Mal Fletcher comments on Sir Paul Coleridge standing down as a High Court Judge after being reprimanded for his comments in support of marriage

Apparently, 25 percent of divorcing couples in Britain believe their breakup has had no negative influence on their children at all. Meanwhile, 75 percent of divorced couples say their relationships with their children are unaffected.

This is little more than wishful thinking. In all but the most exceptional cases, divorce is the worst thing for the child.

Far more beneficial for them is seeing their parents work through tough situations and disagreements and making things work.

Part of the problem for Sir Paul and his foundation is the fact that issues surrounding marriage and family have increasingly become political footballs.

Where once we fought to keep government out of the home, we now invite government to intervene on some of the most intimate and central issues of family life.

Instead of requiring Parliament to devise laws in support of already defined cultural values, we look to politicos to define our values, even on things as central to society as the family.

Sex education and protection of our children's privacy are just two areas that we've increasingly ceded to government oversight or responsibility.

Certainly, governments carry a heavy burden of responsibility to ensure that legislation protects children in these and other areas. But law must be seen as an adjunct to parental care, responsibility and authority, not an alternative to the same.

By extension, the family courts should be seen as last-ditch options for dealing with family problems, not first-response mechanisms. This, I think, is part of what Sir Paul and his colleagues are advocating.

It is sad that talk about marriage in the public sphere has become so politicised, partly around the fight for same-sex marriage, that any discussion is now deemed to be political in intent.

Marriage is too important to be left in the hands of lobby groups, of any persuasion, or politicians.

It is too central to social wellbeing, cohesion and productivity to be treated as something we should not be allowed to discuss, openly, honestly and with compassion.

If we try to still the reasonable voices of judges who've proven their integrity through long public service, on issues as foundational to our social architecture as stable marriages, we demonstrate how little we value those cornerstones.