I WAS quite horrified to read that the York Synod is considering legal contracts for any two cohabiting adults (July 19). How can the church, traditionally supportive of marriage and its social value, actually suggest legalising such partnerships?

I would be interested to know what sort of wording would be used. Perhaps it could say something like "Ms X would be able to claim a large proportion of Mr Y's worldly goods if she decides for any reason that she wants out", or even ""Mr Y would still be liable in law to maintain any children who share the family home, whether or not they be his, when their partnership fails".

Adults have choices, surely, to either marry legally or not, and if the latter, why should they be able to make any claims whatsoever on each other when they decide to part, as usually happens?

It is bad enough that partnerships based on lust and convenience are accepted nowadays, without the blessing of people in power who should know better. Also, would people sign fresh legal contracts every time they change partners - many, many times in many, many cases?

Yes, these partnerships certainly are "the potential cause of injustice and misery", but usually only to the unfortunate children born as a result of them.

I think the whole idea is wrong, sick and makes a mockery of love, trust and true marriage.

Heather Causnett,

Escrick Park Gardens,

Escrick,

York.

Updated: 10:50 Friday, July 26, 2002