[tsupiroti]

> We could agree that marriage, everywhere in the Western world, is declining in popularity, and non-marital cohabitation rising. This is especially true of Europe.

In my experience, many young couples in western Europe don't see marriage as signifying that a relationship is stabler. It's something you just do after you've been living together for a while since it simplifies some bureaucracy (especially if moving outside the EU) and it's a good reason to have a party. In many countries being in a domestic partnership is very similar to being married from a legal perspective.

[mduerksen]

That doesn't fit my experience at all (I'm from Germany).

As soon as couples start to have concrete plans for children (or children are already on their way), marriage suddenly becomes very relevant for many relationships, and is often demanded by at least one side of the partnership.

This puts aside the romanticised view of marriage (which might be perceived equivalent to living together) and points to a more fundamental reason for marriage: Securing resources for your offspring. And offspring needs a lot of resources for a long time.

In the end, its commitment that counts. And marriage was built for ensuring commitment as much as humanly possible, with a high barrier for abandoning.

[hef19898]

Being married makes a lot of bureaucracy around kids and so on a lot easier. Especially in case one parent dies. The legal aspects of loosing your partner are less important without a house and mortgage on it and without kids.

I agree so that marriage is, also historically, as much about economics as it is about love.

[tsupiroti]

Good point, it's indeed common for couples to get married when having children.

Still, I think what's helping ensure commitment in that case are the children, rather than the marriage. It's much easier for a married childless couple to split up than for an unmarried couple that has children.

[mduerksen]

It is quite debatable if children actually stabilize marriages (I know a lot of counterexamples).

I would argue exactly the other way around: A lasting marriage is not itself the goal (though certainly nice to grow old together), but serves the purpose of raising offspring - that's what counts for every species that has survived.

[tsupiroti]

I agree children can cause problems in relationships. My point was more that they're a very strong reason against splitting up.

[mensetmanusman]

“ I think what's helping ensure commitment in that case are the children, rather than the marriage. ”

This is the luxury belief. It feels true, it doesn’t conflict with secular values, but all the research points to it being false…

[giantg2]

In the US, the resources for the child can just be court ordered as child support even if you were never married. So the legal commitment to the child is there regardless.

[mduerksen]

A marriage establishes more bonds than just the legal/financial obligations.

- In-laws - you become a member of a new family, new levels of mutual privileges and responsibilities

- Public wedding - Proclamation to both social circles that the new family project now has officially started

- Family name - new Identity

- ...

[Acinyx]

From the neighbors in the Netherlands: it is interesting to see these local differences as at least in my circles you don't need to get married to become part of the in-laws or other social circles.

Really, most couples I know really only marry when they are already very well established in each-others circles, as sort of a affirmation of their love. Maybe this is also because legally you can achieve the same protections for your children a lot simpler than getting married.

But this doesn't mean the whole of the Netherlands works like that, just my social circles :)

[mduerksen]

I agree that it can depend on social circles.

Still, I would argue this:

Lets say your 19 year old daughter wants to introduce her boyfriend of same age into your family.

How would you rate her (and his!) seriousness if

a) they lived in his apartment or

b) they are organizing their wedding.

I would wager b) would be "well-established" much quicker, especially in the wider circles, and thus have more "social resources" sooner, thus giving their potential offspring better chances. Of course, with kids out of the picture, it wouldn't make much difference. But that is exactly my point: Marriage serves having children.

[nl]

What?

Your "(a) living together" is a much more serious and well established relationship than "planning wedding".

"living together" implies a de-facto relationship with the legal protections that brings. "Planning a wedding" gives none of that.

To your point: legal protection is a very serious "social resource" given potential offspring a benefit.

[tsupiroti]

I think b) without a) would be a bit of a red flag. Almost everyone I know has lived together in some way before getting married.

[giantg2]

Why are we rating seriousness?

[giantg2]

All of those can be done without being legally married, and many actually are.

In many US families, it's not uncommon to take people you're seriously dating on family vacations, or have them over for holidays, etc.

Some people who choose not to get legally married have a ceremony and/or party.

Some people who get married don't change their name. People who don't get married can change their name if they want to.

[hef19898]

Don't forget tax reasons. And yes, you can get a lot of marriage like benefits by registering your partnership. Notable exceptions are adoption and shared custody of children. Especially for same sex couples.

[vasco]

In 3 countries I've lived in Europe taxes are the same if you're married or not if you make a similar amount as your partner. Only when one of the partners makes much less, it ends up being "beneficial" as the one making more gets the average "pulled down" as the allowance is 2x but income isn't 2x. If both make the same, all the tax rates and allowances would generally be the same, married or not.

Most people I know in Europe that got married did it because of kids, as the bureaucracy is much simpler in terms of legal protections for the child if anything bad happens to either one of the parents.

[pizza234]

Interesting research here (much longer than one would expect): https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021....

Conclusion:

> in the majority of EU Member States, being married does not bring substantial financial gains or losses for a couple. For several countries we find important differences, mainly stemming from personal income taxation rules that either assess incomes jointly or apply marriage-related allowances or credits, and also from different benefit eligibility rules. While in seven countries married couples are substantially better off than cohabiting partners (marriage bonus), in four countries, the opposite holds true (marriage penalty).

[harph]

When my wife was staying home with our son until he was 3yo, I got to write that into my tax returns and I got a tax bonus. A not working wife + a child = I didn't pay any tax and even got some money back from the government.

I'm not sure how it would work if we were not married. Would probably involve some more bureaucracy.

An of course, as you say, it's easier to handle child bureaucracy when married.

[hef19898]

Yep, if the salaries are the same, no benefits. In our case we married because of taxes and inheritence. Both came with a house, being married reduced any inheritence tax loads and meant that the living partner ended up in sole ownership of the house, otherwise parts would go to the children, which would have required the involvement of courts (children under 18) or childrens approval (over 18) for selling of the house and so on. Which would truely suck, especially the first part.

[jaclaz]

For the record, I have seen some cases of the opposite, i.e. long established (and happily) married couples (each partner possessing a house) separating so that they can claim that each house is the residency of one and lower some of the real estate taxes, then (if one of the partner has less or no income, while the other has a good income) there could be fiscal advantages on alimony.