David Lammy has discovered what appears to be Westminster’s latest solution to Britain’s family crisis: make marriage matter less.
Under proposals being considered by the Ministry of Justice, couples who have lived together for three years or who share a child could be granted inheritance rights similar to those enjoyed by married couples and civil partners. Cohabiting partners may also gain legal claims over property when relationships break down. The justification is “fairness”. Yet one awkward question remains. If marriage and cohabitation are effectively the same thing, why does marriage exist at all?
Justice Secretary argues that many unmarried couples lack “adequate legal protections” when a relationship ends or when a partner dies.
For centuries, society has recognised marriage not only as a private arrangement between two people, but as a public commitment that benefits children, families and communities.
The current debate focuses on whether cohabiting couples should receive the same inheritance protections as married couples. But a more fundamental question is rarely asked: why should they? Marriage and civil partnerships already provide a clear legal framework, together with the rights and responsibilities that accompany them. Those who choose to cohabit have consciously decided not to enter those arrangements, despite being fully aware of the legal protections the state affords to marriage and family life.
It is therefore difficult to see why the answer should be to extend marriage-like privileges to relationships that have deliberately remained outside the institution of marriage. Rather than strengthening marriage, such proposals risk making it increasingly irrelevant. Rather than asking why cohabiting couples do not receive the benefits of marriage, perhaps the more important question is why Britain has stopped encouraging marriage in the first place.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
The Forgotten Benefits of Marriage
David Lammy’s proposals overlook a simple reality repeatedly confirmed by social research: marriage benefits not only couples but society itself.
Marriage provides stability, responsibility and permanence. Children raised in stable married households generally experience better educational outcomes, stronger emotional wellbeing and lower levels of poverty. Married couples often enjoy better health, longer life expectancy and greater financial security. These are not just religious observations. They are conclusions supported by decades of evidence.
Yet while marriage rates continue to decline, Britain’s political class seems more interested in diluting the institution than strengthening it. The irony is difficult to miss. As family breakdown rises and birth rates fall, ministers appear determined to remove one of the few remaining incentives for people to marry.
Marriage is a covenant, not a temporary arrangement. It is designed to provide stability for husbands, wives and children alike. Rather than extending marital privileges to every other arrangement, perhaps government should be asking how it can make marriage attractive again.
After all, if every relationship receives the same recognition, eventually none of them mean very much at all.
Ecclesiastes 4:9 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
Support NCCSS / Christian Voice →
The Death Tax That Refuses to Die
Inheritance Tax is often presented as a levy on the wealthy. The reality is rather different. Under current rules, estates valued above £325,000 can be subject to a 40 per cent tax charge on assets above that threshold. In some circumstances, the threshold can rise to £500,000 when a family home is passed to children or grandchildren. Married couples and civil partners can also transfer unused allowances between them.
Supporters claim that the tax promotes fairness. We see this as a taxman waiting at the end of a lifetime.
After decades of paying income tax, National Insurance, council tax, VAT, stamp duty and countless other charges, many families discover that the state still wants one final share of what remains.
The argument becomes even harder to understand when viewed through the lens of family life. Parents work, save and make sacrifices precisely because they hope to leave something behind for their children. Scripture presents inheritance as a blessing, not a revenue stream.
The Government’s own guidance explains that inheritance tax applies to a person’s estate, including property, savings and possessions. In some cases, families may find that a home built through years of hard work suddenly attracts a substantial tax bill when a loved one dies. Defenders of the system insist that only larger estates are affected. Yet rising house prices have steadily pushed more ordinary families closer to inheritance tax thresholds, particularly in parts of southern England.
The deeper question remains straightforward: should families be taxed for passing their assets to the next generation at all?
For many Christians, the answer is clear. An inheritance belongs to a family, not the Treasury.
Return to the UK’s Christian Constitution →
The £12,000 Penalty on Family Life
Britain claims to support families. The tax system often tells a different story. Research shows that families relying on one primary breadwinner can be more than £12,000 worse off than households where earnings are split between two parents.
Why? Because once a single earner crosses certain income thresholds, the family begins losing childcare support, child benefit and other allowances. Meanwhile, two parents earning similar combined incomes can keep many of those benefits simply because their earnings are divided differently.
The message seems clear: government increasingly favours households where both parents work full-time, while penalising families who make different choices.
Christian Voice has long argued that marriage should allow fully transferable tax allowances. If one spouse earns less or stays at home to raise children, the family should not face financial punishment for that decision.
Strong families save the state billions through the care, stability and support they provide. Yet Britain’s tax system often treats them as a problem to be corrected rather than an institution to be encouraged.
Proverbs 13:22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children.
1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own… he hath denied the faith.
Children Are the Lord’s Heritage Not a Luxury Product
Reform UK councillor has backed local cuts to NHS-funded IVF treatment, saying they should “cut their garment according to their cloth.”
The comments by Bridget Porter, who is a member of the Reform-controlled Kent County Council comes amid cuts to NHS-funded IVF treatment in the region, which will reduce eligibility for those seeking fertility treatment.
Bridget Porter said: “I’d also say this is evidence-based, from your experiences…A lot of people on subsequent cycles drop out of the system because they don’t like the discomfort of the treatment.
“To answer Councillor Jeffrey: if people are on a low income, they should not be bringing babies into the world that they can’t afford them. They must cut their garment according to their cloth.”
She added: “[On the] Integrated Care Board being in debt to KCC: well, I don’t see how this increases their ability to pay the debt back to KCC, by frivolous spending. These treatments are not health necessities — they’re lifestyle choices. So I think to have one cycle of IVF at the taxpayers’ expense is very generous.”
Responding to Cllr Porter’s remarks on IVF, Antony Hook, Lib Dem Leader of the Opposition at KCC, said they were “utterly outrageous.”
IVF treatment in Kent and Medway must now start before patients’ 38th birthday, down from the previous cut-off of 40. The number of NHS-funded IVF/ICSI cycles is also being reduced from up to two cycles to one cycle. And the number of embryo transfers is being halved from four transfers to a maximum of two transfers.
Addressing the cuts to NHS-funded IVF treatments in Kent, Reform councillor Bridget Porter told the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee of KCC on Wednesday morning: “I’d just like to say that I support your policy. I feel that one cycle of IVF, and two embryo transplants is an adequate amount of taxpayer money to be spending on people who need IVF.
A society that begins treating children as consumer purchases risks forgetting something fundamental about family life. Human beings are not expenses on a spreadsheet. God’s command to humanity was simple: “Be fruitful, and multiply.”
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
Related articles
The elite taking farmers’ fields →
Read and pray
READ: Genesis 1:28; Gen 2:18; Psalm 128:3–4; 127:3 Prov 13:22; Prov 31:11–12, Eccl 4:9–10; Mark 10:9; 1 Corinth 6:18 Heb 13:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:3, and Eph 5:3..31.
PRAY: Pray for the sanctity of marriage
Pray that newly elected leaders will govern with integrity, justice, and a commitment to serving all residents faithfully.
Pray that God will grant Godly leaders discernment to make decisions that promote truth, unity, and the common good.
Let us know what YOU think in the comments below.
Support us!
We appreciate your support; it enables our research and helps us inform your prayers.
So click below to support Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
