When my wife and I got married a couple of years ago in our early twenties, we knew we were quite young to be getting married, but we had no idea how young. In living memory, though admittedly not my living memory, our punctual nuptials were entirely typical: as recently as forty years ago, the median age at first marriage for a woman in England and Wales was 22 — the same as my wife. 

Times have changed, though. In 1970, 62 per cent of men had married by age 25; by 1990, this was down to 29 per cent. Today, that figure is just 2 per cent. In this context, it is no surprise that upon hearing the news of our engagement, some university friends cautiously enquired whether we were expecting a little one (we were not): the idea that we simply wanted to get married for its own sake seemed too peculiar.

This extraordinary shift over not much more than a generation is the combined effect of two trends. Firstly, people marry older than they did 50 years ago — the average age at first marriage is now 31 for women and 33 for men. And secondly, people are less likely to marry at all. A growing share of couples do not see marriage as a prerequisite to starting a family: in 2021, for the first time, more than half of babies in England and Wales were born to unmarried parents. Some of these couples go on to marry later, but many never do.

For many progressives, this is unsurprising and even pleasing. A Times column responding to the news that in 2024, for the first time, less than half of adults in England and Wales were married or in a civil partnership saw this as a largely positive development: “plenty of happy, healthy couples have flourished for years without saying ‘I do’”. Liberal criticism of marriage has a long and esteemed history: it was referred to as “the only actual bondage known to our law” by no less than John Stuart Mill.

Marriage-scepticism has also long been a staple of popular culture. Think of Friends, where Joey describes marriage as “waking up next to the same face every morning until the sweet release of death”. Or Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) — a film that exemplifies Gen X’s “too cool to get married” school of thought. (Concluding scene: Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts passionately kiss in the pouring rain. “Do you think, after we’ve dried off, after we’ve spent lots more time together, you might agree not to marry me? And do you think not being married to me might maybe be something you could consider doing for the rest of your life?” “I do.”) 

… far from being pointless and outdated, marriage offers unique benefits compared to long-term cohabitation

My report for Civitas, Marriage and the stable society, published today, makes a different case. It argues that, far from being pointless and outdated, marriage offers unique benefits compared to long-term cohabitation. For cohabitants, whoever is less committed holds the cards — getting married equalises this. Marriage provides important legal protections to women, who otherwise risk significant financial vulnerability due to the career sacrifice that motherhood virtually always entails. Polling also suggests that married couples may be less likely than cohabitants to feel lonely.

Perhaps most significantly, a number of major studies across several countries show that married couples are consistently much less likely to separate than cohabitants; and also that marriage doesn’t just tie people who are miserable together — couples who get through difficult periods are generally thankful to have done so years later. Divorce rates are also significantly down nowadays from the high for couples marrying in the early 90s, and evidence suggests that over two thirds of those marrying today will be in it for life. This of course has significant benefits for the children of married couples, who are more likely to have both parents present throughout their childhood.

These, sadly, are benefits that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are increasingly likely to miss out on. The Civitas report details a growing “marriage gap”: affluent and university-educated people are still getting and staying married, whilst marriage is going extinct in poorer sections of society. Ironically, the groups that continue to get married at high rates are often the very same that display their progressive credentials by pooh-poohing the idea of marriage. And while over 70 per cent of Cabinet members are married or engaged themselves, the government remains largely silent on the topic of marriage, seeing it as a personal matter that does not merit public comment.

A substantial reason for the “marriage gap” is that weddings have become eye-wateringly expensive. A quick survey of leading wedding magazines suggests that the average wedding will probably exceed £20,000 in cost. Not many young or less well-off couples are able to pay that for a party, however important.

Much of this expense can be avoided (who really needs to spend hundreds of pounds on a cake?), but even simpler weddings are surprisingly awkward. Unless a religious ceremony is your thing (these now account for less than a fifth of weddings), you’ll have to find a venue that has gone through a bureaucratic process to become licenced for civil weddings. These are relatively few and far between, and tend to be extortionately expensive (manor houses, country clubs and the like). Alternatively, you can opt for a registry office wedding — but even this isn’t as cheap or straightforward as one might hope, with statutory fees usually coming in at over £500. It’s clear that the law hasn’t kept up with the growth in demand for civil weddings over recent decades — and that this is making getting married more difficult and expensive than it needs to be.

If Labour are serious about “fixing the foundations”, then what can be more foundational than stability and security at home? Making marriage an accessible choice, by modernising regulation and perhaps offering discounts on fees to poorer couples, is not just a question of allowing people the personal freedom to marry, but is a key part of forming a stable society.