I agree that marriage is dropping in popularity, but I don't think it's quite as much as those numbers suggest.  Marriage is usually delayed until the late twenties these days, as compared to the 60s when people were getting married at 18 or 20.  That's ten years worth of adults who are't married now but who probably would have been then.  Also, with Canada's aging demographic, I suspect that there are a great many widowed seniors adding to the unmarried numbers. 

As for why marriage is less attractive these days, I think that a lot of people don't view marriage as a permanent arrangement anymore.  Since the 1970s more and more kids have grown up with divorced parents; many of them probably see getting married as being foolishly optimistic since it will only lead to expenses and heartbreak.  ALso, if marriage isn't viewed as permanent, then why bother going through the process?  With common law marriages and serial monogamy being much more socially acceptable now as well, marriage just isn't that important to a lot of people.

Really, I think it might be worth asking why people DO get married these days, since they will get most of the same benefits of marriage in a common law relationship without incurring the added expense of a wedding or the potential added expense of a divorce.  I got married 7 years ago for a number of different reasons:  I preferred the idea of having a child in a strongly committed relationship, I wanted to enjoy the vows and wedding day, and I knew that our families would be happy with it. 

The idea of marriage being more strongly committed is definitely the biggest factor for me and it isn't because I thought that we would love each other any more because of a piece of paper or for any religious reasons.  By making a legal contract to hold us together in marriage, we're "putting our money where our mouths are" so to speak.  All relationships go through difficult tmes, I think, and divorce is still harder and more costly than just breaking up.  Where feelings might falter, the realities of divorce are a final reminder to work just a bit harder and a bit longer to try to make it work.  I didn't want an easy out if I was going to have a child with someone. 

Huge, common misconception here. There is a case out of Quebec coming to the Supreme Court of Canada on the legal rights of a person when a common-law relationship ends. It ain't what you think and it's VERY different from being married.

In addition, a common law spouse, sans will or POA hhas no voice in the health care decisions or estate matters of their partner.

It ain't what you think it is and it's not the same.

Those stats are for 2 different populations, so they don't show a decline.  Sure, there's some similarities between Canada and the US but that sounds like a bit of stat picking to me.  I also agree with many of the reasons Mists gave.

Yes, there are differences between married and common law, but for many couples wanting to get onto a medical and dental plan, or other more immediate benefits are provided by being common law.

Tax-wise, they are largely treated the same now which I think feeds the misconception. However, since family and estate law are provincial, not federal, other rights and responsibilities can vary by jurisdiction and do not necessarily follow CRA's definitions.

Mendalla

On the broader topic, my wife and I did talk, somewhat jokingly, about living together and not bothering with the formalities but, in the end, we did decide that marriage was meaningful and important to both of us. I proposed twenty years ago this coming Valentine's Day and the rest, as they say, is history.

Both types of relationship have their benefits and problems and each couple needs to decide what is important for them as individuals and as a relationships. I think that marriage should be a choice as should living common-law and in an ideal world, society would support both choices with the necessary legal and social mechanisms.

If we as a society believe that marriage is important and is somehow a better choice, then someone has to take on the job of selling it as such (and it should be a marketing job, not a legislative one that uses a legal "big stick" to force the issue). Otherwise, people will act based on what they know and some will choose a course based on reason and knowledge and some will just go with their gut.

Right now, I don't hear a lot of talk promoting either approach to a long term relationship or, indeed, much discussion at all about the benefits or not of marriage. Most of the conversation in recent years has tended to be about who can or can't get married.

Mendalla

Latest research suggests waiting to marry will decrease divorce - note the ones with degree are those who most open to marriage and they are the ones waiting.

Sociologist Chrisitan Smith's research adds to this - university students have problems with dating - hook up culture is making it harder to connect at a deep level. Surprising many do not know how to date or even ask for a date - a sizable number only go out in groups, or casual hook ups, and are lonely.  Again women experience the negative outcomes of hook ups and feel used and makes them wary about dating.

