Average Marriage Age/ Marriage dying off?

average hero

The wiktionary page for average age at first marriage is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage

The table shows that women nearly always have a lower marriage age.

It also seems that poorer countries have lower marriage ages.

A suspicion of mine is that marriage rates will lower considerably in developed first-world countries for years to come.

Thoughts?

It'd be interesting to see if a correlation exists between the average age of first marriage of individuals in a country, and that country's HDI. From what you've linked to I'd tentatively suspect that one does exist.

It's worth noting that the average age at which individuals first marry likely has no causal effect on the total number of individuals who do get married, as you (perhaps inadvertently) suggest in your OP. You'd have to see if a correlation exists between the proportion of the population of a country who get married, and that country's HDI (or some other development index).

Having said that, I'd tend to agree with you. Marriage doesn't seem to be the societal necessity that it once was. But, as long as their are religious, legal and romantic reasons for and benefits to marriage I can't see it dying off. It may become something that is done later in life, but I suspect it'll still be something that's done.

Fromthetrees

Richer countries generally give woman edcation, contraception and free them from religious constraint, surely they're the reasons as they emancipate woman to be what they choose rather than reduce them to simple humble wives and baby producers.

I'll go a step further and say the welfare state allows woman to essentially raise a family without ever even getting married which wouldn't necessarily push the richer countries average marriage age up, but it would reduce the average marriage age in poorer countries where there is no welfare state. If an 18 year old in Chad gets pregnant she has a real need to get married for her child's basic survival even outside of religious customs or societal expectations.

I'd suspect the reason men are older than woman on average regardless of how rich or poor the country is would be down to woman having fewer child bearing years. I'd also put forward generally men look for youth and beauty in a partner and woman seek wealth and status, just on a very basic general level.

Procrastastudy

I'd have to dig out the figures but the majority of couples marrying in Ireland have children. It's not surprising that people would get married prior to having children given the Constitutional protections - even if the couple aren't explicitly aware of them. It is just the 'natural' thing for them to do in their minds. I'm also not surprised the age here is older than the UK given the ease of access to higher education here v the UK. I am surprised it's so high in the UK though.

I would suggest given this - and the difficulty in obtaining a divorce - that Irish couples possibly wait until they they are sure they want a child with a partner before they get married. Whether this also happens in other countries regardless I don't know - I suppose the 'child born out of wedlock' scenario might be enough to push people into marriage.

For a whole host of reasons I can't see it dying out.

The Corinthian

gvn wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see if a correlation exists between the average age of first marriage of individuals in a country, and that country's HDI. From what you've linked to I'd tentatively suspect that one does exist.

I'd be pretty certain that such a link exists.

I suspect there are various reasons why all this is occurring, but one has not been yet mentioned; the marriage strike. Marriage, or more correctly the failure of marriage, is increasingly seen as punitive to men and with marital break-up rates what they are in the developed World, many men simply don't want to risk it. This combined with increased acceptance of cohabitation and illegitimacy, allowing alternative family arrangements, has probably contributed greatly to this trend.

Memnoch

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd be pretty certain that such a link exists.

I suspect there are various reasons why all this is occurring, but one has not been yet mentioned; the marriage strike. Marriage, or more correctly the failure of marriage, is increasingly seen as punitive to men and with marital break-up rates what they are in the developed World, many men simply don't want to risk it. This combined with increased acceptance of cohabitation and illegitimacy, allowing alternative family arrangements, has probably contributed greatly to this trend.

Excellent article. Thanks for linking to it. I understand the reasons behind child support and spousal support, I also understand issues around child custody and the welfare of the child as well as the need for a stable home for a child.

But there must be a better solution than what is going on right now. There must be a way to protect and encourage women in abusive relationships to escape from them without fear of a drastic loss of living standards and poverty without creating this pall that perpetually hangs over men in western society should they chose to marry.

I think it's because, having been victims of institutionalized discrimination for so long women are very wary of any of their rights being undermined and so fight tooth and nail for everyone single one if they feel even slightly threatened. Where as men, by and large, don't seem to have to foresight or empathy to care about things that don't effect them directly right now. How much support do father's for justice get from other men who haven't faced these problems, for example?

