4.2.2 - Marriage, Cohabitation and Civil Partnerships

Marriage is later and less universal

Official statistics show a long-term fall in marriage rates since the early 1970s. Fewer people marry at all, first marriages have declined, and the average age at first marriage has risen sharply. At the same time, remarriage remains important, which suggests marriage has not disappeared. A better sociological conclusion is that marriage has become less automatic and more conditional.

Several social changes help explain this. Secularisation has weakened the idea that marriage is a moral duty. Civil ceremonies are more common and there is much less stigma around remaining single, cohabiting, or having children outside marriage. Women’s rising educational success, access to paid work, and greater financial independence also mean marriage is less necessary as an economic arrangement. The cost of weddings and the fear of divorce can make marriage look risky or unaffordable, especially for younger adults facing housing insecurity.

Giddens argues that intimacy in late modern society is increasingly organised around the pure relationship: people stay together because the relationship is satisfying, not because religion, custom, or family pressure tells them to remain. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim make a similar point through individualisation, arguing that people are expected to build their own biographies rather than simply follow tradition.

This does not mean people no longer value commitment. It means commitment is increasingly judged by emotional quality and mutual choice rather than by whether a wedding has taken place.

Cohabitation has moved towards the mainstream

Cohabitation has increased sharply and is now a normal part of the life course for many couples. It is no longer widely seen as deviant or immoral. For some couples it is practical: living together reduces housing costs and allows them to test compatibility before marriage. For others it is not a temporary stage at all but a long-term alternative.

Chester argues that this change should not be exaggerated into the death of marriage. He suggests that many people still aim for a stable couple relationship and that cohabitation often acts as a prelude to marriage. His idea of the neo-conventional family keeps the basic couple form but adapts it to modern conditions such as dual earning and greater equality between partners.

However, Chester may now understate how normal cohabitation has become in its own right. For many couples, the line between marriage and cohabitation has narrowed culturally because both may involve shared finances, parenting, and long-term commitment. The line has not disappeared legally, though. Married couples and civil partners generally have clearer legal rights than cohabitants, so cohabitation may be socially accepted without being fully institutionally equivalent to marriage.

Legal recognition changed same-sex family life

Same-sex relationship patterns also show how intimacy is shaped by law, culture, and identity. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples formal legal recognition, while the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 allowed same-sex marriage in England and Wales. These changes mattered not only because of legal rights but because they altered public recognition of same-sex relationships as legitimate family relationships.

Weeks et al. argue that many same-sex couples build families of choice, where commitment is organised through chosen networks of care rather than simply through biology. Legal recognition supports these networks by giving relationships public legitimacy. Golombok challenges New Right assumptions by showing that children raised by same-sex parents do not suffer simply because their parents are the same sex. This suggests that the quality of care matters more than whether parents fit a traditional heterosexual model.

Sociologically, this is important because it shows that changing partnership patterns are not just about decline. They can also reflect struggles for equality, recognition, and the right to define family life differently.