Strange way to look at commitment....

I agree. A case of looking what people do rather than what they say. They're making massive commitments but somehow overlook that actual fact!

I absolutely agree. The real commitment is having children. Whether you are married or remain single, if people decide to have children they should understand that. Partners should also be aware that there is no such thing as "common law marriage". Only children are protected if a couple are unmarried - partners are not automatically entitled to a division of assets and continuing financial support on their own behalf, and this can obviously have a knock-on effect for the children.

I too have nothing against people living together and having children - neither of my children have married - but I do think that, practically speaking, it is often a safer option when children are involved.

I agree. It's very strange to think children and joint property is a lesser commitment.
Mind you, aspects of our current taxation system discourage couples from marrying. For example, an unmarried couple can own a primary residence each (with the tax advantage that they can make untaxed capital gain on both, assuming they go up in value over the years), whereas a married couple can only own one between them. Some (fortunate) young couples are doing this form of financial planning to create income for when one of them wants to stop work e.g. maternity leave, or even, thinking further ahead, as pension for when they reach retirement age.

Buying a house, getting married takes a lot of planning. Having a baby is often unplanned and people didn't gave commitment in mind when it happened.

Of course people can do what they like, but it does seem strange to have children and buy a house together - and then talking of not wanting to make that commitment!

However, to me the real worry is that so many people assume that they have 'common law' rights, when they don't, and fail to make wills, so that in the event that one of them dies, their property (e.g. in particular half the house) may well go elsewhere, and not to the partner they'd have wished and intended it to go to.

I am in total agreement with you all.

Sometimes I wonder why marriage is so unfashionable?

The income and property tax angle is a deterrent, but that may change.

Here (Denmark) the law has been changed regarding social security, so now a couple living together are no longer regarded as two single people, which they were formerly,

Here too we have the same legal issue with people dying intestate and the partner not being a legal spouse inheriting nothing whatsoever, nor able to decide on the details of the funeral if there are blood relatives of the deceased who insist on taking over. (Their legal right).

In one of the worst cases I know of, a man who lost his long-time partner was given three months to get himself and his personal property out of the flat by his dead partner's children who intended selling the flat, and had not even the courtesy to offer him an option on it. The heirs arranged their mother's funeral without any consideration for his wishes in the matter, merely told him when and where it would be held.

So yes, we need to make quite sure that young relatives who don't want the commitment of marriage, but do have children and own common property realise their lack of legal rights.

An unmarried couple who have children and property together can enter into a binding legal agreement, drawn up by a solicitor.
Such a document can be more protective of each other’s rights and the rights of the children than marriage is.

I think that this attitude to marriage is partly due the huge commercialisation of weddings. In the hairdressers a few years ago, one of the stylists was getting married after 16 years of co-habiting and two children. She said it was only now that they could afford to get married, but reflected that the 'second magician' at the evening do was a bit of a waste of money! They were divorced less than two years later. Why can't people just get married? They are making promises to each other and a legal contract which is important for children and property. You can have a party any time!

J52
So this binding legal agreement will appear to many in preference to a marriage and, forgive me but I have yet to look at one of these documents, appears an open door to I can walk out whenever I want no strings attached.? Nice one.

I admit if I had not hoped/planned to have a family, I would not have married. I was a family lawyer before our children finally came along, and perhaps I saw too many unpleasant and expensive divorces. But I wanted the additional legal protection for any future children and perhaps also that additional barrier to relationship breakdown when coparenting.

Before I retired my job brought me in touch with many young women. Most had children and lived with the fathers. They all expressed a desire to get married but they simply couldn't afford it!
I often pointed out that the only expense would be the marriage license and was always met with a stoney silence. The point being that they all wanted the 'big day ' , the dress ,the party and all the rest. Actually' being married' didn't come into the equation at all.

I heard the tail end of a conversation the other day where one Mum said to another, "We are trying to make up our minds whether to get married or have a baby." I thought to myself that they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. You can get married with little expense and fuss if you want to make that commitment and I would agree with Daisynance123 that it is often the "Big Day" which appears to be more important than the statement of commitment.

