I’m not sure that I actually said that this ruling will damage marriage.

But still, the point about marriage being "more binding" isn’t quite what I said (or meant).

I said it overrides all others. You may have written your will, which is a contract of sorts, but the moment you are married that will is invalid. You may have a pre-nup, a nice legal contract and all, but the contract of marriage over rides that.

Your more general points I agree with, most especially about how marriage is now voluntary. Althoughit is alsotrue that this ruling has rather changed the contractual terms upon which all those conducted before yesterday rested.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. When you wrote "Well, yes" after "everyone is saying that you’d better get a pre-nup agreement", I took the "Well, yes" to be some sort of agreement. You then proceeded to give advice about how one should now get married: don't do it in England because of this new ruling. If you don't think that these rulings have made marriage worse in England, why do you propose (a) a change in English law to stop rulings like this being possible and (b) that, until such a change in the law is forthcoming, we all get married in Scotland?


> the point about marriage being "more binding" isn’t quite what I said (or meant). I said it overrides all others.

Fair enough, but that's why I gave two examples, not just one. See again my example about backing out of an employment contract in order to honour your marriage vows. Marriage most certainly does not override such a contract.

I think maybe you meant that marriage overrides one or two other types of contract.

Marriage does indeed over ride certain parts of your employment contract: Your pension terms for example.

In what way?

Excellent post. Thank you. Why marry your love at all if she's not your life's love? Lying to her at the altar is just about the dumbest way to start your married life.

I am in strong agreement with this post. The strong wording of the marriage vows mean little to people these days but its not the ceremony itself that's at fault, people no longer view a vow or contract as particularly binding anymore. Perhaps we have the lawyers to thank for establishing that modern premise.

In spite of the correctness of this new ruling for this particular case its ramifications for the rest of us is not good.

btw : I think Mr Miller was trying to assert that he was coerced or emotionally blackmailed into the marriage in the first place, that's why he used it as a defence.