What Bwings Us Togevva

Mawwage, or, at least, that's what Peter Cook thinks. My own feelings have been discussed here; and yesterday, in the Observer, came a long piece from Hannah Bett about her reasons for rejecting marriage, which she lists as: atheism; feminism; suspicion of the intervention of the state in private matters; and, what seems to be the refusal to close off the possibility of sex and love with other people.

Yet despite the internal recognition I feel on reading this, it appears somewhat... naive? Unrealistic? It's certainly not the full picture. In contrast stands the Guardian article earlier this week which discussed - anecdotally, at least - the large numbers of long-term non-marrying couples who are suddenly tying the knot. While Bett cites, to prove her point, last year having the lowest number of marriages in Britain since 1896, those figures sadly do not cite how long the couple was together before they got married, and there seems to be little empirical data on this. Anecdotally, I suppose my own experiences suggest that people are getting married after building solid platforms - long-term cohabitation, establishing careers. This year alone, of the five weddings of my mates that I know of, three of the couples have been together longer than five years.

Rather than the threshold being the first step, marriage has become the final step to adulthood. And, divorce rates are falling, in my opinion, at least, for the very reasons Bett cites for not getting married - feminism, because women are equals with economic power to such a greater extent that they are entering marriages with equals, and atheism's influence in that people don't think they're going to hell if they try out this relationship before certifying it.

So what to believe? The major problem with long-term cohabitation is the legal architecture that has promoted marriage for centuries - the shoring up of assets, tax breaks, inheritance issues. For centuries, women were utterly unprotected and were not just unable to own property, but were it themselves. Finally, women have some form protection, but the only way to do that would be through marriage. What Bett fails to deal with in her article is the very real worry of what happens to the assets, the children, everything if something goes wrong - be it separation or death. This bizarrely, therefore, reduces marriage to what it always was for many long-term couples - not a proof of romantic love but a pragmatic solution to property. However, I guess the romance for me comes into the notion of protecting your loved ones. So, some progress.