- Rick Warren
Here is a BBC News column that asks, "Why do people get married after having children?" And the author is serious!
For many people having a child is the ultimate commitment to a partner. A life you have created together and are responsible for raising. It's a commitment many people make without getting married. But some then go on to tie the knot, like Ed Miliband and his partner of six years, Justine Thornton. Why?
There are the obvious financial and legal advantages to getting married. For older people issues surrounding pensions and inheritance are often the reason they decide to get hitched after years together. But Miliband and Thornton are still young.
And while the pressures on the leader of the Labour party will be slightly different to those of the average person, there is no mistaking that attitudes to marriage and family have changed. Getting married used to be about sex, living together and having children, but research shows this is no longer the case.
According to the latest British Social Attitudes (BSA) Survey, which was conducted in 2008, almost two-thirds of people now see little difference between marriage and living together. Fewer than a fifth of people took issue with it. Just under half thought cohabitation showed just as much commitment as getting married. When it comes to children, where opinion can often be a bit more traditional, only 28% said they believe married couples make better parents.
So why do it? Psychologist Donna Dawson, who has specialised in sex and relationships, says it is often about making a public statement. "Having the children take part is like a ceremonial creation of a family and a public statement that they are all in it together. It's very much a 21st Century ritual, which more and more people will be doing."
She says even when couples say there isn't a specific reason, there is "always something going on underneath. Sometimes it is about marking a different stage in a relationship, or they might have taken a long time because of the bad example they were set by their own parents. There is usually a reason, even if they are not fully aware of it."
Chris, 41, and his partner were together for nine years and had two children when they got married. He didn't feel any direct pressure from his partner or family, but says as his children got older he wanted them to have parents who were married. "For me a big part of it was the children," he says. "I didn't want them to be asked at school why their parents weren't married. I suppose you could say that was me feeling a slight pressure to conform to social norms, but if I hadn't wanted to get married in the first place I definitely wouldn't have done it."
Marriage statistics
In 2009 231,490 marriages were registered in England and Wales. It was the lowest number since 1895. The long-term picture for UK weddings is of decline, from a peak of 480,285 marriages in 1972
"Obviously, people wanted that freedom as soon as they could," says Mansfield. "The average age of people getting married was 21 for women and 23 for men. Now you can put a decade on those ages and that's because sex and cohabitation outside of marriage are largely accepted. Now I think people get married after the house and kids because it is very much a public celebration of what they have, rather than the passport to adulthood."
Guardian columnist Zoe Williams has been with her partner for six years and has two children - just like Miliband and Thornton - but says she thinks it is a "weird gesture" to get married at this stage.
"It's now socially acceptable to have sex, live together and have kids outside of marriage, so why spend £10,000 or more on a wedding?" she says. "Having kids is a much bigger deal than marriage, a much bigger statement of commitment. Personally, I just don't think about getting married. I simply have never felt a need to be married."
In the end it could all be about having a big party for Ed and Justine. According to BSA survey, 53% of people now think a wedding is more about a celebration than a life-long commitment.
Wow! Is this where America is headed? Are we already there? (I don't think we are there yet.) If this is where we are headed, then why all the fuss about homosexual marriage? I mean seriously, if marriage is an outdated and unnecessary institution, then why are so many progressives fighting to open it up for homosexuals? Could it be that they are more "traditional" than they realize? (Kind of like the atheist who describes the God he doesn't believe in as the Christian God.)
I wonder if the homosexual marriage fight is a uniquely American issue because Americans value marriage in a way Europe does not.
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6448.
In the UK marriage is not a civil contract. Since the church of England is part of the state, all marriages are conducted through the church. As droves of English have rejected and left the Church, they also see no need for marriage, especially since there is little difference in benefits and taxes, unlike the US.
This is illuminating - John Barrowman, who stars as Captain Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and Torchwood, is openly gay. When asked if he was like to marry his gay partner, he said "why would I want to get married? Marriage is part of the church, and the church has rejected me". So gay marriage is not even an issue in the UK.
