You’re born. You get married. You have children. You die. That’s the myth that most people in the western world grow up believing, until the full range of choices is finally presented: not getting married, living with a partner, not having children, marrying someone of the same sex, marrying more than once or marrying and divorcing without marrying again. These choices are increasingly more accepted, and there must be a million factors that influence us to make our selection. That’s what makes our society interesting and diverse.

Take away, for the sake of this piece, the origins of this ritual we call ‘marriage’ and, if you will, any religious connotations. These days people around the world marry for any number of reasons: because they love a good party, because they believe they should get married, because of the social status marriage might offer, because they want children and believe marriage necessary to procreate, because they have to or are forced to marry, or because they want to change their national or financial status. Or, in what I hope to be many instances, because they fall in love and want to prove their commitment to the same person for the rest of their lives. Where on earth in all this does, could or should politics come into it?

As the definition of a ‘couple’ or indeed ‘family’ has changed over recent years, the issue of marriage has become political. In 2009, former Children’s Secretary, Ed Balls, suggested that stable relationships were key to ‘happy families’ rather than marriage itself being the factor. David Cameron, in response to this, said, ‘I think marriage is a good institution. I don’t need an opinion poll to tell me whether it is or it isn’t. That’s just what I think.‘ Both comments reveal the personal opinions of these politicians and should be respected as such. With recent developments it would appear that Cameron’s personal support of marriage is being reflected in his policies.

Married couples have rights not just to tax breaks, but to one another’s money, hospital visitation, medical consultation and other areas that might not even occur to most cohabiters. There are also now policies to discourage divorce, ensuring that even unhappy marriages last the course. For those not wishing to invest just £27 in registering at www.quickie-divorce.com (I kid you not), mediation is to become compulsory and this could cost couples up to £140. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; in many cases mediation could save time, money and a great deal of emotional turmoil for couples needing guidance and support from trained counselling professionals rather than lawyers. It’s not all rosy, though (is it ever?), with the availability of legal aid for divorce cases to be examined, and Government suggesting that divorce should not be paid for by the public purse (and thus the tax payer). Because marital discord seems to affect lower income as well as higher income households, what will happen to those who can’t afford to pay?

Given the financial cost of a divorce, including the division of property whereby a two or even three bedroom house rarely translates into two properties appropriate for single parents, it is of little surprise that divorce rates seem linked to the state of the economy, with fewer divorces in times of recession. One online divorce company is in fact reassuring us all that good times are ahead, as online divorce rates towards the end of 2010 started to pick up. Hurrah. Happy days. This correlation will probably become less significant, however, as people are priced out of the divorce process.

Looking further afield, there appears to be a European north/south divide, whereby those in the north see an increasing tendency towards cohabitation, whilst those in southern Europe favour marriage. Sweden actually sees more children born into cohabiting couples now than into marriages. Scandinavia more broadly, Canada, France, Australia - mostly liberal and forward-thinking states - are creating or indeed have created policies to reduce the legal difference between marriage and cohabitation. That’s progression, if it reflects demand, because opinion does matter. I do hope you’re reading this week’s ThinkBase, Mr Cameron, and look forward to seeing your usual policy amendments accordingly because, frankly, I’m beginning to think you’re working in cahoots with my mother. And I don’t like it.