9959

gvn wrote: »

.... Marriage doesn't seem to be the societal necessity that it once was....

Tell that to a member of The Iona Institute, stand well back, and watch him/her foam at the mouth.

Equality

Women in the developed world now have access to contraception and to social welfare payments in their own right.

This has reduced the need for them to marry, therefore the age at which women marry is bound to be higher in the developed world.

~Freedom at last~:)

The Corinthian

Equality wrote: »

~Freedom at last~:)

For who? :P

Equality

Women/mothers.

A modest house, a basic income, health care and education are all available in Ireland, regardless of whether or not you are married when you have kids.

In the past, a pregnant woman was pretty much required to marry, so as to be able to feed the child. The other option was adoption/mother and baby home, and this was not an attractive option. I know plenty of women, of my mother's generation, who were married to alcoholics. The husband drank the dole money, and they had a major struggle to feed the kids on the children's allowance money and what they could get from various family members. In modern Ireland, they claim the social welfare themselves as lone parents, and in most cases they spend in on the kids. It is access to social welfare money in their own right that has given freedom to many Irish women.

The Corinthian

Equality wrote: »

Women/mothers.

Except that most evidence and studies seem to point to men increasingly shying away from marriage as much as, if not more so than, women. Between the sexual revolution (that means men need not marry to attain sex) and the threat of financial ruin through divorce, remaining unmarried is increasingly identified with 'freedom' for men too.

The decline of marriage is probably down to numerous causes, some of which have been mooted here. But I very much down that it is simply down to any one gender choosing that it's not for them.

Peregrinus

What may be declining is not so much marriage (as in, the social institution) as weddings (as in, the ceremony which inaugurates the social institution).

Along with the later age at which people marry, and the rising number of cohabiting relationships in which the partners are not married, we have growing social and legal recognition of these non-marital relationships. This started with the dismantling of the legal status of illegitimacy, so that a man could no longer avoid his moral and financial obligations to his child simply by not marrying, but it then moved on to legal recognition of the relationship between the couple themselves - barring orders, for example, can be obtained regardless of whether a couple is married or not, and there’s a growing trend whereby on the breakdown of non-marital relationships, the courts have, and exercise, similar powers to the powers they exercise on marriage breakdown.

Ireland may be a bit behind the curve on this one compared to some countries, but there’s no reason to think that the development of thinking and practice here has stopped. In Australia, where I live at present, if a couple cohabit for two years, or they have a child and they cohabit for any length of time at all, then for a wide range of social, legal and administrative purposes they are treated to all intents and purposes as though they were married (including treatment on the breakdown of the relationship).

In other words, a legal, social and administrative status that looks a lot like marriage is alive and well; you just don’t have to instituted it with a wedding.

The notion that marriage starts with a public, ceremonial wedding, is quite a modern and western one, and it may be one that we’re about to move beyond.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ireland may be a bit behind the curve on this one compared to some countries, but there’s no reason to think that the development of thinking and practice here has stopped. In Australia, where I live at present, if a couple cohabit for two years, or they have a child and they cohabit for any length of time at all, then for a wide range of social, legal and administrative purposes they are treated to all intents and purposes as though they were married (including treatment on the breakdown of the relationship).

Such a law also exists in Ireland (five years concubinage or two where there is a child) and, I believe, in Scotland. Bare in mind also that even in those jurisdictions where such laws were introduced, they were largely because of the decline in marriage rates as they are designed to 'force' cohabitation couples into being financially responsible for each other.

So I don't think I'd share your view that Ireland would be 'behind the curve' if it did not have it though, as it raises serious questions on personal freedoms within society.

The notion that marriage starts with a public, ceremonial wedding, is quite a modern and western one, and it may be one that we’re about to move beyond.

No, you'll find that marriage beginning with a public, ceremonial wedding, is neither modern, nor Western in origin. Biblical and Mesopotamian accounts of marriage rituals have survived and further East, Chinese marriage 'three letters and six etiquettes' rituals were already custom by 300 BC.

Marriage most probably developed as a result of the social changes brought about by farming, in particular with regards to property, inheritance and social class that didn't really exist in hunter-gatherer societies.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Such a law also exists in Ireland (five years concubinage or two where there is a child) and, I believe, in Scotland. Bare in mind also that even in those jurisdictions where such laws were introduced, they were largely because of the decline in marriage rates as they are designed to 'force' cohabitation couples into being financially responsible for each other.

