Having just celebrated 60 years of marriage I ought to be on Ben's side of the argument.

Trouble is that back then we had no choice. People simply did not live together and have children without first getting married. It was not the law, but it was what society expected - at least, the society in which I was brought up.

For girls it was a case of 'you get pregnant, you get married'. And for young men 'get a girl pregnant, you better marry her'. Not that that was the case for us. Which is probably why it has lasted for 60 years. For one thing the marriage vows included the clause demanding that the wife obey the husband. We were both committed to an equal partnership so ignored that requirement from day one.

In today's society would I do the same? Would she? (When she gets back from Christmas shopping I'll ask her).

I certainly would not countenance a Church wedding again. On the other hand, the idea of making a public pledge to support and care for each other for the rest of our lives is, I think, impoprtant. I also think that making such a pledge and honouring it are a good idea if you intend to become parents.

Children need the stability of the family, however it is defined, and I have no problem with including single parents, same sex couples, or any other combination that fits with the beliefs of the adults involved. So long as the relationship remains intact, or subject to no more than one change.

In other words, if a couple split up it is important that the arrangements they make for parenting remain in place - no sleeping around with frequent changes of partner. Once the kids are adults the adults are free to do what they like.