I have received the draft of a letter from an anonymous source, which I lay out below, from an individual who is very much against divorce, to the point that he feels we should ban it altogether.......
Ban Divorce I say! (Letter to The Times) by Lord Goebbles-Glaxo-Smith
Bravo I say to that John Marcotte chappy who is defying the myth that Californians are a bunch of liberal untrustworthy hippies, and instead he is fighting the good fight to ban that abomination of our modern times – Divorce! And bravo to my good friend Lady Preach for her intelligent speech the other day about female celebrities who take their husband's to the cleaners and suggestion that we banish them to an island where they can live out their miserable lives on a 24 hour TV reality show.
If only we could turn back the clock and cleanse our society of this aberration enshrined in our legal system, then we never again would be forced to listen to that blonde woman with the large breasts singing D-I-V-O-R-C-E as we struggle to turn back to Radio 3 whilst negotiating a particularly tricky bend driving the Bentley to the family estate in the Cotswolds. An estate torn apart by the destructive and unforgivable legal decision that left my Ex wife with more than I wanted her to have.
A study recently of 8,652 people between the ages of 51 and 61 found those who were divorced or widowed had 20% more chronic health problems than those who were still married. Well, there you have it – getting divorced is unconstitutional because it causes cancer. If these liberal scallywags are going to fine me every time I forget to put a seatbelt on, then surely they should protect my pocket – I mean health – by making divorce a capitol offence?
“Divorce has a lingering, detrimental impact on health that even remarriage cannot fully repair”, the Chicago study suggests. And that must be true, because my remarriage to a stonking rich society girl has not in anyway cured my persistent gout, which is clearly down to the trauma I suffered from that witch, who once had the honour of being known as `Lady Goebbles-Glaxo-Smith'.
All this fuss about Viagra being at the centre of divorce cases because it encourages men to cheat on their wives. For goodness sakes, we don't need drugs to do that! And when you consider that (according to the Grant Thornton divorce survey of 2008) that in 91% of cases women filed for the divorce, the main reason consistently being 'extra marital affair', then it is clear to even an idiot that if women don't want their husbands to do what comes naturally to any full blooded male, then they should become lesbians – which I believe to be legal in this country.
Let us get back to how it was in the good old days, and blessed be the political party that returns us to true old fashioned family values. At the very least we could return to the more enlightened times prior to 1960 when the divorce rate was very low, mainly because it took 7 years to get one – which gave those unlucky enough to be subject to such a humiliation time to redirect a few funds here and there and make sure the villa in Spain was safely in the hands of one's Nephew, who hates the sun and can't swim.
And what about the psychological issues, eh? Compared with no disorder, those with a psychiatric disorder are more likely to be separated or divorced (14 per cent compared to 7 per cent). They are less likely to be married or cohabiting (62 per cent compared to 67 per cent).
There once again is a clear reason for banning divorce altogether. What are we going to do with all those mentally ill people who don't have a wife or husband to care for them? Wandering the streets, that's what – are we not supposed to be a caring society? Make them stay married, I say. The upper classes have been putting up with mad spouses for centuries – why should the commoners have it better than us?
Some of those liberal 'collaborative' lawyers down the club have been trying to convince me that the current laws need changing – but they seem to want to make it even easier to get divorced! “Why is it that we aim to encourage parties to put the past behind them and yet we start by insisting that 65% present issues of fault (84,129 out of 128,290)? “ They winge. “Our laws are now almost 40 years old (the 73 act was a slight remodelling of the 69 act) and we must reform!” I agree we should reform, but several brandies later I was still unable to shift my deep conviction that when a man marries a woman she is his for life, and if he really must get rid of her, there is always the “Oh I didn't see her standing behind me when I backed the Bentley out of the garage” routine.
The fact is that first marriages have halved since 1970 whereas re-marriages have doubled. This means that people clearly like being married, they just don't seem to be very good at sticking to the same partner.
It's really not hard to stay with the same person year in year out as long as you approach it from an intelligent, and moral perspective. Separate rooms – houses if you can afford it – allow for privacy and individual pursuits. And I suggest also a 'mission statement' placed prominently on the fridge, inspired by the John Marcotte t-shirt I bought off Facebook: “Till death us do part – and you're not dead yet”.
Yours most sincerely,