So I don't think I'd share your view that Ireland would be 'behind the curve' if it did not have it though, as it raises serious questions on personal freedoms within society.

It’s not that Ireland has done nothing in this regard; it’s just that other countries have done more, and Ireland may yet do more. Other posters have mentioned the “marriage strike” in which men avoid marrying in order to be in a more advantageous position should the relationship break down. But in Australia the courts have exactly the same powers to order maintenance, the transfer of property, etc on the breakdown of a de facto relationship as they do on the breakdown of a formal marriage, and they exercise those powers by reference to the same considerations and principles. In other words, a “marriage strike” achieves nothing at all in this regard. I don't know that Ireland is quite at that point yet.

I agree with you, incidentally, on the freedom issue. If marriage is something that is imposed on people in this way, they lose the freedom to enter into commitment-free sexual relationships.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you'll find that marriage beginning with a public, ceremonial wedding, is neither modern, nor Western in origin. Biblical and Mesopotamian accounts of marriage rituals have survived and further East, Chinese marriage 'three letters and six etiquettes' rituals were already custom by 300 BC.

Marriage most probably developed as a result of the social changes brought about by farming, in particular with regards to property, inheritance and social class that didn't really exist in hunter-gatherer societies.

Sure, I accept that there have been marriage ceremonies and marriage celebrations since prehistory. My point is that they weren’t essential; in many societies many people formed lasting, socially recognised conjugal unions without having a ceremony, or having a ceremony well after the union had in fact begun, and been socially recognised. Basically, if a couple who were free to marry shacked up and had a child, they were married, and it was not possible for the man to walk away from that, ceremony or no ceremony. There would, depending on the social status of the couple, be some pressure to have a ceremony, but in the lower socio-economic groups many people had no ceremony at all, or the “ceremony” might consist of an acknowledgement by the couple to their parents that the couple had previous made commitments to one another privately.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s not that Ireland has done nothing in this regard; it’s just that other countries have done more, and Ireland may yet do more.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'more' as Ireland has already implemented a similar law to Australia - allow people to sue for maintenance and assets once they've had sex once or twice?

Other posters have mentioned the “marriage strike” in which men avoid marrying in order to be in a more advantageous position should the relationship break down. But in Australia the courts have exactly the same powers to order maintenance, the transfer of property, etc on the breakdown of a de facto relationship as they do on the breakdown of a formal marriage, and they exercise those powers by reference to the same considerations and principles. In other words, a “marriage strike” achieves nothing at all in this regard.

The 'marriage strike' would likely simply adapt to such circumstances, people would cohabitate less, instead keeping two separate residences, or break up before the two year rule kicks in. People adapt.

As to men being in a "more advantageous position" if unmarried, you can hardly blame us given the biases that exist in divorce courts that can often cripple us financially for life. Indeed, this law only affects the equivalent of spousal maintenance, not child maintenance that is already legislated for regardless of the relationship the parents may have had, thus really all it does is reinforce the notion that a person is 'owed a living' by their partner, regardless of children being involved, which is a principle I would have thought better abandoned in this day and age.

Sure, I accept that there have been marriage ceremonies and marriage celebrations since prehistory. My point is that they weren’t essential; in many societies many people formed lasting, socially recognised conjugal unions without having a ceremony, or having a ceremony well after the union had in fact begun, and been socially recognised.

Historically, I think you'll find this has generally not been the case. Marriage ceremonies have varied in complexity and cost over the centuries, from culture to culture but you will find that they were legally required most of the time, even amongst the lower orders.

This is not to suggest that Western-style ceremonies today have not become overly lavish, but to suggest that a public ceremony was not 'essential' for a marriage would be factually incorrect - even the simplest (in ancient Greece) where a simple exchange to be man and wife would have had to be witnessed by the respective families and inevitably involve festivities - after all, it became a legal contract with serious social and financial implications, so you really wanted to underline this publicly as loudly as you could.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'more' as Ireland has already implemented a similar law to Australia - allow people to sue for maintenance and assets once they've had sex once or twice?

