The Policy Blender

To use a trendy recent buzz-word, it's about sustainability, darrrling.

Children are the definition of a sustainable future for human beings. Without children, the human race is quite literally unsustainable.

Whilst using tax as an instrument of social modelling is (in my view) unpalatable, it's the best system we've got - the alternative being the law (and that gets us into state eugenics…).

We know that children brought up in stable family units are more likely to fulfil their potential in the future. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that the best possible model for future success is encouraged.

I don't write much about the role of the state, mainly because I abhor the Day of the Triffids style scope creep with which the state perpetuates its influence upon society.

However, I am in favour of a state. Perversely because of the very reasons I dislike the nannyish reach of our current bureaucracy: Life's unfair. But I don't think that the role of the state should be to make life fairer - the only successful way to do that would be to lobotomise everyone or create an Airstrip One style Orwellian nightmare. The state should equip people to deal with life's unfairness.

In this instance, the role of the state should be to give children the very best start in the world.

The thing about civil partnerships is quite complicated. Essentially, it's about extending an advantage (through tax breaks) from married heterosexual couples to married gay couples. This is obviously the right thing to do, though, as Matt points out married gay couples are somewhat less likely to be bringing up children (though that's not unprecedented). It does, however, highlight the perils of using the taxation system for social purposes, which should be generally avoided.

I didn't point that out - though it may have been inadvertently applied, and it's probably true. But adoption is now being permitted for couples of any kind, I believe, which is good news.

I'm waiting for the backlash from asexuals, who have largely been a silent minority until now. And I'll concede on tax-funded benefits for children in part (though the world really has no shortage of people) but I still don't think who you're sleeping with should affect how you are taxed.

I quite agree. Tax is rubbish.

DC hit the nail on the head earlier in his acceptance:

"there is such a thing as society, it just is not the same thing as the state"

I don't think I said tax is rubbish.... But the society-state difference should apply. I think it applied in Corby Glen much more than it did in Streatham.

All tax is rubbish? Including income tax, council tax, poll tax, road tax, VAT, and presumebley, any thing that could be described as a rebate? Hmmm.


There is indeed, something called society. Congratulations to twenty years of conservative think tanks for figuring that out. The reason civil partnerships are rubbish is a social one. Homosexual couples should be allowed to get married and call it marraige. For most people getting married, it not about a tax break, its a social act, dare I say, a demonstration of love. If its not called marraige, its not equal to marraige, tax break or not.

"For most people getting married, it not about a tax break, its a social act, dare I say, a demonstration of love."

I agree completely. So I think it shoudl only have the social significance. Let's get rid of the tax break, and people can apply for that some other way. I think that the legal implications of marriage for those who see it as religiously significant are an insult to a sacrament they're entering into for completely different reasons. (I use the word sacrament from a Catholic point of view - I'm sure other words apply to other religions but with similar sentiment). If people are marrying for social reasons, to express love, then let's make it purely about that. Love should be its own reward, it shouldn't come with a bundle of tenners.

And Chris, sorry about that. What you do in your own home is none of our business and I promise not to post about it again.

We're getting petty, I know, but one of the social issues here seems to be whether something can be equal without being the same. I say yes.

It's obvious that a civil partnership is different to a marriage, but that doesn't mean that it's any less important and therefore it's equal.

Formally calling civil partnerships marriages for the sake of fairness is ridiculous and demonstrates a squeamish desire to ignore the diverse nature of modern human relationships rather than a principled application of social fairness.

Oh, and Chris - we asked Rob last night and he said he'd think about it… I think you're in there!

And the PolicyBlender matchmaking service for busy professionals was born…

Quite happy to join a campaign against the use of tax as a social manipulator.

My sincerest apologies.

You see, Chris, that's fair. We're both different, but you've treated us equally...

same net result, I should wager though.

:-)

if it is marraige by another name, then why give it another name.

The answer, presumably, is to satisfy those who don't beleve the two should be thought of as equal.

Think about this for a second. In law previous cases provide president for future proceedings. How long before the courts are forced to argue that a previous reference to marraige in a court ruling, does, or does not qualify as a reference to civil partnerships.

The government would have to re-word all refereneces to marraige in divorce and adoption legeslation.

In constitutional countries the protections provided to the marraid would not cover civil partnerships. In Ireland such a change would require a national referendum.

Aside from that is there any good reason to call same sex marraiges anything else?

Isn't the word marriage derived from one of the major religions? Shouldn't it be their word and they can decide who can use it and who can't?

I don't agree with the idea that only a man and a woman can join in a union blessed by God (for several reasons) but the organisation that brought us marriage does, so if we want to have our own version we should really call it something else. And that can be equal for everyone and the same for everyone, and people who want to do it as well as getting married in their religion can do it too, if they like, just like now.

Let's make all secular weddings 'Civil Partnerships' and not 'marriages', whether between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman, two homosexual men, two homosexual women, a heterosexual man and a homosexual man, an asexual woman and a homosexual cat, a bisexual cow and a heterosexual lampshade.... (Sorry, got a bit carried away there).