The points re common law is crucial - not the same legally - and my experience was that blue collar people were the ones not marrying and had more serial relationships and the woman being hurt the most - financially and emotionally

One thing that isn't really clear to me is what distinguishes a common law relationship from people just being roommates?

You don't usually **** your roommate?

Not sayin' it doesn't happen, but it's not the expectation in that kind of relationship.

Seriously, though, in a common-law relationship, you tend to behave as spouses (having sex, having kids, shared bank accounts, etc.), things that wouldn't tend to happen with a roommate. You are right to raise the question. CRA's definition specifically states that it must be a "conjugal relationship" of 12 months or longer OR where there are shared children (biological or adopted). This would tend to exclude roommates, where the relationship is normally just sharing space, rent, and maybe food.

Mendalla

Maybe we need a thread entitled:

marriage / common law relationship / room mates

I've read some of that research about the relationship between hook-ups and dating/marriage. Because of my shyness and general social ineptitude, I wasn't part of that hook-up culture in university (no relationships, period, prior to Mrs. M.), so maybe that left me more open to finding that one, big relationship? Would be interesting to study the different social groups and personalities within univerisity culture to see if there are differences along these lines among those who marry vs. those who live common law vs. those who have serial, more casual relationships.

Mendalla

Mendalla - i will be back with more of the research but the point of not dating is that when there is really dating ( later some times) it means really getting to know the other through a process of deeper and deeper encounters so like your experience it opens one to the one big relationship - the short term research suggests that this is creating stronger relatonships for the long run - we will not know the outcome until this present generations is your age or mine ( really long term).

Kids make it obvious, 'conjugal' less so.  If there's a couple living in a house, separate rooms, with other people are they common law?  My husband and I had separate rooms before we were married, were we common law (we said yes, but didn't meet any of your examples).  What if after moving into together a couple starts dating?  What if one wants to be considered common law and the other doesn't?  I think the common law definition can get a bit messy at times.

The way I see it is:

Marriage - a legal arrangement where two people buy a license, make vows to each other in the presence of a licensed rep of the government, and sign legal documents in the presence of witnesses.  This gives them certain rights and responsibilities, in meant to last until the death of one or the other, and requires legal loops (divorce) to be ended.

Wedding - usually means getting married, by often is meant as an elaborate affair  with many guests witnessing the ceremonies, a meal and celebration.   If a clergy person presides and/or it takes place in a church there are also certain religious understandings about being married in 'the eyes of God'.  

Common law - also a legal arrangement between two people but without the license, government rep, witnesses and legal documents.  It is a more casual arrangement between two people, although they may make certain legal arrangements with regards to money and property.   Common law gives certain rights and responsibilities but not as many as marriage does.  I think it is usually considered open ended, and can be disolved by one person walking away, although there many be legal decisions as to the division of property.

Roommates - a casual arrangement, usually for a limited time.  

(Edited for conciseness, hopefully readable now)

Chemgal, yes sorry. I had the stat for 1960 USA at hand, not the Canada 1960. USA for 2011 was 51% married, very similar to us.

Sad that women are being hurt by that custom, and by failed comon law relationships too.

I agree with Mists that marriage is a commitment, and I didn't want to have a child before getting married either.  Also think you're right Mists about children of divorces. My parents are divorced, and in my mind it made me more determined to be careful who I choose. I also chose a man from parents who were still devoted and commited to each other, so he had a good model to follow. Like father, like son, I thought.

I feel that people are hesitant to commit, but also maybe the declining adherance to religious faiths has an effect.

Do people think it's old fashioned to get married? I think our culture generally promotes less marriage, more sexual encounters & extended youth. People grow up not necessarily expecting to get married.

I think marriage is an important rite of passage, & a ceremony is the best way to do that. Just like a funeral is important to the mourners. I think our culture is loosing these rites, do you?.