Perhaps Ireland is further along this curve than I had appreciated; I’ve been out of the country for some years.

But my point stands; there’s a trend of shifting the focus away from whether the couple have made a ceremonial commitment, towards whether they have behaved in a way (cohabitation, having children) which results in the commitment being socially and legally imposed upon them. In other words, marriage, but without the wedding.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The 'marriage strike' would likely simply adapt to such circumstances, people would cohabitate less, instead keeping two separate residences, or break up before the two year rule kicks in. People adapt.

Ah, then Australia is a bit further along the curve! You can keep two separate residenced in Australia, and still be in a de facto relationship.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As to men being in a "more advantageous position" if unmarried, you can hardly blame us given the biases that exist in divorce courts that can often cripple us financially for life. Indeed, this law only affects the equivalent of spousal maintenance, not child maintenance that is already legislated for regardless of the relationship the parents may have had, thus really all it does is reinforce the notion that a person is 'owed a living' by their partner, regardless of children being involved, which is a principle I would have thought better abandoned in this day and age.

Not blaming anyone. I merely not that the general trend is against those of the view you express, as the courts are acquiring powers to order “spousal” maintenance in favour of a non-spouse, and they are increasingly doing so on the same basis regardless of whether the parties were ever formally married. You may not feel that your non-marital conjugal partner has a claim on your resources should the relationship break down, but clearly many people do feel that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Historically, I think you'll find this has generally not been the case. Marriage ceremonies have varied in complexity and cost over the centuries, from culture to culture but you will find that they were legally required most of the time, even amongst the lower orders.

This is not to suggest that Western-style ceremonies today have not become overly lavish, but to suggest that a public ceremony was not 'essential' for a marriage would be factually incorrect - even the simplest (in ancient Greece) where a simple exchange to be man and wife would have had to be witnessed by the respective families and inevitably involve festivities - after all, it became a legal contract with serious social and financial implications, so you really wanted to underline this publicly as loudly as you could.

Except if you didn’t have much social standing or financial assets – i.e. if you were like the great majority of people in medieval times – it became less important.

In medieval Europe you could have a public ceremony. But all that was absolutely necessary was an exchange of promises, which could be entirely private, plus consummation. There might or might not be a ceremony; that was desireable, respectable, but not essential. And, because the exchange of promises could be private, there was a certain degree of willingness to infer it from the conduct of the couple. In other words, if a couple behaved as if they were married, then they were married. This idea still survives as “common law marriage” in several US states. (Yes, a “common law marriage” is not a euphemism for shacking up; it’s a legally valid and binding marriage.)

This changed in Europe after the reformation. The Catholic church decreed that for a marriage (between Catholics) to be valid it had to be celebrated in public, before a priest. (This was common, but optional, before.) Protestant Europe initially disdained this, but later came to see it as sensible (because important things like property and social status were at stake) and generally went down the same road.

But it seems to me that we are now reversing the trend, more and more drawing inferences from a couple’s conduct and imposing on them obligations which they haven’t explicitly accepted, even privately to one another.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, then Australia is a bit further along the curve! You can keep two separate residenced in Australia, and still be in a de facto relationship.

Just as well that prostitution is legal there, I suppose.

You may not feel that your non-marital conjugal partner has a claim on your resources should the relationship break down, but clearly many people do feel that.

I don't think that a even a marital conjugal partner should really have a claim, tbh. It's a throwback of a time when a woman needed a man to financially survive, and where divorce was far, far more rare. Today, people really should only owe themselves a living, not expect if from someone else.

As for many people feeling they do, I cannot speak for Australia, but in Ireland the law was quietly slipped in under the auspices of civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples with little or no debate and even today, many don't even know about these implications of this law.

I would suspect that support would not have been all that high had it been openly debated.

Except if you didn’t have much social standing or financial assets – i.e. if you were like the great majority of people in medieval times – it became less important.

Not at all. Even as a serf, you would have had assets and rights to farming leases or guild membership or the like, associated with blood and family. Ultimately public ceremonies, while more modest, were the norm (even if not legally required), if only because of the legal and financial implications involved requiring witnesses. This is a trend that pre-dates the medieval period by quite a bit.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think that a even a marital conjugal partner should really have a claim, tbh. It's a throwback of a time when a woman needed a man to financially survive, and where divorce was far, far more rare. Today, people really should only owe themselves a living, not expect if from someone else.