Scott,
That's really interesting. So how does a Christian who is not Anglican get married? (For example, what would a Baptist do to get married?)
So from this take, America's "separation of church and state" is part of what makes marriage MORE important to a typical American?
(Note:we are seeing a decline in marriages here as well.)
We're not there yet, but we're headed there.
Even in the church, lots of young couples don't have a concept that cohabitation dishonors God.
Regarding homosexual marriage: just a matter of time (and not much time) before that's legal here. The younger generations, in the church and out of it, largely see no problem whatsoever with homosexual marriage. It's pretty much a done deal.
Also, just to clarify - I think both the situations I described in my earlier comment are tragic. There are lots of little reasons, but one main one.
God chose Marriage to be a picture for the world of his Son's relationship to his bride, the Church. No wonder the enemy (and our flesh) trashes the institution and removes the glory from it.
It started when we became OK with divorce, which is a far bigger problem for the church right now than homosexual marriage is.
"It's now socially acceptable to have sex, live together and have kids outside of marriage, so why spend £10,000 or more on a wedding?"
Indeed yes, why spend that on a wedding? Unrealistic expectations for a lavish wedding distract and dissuade people from marriage.
I'm getting married soon but we're trying not to spend that much on it. I want to focus on the marriage not the wedding, and I see no reason to stretch ourselves financially for lots of shiny.
With regard to extravagance, I guess we're following trends from America, only it's combining with our national characteristic austerity so that many of us re-evaluated marriage rather than just coughing up.
Regarding homosexual marriage: just a matter of time (and not much time) before that's legal here. The younger generations, in the church and out of it, largely see no problem whatsoever with homosexual marriage. It's pretty much a done deal.
Bill, I hope you are wrong. I still see a sliver of hope. The implications of same-sex marriage are devastating for a society. I believe same-sex marriage is accepted by young persons because of their ignorance. I hope when it comes down to implementing same-sex marriage laws, that realization will occur as to what this entails.
Am I going overboard by stating that your daughters will be asked in school whether they want to marry a guy or gal when they grow up. If your daughter mentions that she wants to marry "prince charming" will she be labeled as a "heterosexist"? Will TV ads for wedding rings have to include a scene of a man putting a ring on a man's finger? If a woman-woman couple adopt a child and the couple divorces & remarries, the child will have 4 mommies and no father. Will a traditional man and woman marriage discussions be labeled as hate speech when states begin to adopt same-sex marriage laws.
Again, trying to take all religion and the Bible out of the picture - is it better for a child to be raised by both sexes? For the sake of this argument, I'm not saying that same-sex parents raising a child is wrong but is it better for a child to be raised by both sexes. I say definitely yes.
Two things. First, for most of history marriage has been something different than what it has been in the U.S. Marriage, as we understand it to be, has always been a very fragile thing. By we I mean modern contemporary Christian. History is filled with infidelities.
Second. I would propose that marriage is and always will be what God says it is regardless of what kind of label people of any persuasion put on it. In other words, just because a particular someone in a particular time calls something marriage, doesn't make it so.
I don't think it is something to be shocked about. Saddened yes, shocked no.
Bill,
I apologize, Phil, for completely killing this thread! D'oh!
In the immortal, and oft-quoted by me, words of the cute little girl in Hope Floats..."You stink, Justin Matisse." 
And Hey Bill, you totally redeemed yourself, because my above response to you gave me an idea for a totally different post.
Good work!
It's good to know that my comment stinkage is finally resulting in some good in this world . . .

If America hasn't learned by now that Europe is not a model for anything (financial, healthcare, multiculturalism etc...and now possibly marriage) than we are in a lot of trouble. Unfortunately, liberal democrats in the U.S. hold onto these European "values" (generally speaking) and as long as these type of persons form our laws we will head down this path.
In the U.S., outside of religion, isn't marriage a civil contract sort of speak? Anyone with good "business sense" would want to get married, no? Kind of ties in with capitalism for which the Europeans generally lack.