I also think marriage in the past implied a man would provide for his family, and this no longer seems to be customary. Do you agree? Could this be one reason?

Again comparing marriage to a common law relationship.   I don't think a person can be considered (legally) to be in a common law relationship if he has a legal wiife (or she a legal husband).    A common law relationship is over when one or the other walks out.  There still may be matters of bank accounts and property acquired together to be settled but no legal divorce to go through.   But I am quite sure that, no matter how long - even if its decades - a legally married couple have been separated, they require a legal divorce to end their marriage.  

What might this mean in real life:

A young man makes a will naming his mother as beneficiary, and forgets about it.  He marries - the will is invalidated.  His wife, their children, will become his heirs unless or until he makes another will (something many people don't get around to).    Even if they separate and he enters into another relationship, his wife will be his heir and entitled to inherit his death benefits and his estate.  

Or perhaps this young man, having named his mother as beneficiary and forgotten about it, doesn't marry but enters a long term common law regationship.   He dies - his mother steps up with the Will - his mother is his beneficiary.    HIs common law relationship didn't invalidate the will.

Seeler, while I agree that's a concern I tend to think of things on the opposite side when it comes to common law relationships.  Some relationships are very serious, and last a long time, others only a few years.

Many people decide to move in together in their 20s.  I think these relationships are much more likely to end after a few years compared to marriage.  The same level of commitment is there.  One person may have much debt due to student loans and credit cards, the other may have bought a condo while working and going to school part time.  If they break up, the one with much debt would have a right to claim half the home and assests (as far as I understand it).  Very few people in their 20s even think about a pre-nup type document for moving in together, but I think if there are uneven assests it's more important than it is for marriage.

I do know some parents concerned about their child's assests have made certain savings joint or even held the savings for their child.  Whether or not the common law partner would still have a claim to these I'm not sure, but I think it as least shows some forethought and would help.  It was not the young adult's idea, and I don't think he was even too thrilled about it, but at least he had someone thinking about something other than the excitement of living together with a partner for the first time.

Seeler gives us two important issues - first common law is different than living together while in university - of course some of the legal issues remain.

Unless there is a legal document signed, for example share ownship of the house, the house is the property of the one in whose name it is - the other person if there is split has no claim.

If stilll married and now living with some one else the first married partner has the claim.

Common law has no claim to the others family assets unless a legal statement is drawn up.

Marriage does all these legal aspects and unless a pre nup

To state again legally in common law whatever assets there are belong to the one named and the other has no claim ( children of course do)

I just heard a program (granted it was a few years old) where someone was asking about the home and a common law relationship.  The answer was that the matrimonial home could not be protected even by having a document drawn up and that a common law spouse would have claim to half of it.  I looked up a few things today and it sounds like that's not correct.

That's the biggest problem, is that it isn't as clear cut for common law as it is for marriage.

One thing I heard a few years ago was that couples who married after living together for a while had a higher divorce rate than couples who started by getting married.  Apparently we humans tend to have different expectations (that we may not be aware of) for living together and married.  We may be more adamant about behavior expectations for a 'real' spouse than a parttner, for example.

But why are we that way? Why do people choose common law over marriage?

I have edited my above long post, so it should be readable now. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding those points?

I have heard various reasons, and I think it might be that different people have different reasons.

1/   'We can't afford to get married.'    They apparently think that getting married necessitates a big, elaborate, expensive wedding.  

2/   'This is a trial marriage.'    They want to find out if they are compatible before getting married.

3/  'We aren't ready to make a commitment.'   A confession that this is not looked on as a permanent arrangement.

4/  'We don't need a piece of paper to tell us we're married.  It's what we feel in our hearts that counts.'   They aren't concerned about the legality of their relationship.

5/  'We're athiests.  We don't need to be 'married' in a church.'   They don't seem to realize that they don't need a church wedding to be married.