Well, there’s a bit of an irony here. The more women acquire education, earning power, employment market equality and so forth, and therefore the more they have the capacity to earn their own living, the more they potentially give up by altering their employment/career position when they marry/cohabit/start a family. If a woman could pursue a relatively high-powered, high-earning career, but instead limits her career options by the choices she makes with respect to family, or her husband’s career, the “opportunity cost” involved is much greater than it used to be.

It’s obviously not the case that every woman compromises her career when she marries, but it’s still the fact that many do, to some extent. The male/female wage gap is larger in Ireland for married/cohabiting people than it is for single people, and the largest factor in this is that women tend to make choices which limit their own earning capacity, while enhancing their partner’s. And this may fuel demands for greater financial compensation when a marriage breaks down, or may contribute to perceptions that compensation is justified.

In Australia there’s a growing trend towards “clean break” settlements. Instead of one partner being awarded continuing maintenance, they are awarded a lump sum. The wealthier partner may well have to liquidate assets, or to mortgage them to raise the sum which has been ordered, but once the lump sum is transferred there is no longer any financial dependency between the partners.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there’s a bit of an irony here. The more women acquire education, earning power, employment market equality and so forth, and therefore the more they have the capacity to earn their own living, the more they potentially give up by altering their employment/career position when they marry/cohabit/start a family. If a woman could pursue a relatively high-powered, high-earning career, but instead limits her career options by the choices she makes with respect to family, or her husband’s career, the “opportunity cost” involved is much greater than it used to be.

Thing is that such cohabitation laws are independent of whether either party has had children or sacrificed anything for any family. They could simply be childless and unemployed or simply on a lower salary than their partner and still be entitled to have their living supplemented by someone they lived with for a few years (or apparently in Australia, didn't even have to live with).

In Australia there’s a growing trend towards “clean break” settlements.

These do not exist in Ireland. In reality I'm not sure they really exist anywhere, only that making additional claims in the future can be close to impossible if the initial agreement is drafted correctly.

But in Ireland, there's no such thing as a "clean break" settlement.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thing is that such cohabitation laws are independent of whether either party has had children or sacrificed anything for any family. They could simply be childless and unemployed or simply on a lower salary than their partner and still be entitled to have their living supplemented by someone they lived with for a few years (or apparently in Australia, didn't even have to live with).

The laws may be independent of such factors, but the actual maintenance orders and property transfers imposed by the courts may not be.

But whether financial settlements on relationship breakdown are justified or not is a bit of a side issue. My main point stands; it’s increasing socially acceptable for people to cohabit, and have children, without having a wedding, but it’s an oversimplification to say that marriage] is dying off. Increasingly, the social, legal, administrative, etc consequences of forming a conjugal relationship are pretty much what they always were. It’s not that we don’t have marriage any more; it’s more that we have marriage without the need for weddings.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

The laws may be independent of such factors, but the actual maintenance orders and property transfers imposed by the courts may not be.

Not really the point. It may mean that the amount of maintenance paid or assets won will be far less, but it does not change the fact that we legally condone such parasitic practices. You may only end up having to pay a lump sum of €5,000 when breaking up with your (childless) partner of five years, but why on earth would they deserve it, just because they just happen to be earning less than you?

Indeed, as you point out we have marriage without the need for weddings, but apparently without any commitment or promise either. So it is certainly not a side issue.

My main point stands; it’s increasing socially acceptable for people to cohabit, and have children, without having a wedding, but it’s an oversimplification to say that marriage] is dying off.

Well I think you're confusing marriage and weddings here and concluding that the decline is due to people avoiding the latter. In reality though, a marriage only costs €50, for the licence. I've known quite a few who did it this way and didn't exactly spend all that much more than they would have on an average weekend.

Yet people are not getting married, with or without a wedding - or at least less so. As I said earlier, there's probably numerous reasons for this, many of which have been mooted here.