A young friend of mine has been with her ' partner' for 12 years. They havetwo children and are buying a large house. Both children have their father's name. She was sad and frustrated that whenever marriage was mentioned her partner distanced himself for a while. She said she wanted to have the same name as her children. Not a lot to ask for really.

More young people would be able to buy their own home, thus have long term security, if they were more sensible about the huge amount of money they spend on their wedding and the weddings of friends. Wedding dresses can cost thousands of pounds and some brides have another one to change into at the reception - my dress cost £10 from C and A. Then there are the Jimmy Choo wedding shoes which have the bride’s name and wedding date on them, goodness only knows how much they cost. Exotic honeymoons are expected, we had three days in London. Hen and Stag parties seem to last up to a week and are often abroad, neither of us had one. Then there are fancy cars or horse and carriage to take them to and from the church and reception. There is the reception and ‘evening do’ and probably a lot more expenditure which I have no idea or experience of. The most ridiculous thing I have heard of is a ‘second honeymoon’ 6 months after the wedding.

I’m not criticising people who have great wealth and can afford these huge extravagant weddings but I am critical of couples with a low to moderate income spending these huge amounts of money on a wedding when the total amount would be the deposit on their own home. This was our priority 53 years ago and thankfully our two sons and their wives have had modest weddings and bought their own homes soon after.

These days, marriage is certainly no guarantee of a couple staying together but it does give certain protections to the people involved.

I agree with those who feel the commercialisation of marriage has changed the focus from a sincerely meant commitment to love and care for a person to a commitment to spend inordinate amounts of money on hen/stag nights/weekends/weeks, weddings and honeymoons.

Marriage is not the only victim of this shift in focus, as everyone can testify. The approach of Easter, Christmas, Halloween, Firework Night, World Book Day, Christenings, School Proms, etc. etc. is now seized as a marketing opportunity.

I have often thought that some people want to be married. And others want to get married.

I was just listening to Jeremy Vine. A young woman was talking about how she had restaged their wedding because she wasn't satisfied with the photographs. It just seemed to sum up some people's attitude to weddings today: a consumer activity. The fact that the new photos weren't authentic mementos of the day didn't matter, appearances being much more important than factual representations of the real event.

When I got married I bought my dress from my brother in laws sister for a £5. The wedding reception
Was in a room above a pub. And it was a buffet. We had a lovely day as it was about us and family and friends. We are still married after 43 yrs. But nowadays it seems to take years of planning and vast expense and some are still paying it off years later. which I think the money could go to better use.

I couldn't agree more. I was once told that marriage is a way of protecting women so why so many don't bother to marry is a mystery to me. When I was young and daft I thought that marriage was 'just a piece of paper' - it's much more than that, isn't it?

My wedding cost £160. We have been married 37 years and all of our children have married although most of the children of my friends have not. I think marriage underlines the commitment if you have a mortgage and assets together , never mind the most important thing of all, the children. When my son and daughter-in-law went to register their baby 's birth the Registrar said it was a refreshing change for both parents and new baby to have the same name.

Marriage!!!!! The bit of paper cost my then new husband 7/6p... ( 38 new pence). I believe he's had his money's worth over 45 years. There's nothing on that bit of paper that said EVERY job in the house : garden: the kids: should be done by me, but apparently it's unwritten rule. On our honeymoon my new hubby informed me that quote" I don't sweat... I don't lift... I don't get my hands dirty." And he never has!! Couple years ago I tore my marriage certificate in half and gave it to him along with his 7/6p (38new pence) back. He's still trying to figure it out!!! Idiot.

My one regret was my daughter telling me she was marrying.... I offered her money ( a lot) to stay single , she refused. Ten years later she's on her own with two kids. Well not her own...she's got me. And I'll never let her down.

I've been divorced twice and don't want to marry again - I am hoping that the bill to allow heterosexual civil partnerships gets through eventually. It keeps getting put off with "we are looking into it"... why? - it would be such a simple change!

As an issue separate from the moral question of marriage it is worth looking at the statistics. Children whose parents marry are half as likely again to stay together as those who don’t. Children of married parents enjoy better physical and mental health, attain more highly at school and are more likely to go on to tertiary education. They are better at finding and keeping jobs and are wealthier than children whose parents cohabit. They are also more likely to be from the middle and upper classes.