6/   'We were spending a lot of time at his place or my place, so we decided to move in together and save on rent.'    Sound more like roommates with privileges than common law.

7/  'Our parents got divorced.   We don't want to go through that, or put our children through that.'     As though it won't hurt as much when the common law marriage breaks up.   (I can tell you, it does.)

8/   'We just haven't gotten around to it.'    Honest.

9/   'We followed the customs of our culture, not the Canadian laws.'   This from a First Nations couple.

10/    'It's nobody's business but our own.'    Not a reason but an attitude.  And I don't consider it my business to know if a couple is living common law or not, unless for some reason they want to share with me.

Elanor, when I was critizing the stats I thought they came from one article.  I have less critism knowing that you were trying to get them for Canada.

Thanks Chemgal. I did find, that in 2002, 3/4 of all Canadians will marry at some point in their lives. And I have noticed myself, that older brides are not uncommon, like 40's and 50's.  Oh, and I think it is an accomplishment, that you got married and arranged your wedding last year. 

Thanks Seeler, yes, that all sounds familiar. Except I didn't know marriage isn't a custom in native culture. I thought they had their own version.

#5 That's sad about atheists. Especially here in Canada where you can get married anywhere, and make up your own vows. I think that is a loss of structure and culture for those people.

#4. They should be concerned about the legality. Marriage provides the best safety net and best bennefits. You want the government to know you are an indivisible unit. That was essential in my case, being a different nationality from my spouse.

#2 I'm all for the trial, but I think it should be checked at some point, otherwise it can go on indefinately like that, and the bennefits both legal and psychological, of marriage, can be skipped over and lost.

I think marriage is the best way to tie yourselves together too. Though of cource it is a matter of choice. My half sister has been commonlaw almost my whole life. They are essentially "married", with 4 kids, and it works for them. She told me she never wanted a wedding. But I don't know the details of who owns what, and what would happen if one left or died.

I think one reason is kind of left out and that's "We don't believe in marriage as an institution" or some variation thereof. Whether it's for religions reasons (e.g. the atheists as mentioned) or feminist reasons or just plain rejection of "old values" some people don't get married because they see it as somehow against their values.

Mendalla

Hmmm, yes.

Another reason may be that some men are overse to the big "I Do" for a variety of reasons, be they commitment, or not wanting the traditional responsibility of provider and father, which sort of ties in to Mendalla's reason listed, and reminds me of this Norther Exposure episode:

... where SHelly and Holling almost get married, and Holling can't go through with it. He vows to her outside the church with everyone watching through the windows, that he will always love and care for her and look after their child, but begs her to please not make him go through with this... If I find the clip, I'll post it.

Meanwhile, here's the episode where they do actually complete the thing, due to Shelly's odd affliction, which is quite descriptive really. She felt a deep inner need to get married. Very cute and entertaining clip. ; )

For the most part, I don't think marriage being on a decline is too bad.  It probably means that some of the people who shouldn't be getting married aren't (like a couple who finds themselves pregnant, but aren't ready for marriage) and there's nothing wrong with waiting a little bit longer rather than getting married as soon as reaching the age of majority.

I do think it's a little sad that if a couple is truely committed to each other never gets married though, but I'm not sure to what extent that's really happening.

True Chemgal.

I found out today, my relations who I recently found out aren't married, didn't marry because he simply never asked her, but she would have liked to marry. I fear for women whose men think they can get away with not doing it because it's accepted in the modern world. Women who want to be married, but maybe are afraid to press their man that they might loose or displease him. ANd women are generally pretty aquiessant, and go along with it. It can be hard, I know.

I have noticed marriage being promoted in two modern blockbuster movies: Twilight and Harry Potter. They were both wonderful wedding scenes. Ms Meyer has been rebuffed by some teenagers for being old fashioned, but she's sure made a hell of a spash and influence, all in all.

Edward and Bella

Will Weasley and Fleur Delacour