The sexual revolution eliminated the need for marriage to attain regular sex. Changing gender roles meant also that women were no longer dependant on a husband for their financial future. Laws and attitudes twoards illegitimacy have also changed radically, meaning that being born out of wedlock was no longer abnormal, let alone scandalous. Then the increasingly biased financial consequences of marriage have also acted as a deterrent, particularly to men. On top of that we are increasingly career orientated, in full-time education longer and financially much older before we can afford to 'settle down'.

All of these factors have had their toll on marriage, in the end.

Increasingly, the social, legal, administrative, etc consequences of forming a conjugal relationship are pretty much what they always were. It’s not that we don’t have marriage any more; it’s more that we have marriage without the need for weddings.

That's a very recent development though that actually only exists, thankfully, in a small number of countries. The decline was there long before these new 'options' appeared largely as a response to this decline by governments; IMO for largely financial reasons.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well I think you're confusing marriage and weddings here and concluding that the decline is due to people avoiding the latter. In reality though, a marriage only costs €50, for the licence. I've known quite a few who did it this way and didn't exactly spend all that much more than they would have on an average weekend.

No, no, no. I’m not making myself clear.

I’m not talking about people who have low-key civil ceremonies rather than grand church weddings. I’m talking about people who have no ceremony at all; cohabitees.

Increasingly, both socially and legally, their position is being assimilated to that of a formally-married couple. Socially, there is no longer any question-mark over the relationship; it is not regarded as something tentative, disreputable, provisional. The couple concerned are, well, a couple, just like any formally-married couple. But it’s not just a matter of getting invited to dinner together. Employment-based pension schemes, for example, are increasingly likely to provide partner benefits for non-marital and marital partners alike. Banks will lend to non-marital couples just as readily as to marital couples. And so forth. All of this is a significant change from what used to be the experience of cohabitation.

And legally, well, we’ve already touched on what happens on marriage breakdown. But the same assimilation of cohabitation to marriage happens in a wide range of areas – social welfare, immigration, housing.

In other words, non-formally-married couples effectively have the status of marriage imposed upon them, regardless of their choice or wishes. The relationship between them may not be called marriage but, functionally, the social, administrative and legal reality is that it is marriage.

Marriage – not the title, but the substance - has changed. It’s no longer a status you actively choose, but a status that arises out of facts and events. But marriage is not disappearing.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Increasingly, both socially and legally, their position is being assimilated to that of a formally-married couple. Socially, there is no longer any question-mark over the relationship; it is not regarded as something tentative, disreputable, provisional. The couple concerned are, well, a couple, just like any formally-married couple. But it’s not just a matter of getting invited to dinner together. Employment-based pension schemes, for example, are increasingly likely to provide partner benefits for non-marital and marital partners alike. Banks will lend to non-marital couples just as readily as to marital couples. And so forth. All of this is a significant change from what used to be the experience of cohabitation.

There's no disagreement there, the shift away from marriage twoards concubinage is pretty stark in Western society.

In other words, non-formally-married couples effectively have the status of marriage imposed upon them, regardless of their choice or wishes. The relationship between them may not be called marriage but, functionally, the social, administrative and legal reality is that it is marriage.

I understand this, and I understand how and why it is being done, but I do consider it a rather desperate attempt to hold onto a social and legal status that people are abandoning, not through its reform, but through coercion.

Essentially people are not getting married for a number of reasons, some of which I and others have cited. Yet for socio-economic reasons marriage is still considered a preferable state within society. Presuming this is so, there are three ways to deal with this decline:

• Reform those aspects of 'marriage' that dissuade people from it.
• Make marriage more attractive.
• Force them into 'marriage'.

The second option has been tried, in the shape of things such as tax and inheritance incentives, but ultimately this has failed to stem the tide. As a result the third option of coercion has become the present fashion.

The problem with coercion is that people will ultimately adapt. Relationships will become more short term and casual, partnership contracts will become the norm and alternatives to relationships will become more commonplace. People will also become much older before 'settling down' because the option to 'try out' a relationship before doing so will be limited, making it more difficult to judge if their choice of partner is the 'right' one. And, financially, it will encourage those who earn more to emigrate to jurisdictions where this coercion does not exist - it's certainly being cited as one reason not to live in either Ireland or Australia, in conversations I've had.

