solved without a formal legal redefinition of marriage. I would give churches no say in this, but it seems a matter perfectly suited to a national referendum.

Robert Dow

Ormiston Road

Tranent