But you're right in saying that 'marriage', in the sense of a socio-economic life contract, is not disappearing; at least not yet. But coercive policies are unlikely to be more successful than the incentive ones in the long run. As such we're more than likely to see a continued, if slower, decline, as people who (for whatever reason) reject 'marriage', adapt to the new realities.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

I understand this, and I understand how and why it is being done, but I do consider it a rather desperate attempt to hold onto a social and legal status that people are abandoning, not through its reform, but through coercion.

Except they’re not really abandoning it. Sure, they’re cohabiting without any formal ceremony, but by and large they still want social and legal recognition and support for their relationships. Conjugal partners get quite shirty - understandably so - if they aren’t treated as one another’s next-of-kin in hospitals, for example, or if their relationships are ignored for immigration purposes, or if they have no right to take over a partner’s tenancy when the partner dies, or if they don’t get survivor benefits in a pension scheme, or if they can’t have their partner’s income taken into account when a loan application is assessed, or if they are treated less favourably than married couples in a whole host of other areas. If you ask them about this, what they’ll typically say is not that they want to keep their relationship entirely private and to have it disregarded for public and official purposes; they’re more likely to say that they don’t see why they should have to have “a piece of paper”, or to go through “a meaningless ceremony” in order to have their relationship validated, accepted and recognized.

How we deal with relationship breakdown is only a very small part of the legal, administrative and policy response to conjugal relationships (many of which, of course, never break down). But even when it comes to the imposition of property and financial settlements on relationship breakdown, it’s only (at most) one of the couple who objects to the imposition of a settlement; the other has in fact sought it, or it wouldn’t be imposed.

I disagree with you that a nanny state is forcing quasi-marriage status on cohabiting couples. Rather, the state is recognizing social reality; these relationships do exist, they are significant and they do change people’s lives in ways that wider society - including the state - needs to recognize.

Ultimately, conjugal partnerships are not something invented by church or state; they’re a fundamental social reality. If public policy is to be grounded in reality and to remain relevant, it has little choice but to recognize and accept them. (Which is why a refusal to recognize same-sex relationships is bad policy.) If, as a society, we no longer feel that a marriage ceremony is a necessary element in a committed conjugal partnership, then it’s both right and ultimately inevitable that law and policy will come into line with this perception.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except they’re not really abandoning it. Sure, they’re cohabiting without any formal ceremony, but by and large they still want social and legal recognition and support for their relationships.

I think you're making a few presumptions there, not least of all that people are forgoing traditional marriage in favour of civil partnerships of some description. And certainly some are, but even where such partnerships 'social and legal recognition', many more are not - if it was so important to people they wouldn't need it imposed upon them by laws such as those in Ireland and Australia, after all.

TBH, while some are simply replacing traditional marriage with partnerships that come with 'social and legal recognition', many are specifically choosing not to have that 'social and legal recognition'. It is presumptuous to presume that this is what they are seeking.

How we deal with relationship breakdown is only a very small part of the legal, administrative and policy response to conjugal relationships (many of which, of course, never break down). But even when it comes to the imposition of property and financial settlements on relationship breakdown, it’s only (at most) one of the couple who objects to the imposition of a settlement; the other has in fact sought it, or it wouldn’t be imposed.

What an odd argument. Of course only one will object to it, oddly enough the one who loses out; you'll tend to find that in any civil dispute, so I'm not sure what it proves for you. What I pointed out, which you did not address, was that the idea that one parter effectively owes something to the other, simply for having been in a relationship (independent of children or investments or anything else) is a ridiculously outdated concept that does nothing other than encourage and reward parasitic lifestyles.

I disagree with you that a nanny state is forcing quasi-marriage status on cohabiting couples. Rather, the state is recognizing social reality; these relationships do exist, they are significant and they do change people’s lives in ways that wider society - including the state - needs to recognize.

I've never suggested that such relationships should not be recognised. I've simply pointed out that they should not be imposed against the wishes of either or both people involved. Effectively we're returning to a mentality whereby if a man slept with an unmarried woman, he would be forced to marry her.

This is not a step forward, but back, and effectively denies people the freedom of choice of the relationship they want. If they want that 'social and legal recognition', let them sign up to it by choice and if they do not, don't force them to.