license to marry

What Canada’s Youth Can Teach Us About Marriage

Can anyone predict the right time to marry? In recent months, much has been written about the wedding boom expected to unfold this year. Waning pandemic restrictions combined with two years of pent-up demand have set the stage for an explosive year for Canada’s wedding industry. While this is certainly a cause for celebration, it comes at a time when Canadians appear to be rethinking their views on marriage altogether. 

Canadian census data indicates a dramatic decline since 1996 in marriage rates among young people. Twenty years ago, nearly 40% of Canadians aged 20–29 were legally married. Since then, the marriage rate among this cohort has steadily declined. The most recent data indicates that around 1 in 5 of Canadian twenty-somethings has legally tied the knot. This data is consistent with a broader trend across the developed world. Young people are marrying later and less frequently than ever before. Economists, sociologists, and religious bodies have all voiced concerns about the trend. While alarming to some, these numbers may simply indicate a shift in perspective rather than a collapse of tradition.

The Other Side of the Story 

It is easy to focus on the downtrend in legal marriage alone. However, drawing conclusions based on this alone ignores a broader narrative. The decline in married young couples is complemented by an equally dramatic rise in the number of common-law marriages. Thus, this data does not indicate the desire to forego long-term romantic partnerships entirely. Rather, it indicates young Canadians’ desire to validate their partnership on their own terms instead of through religious institutions or the state. 

Cardus, a Canadian research firm, set out to gather more context on the motivations behind the demographic shifts around marriage attitudes. The study included couples who are legally married, couples who intend to marry, and long-term couples with no intention to marry. The findings were eye-opening. 

Why Do We Marry? 

Since marriage is a pillar of social and economic life, it can be very easy to take for granted. So easy, in fact, that seldom are couples asked about the why behind their decision. The data collected in the Cardus study posed this very question first. The participants who were legally married overwhelmingly cited “proof of love and commitment” as their primary motivation. For couples who intend to marry, “proof of love and commitment” accounted for a whopping 50% of reasoning.

This is striking because this reasoning outperformed “cultural, moral, and religious beliefs” by a 2:1 ratio. In a Western context, marriage has been socially enforced in many instances. Even among young people, there appears to be a shift in that perspective. 

So Why Not Marry? 

The story for long-term unmarried couples is different. However, it reflects many of the same attitudes. Nearly 65% of unmarried couples indicated that they had no intention to wed because their current arrangement was acceptable as it stood, or that they did not believe in the institution of marriage.

Considering that the couples surveyed are in long-term partnerships, it’s safe to say that they too value love and commitment. Yet they don’t feel the need to validate their love for one another through the traditional channels anymore. Many argue that this could be the pathway to more fruitful relationships between young couples.

Love and commitment are intrinsically beautiful things. For many, though, marriage as an institution can feel attached to coercive power dynamics, social status, and economic advancement. For younger couples, a “back to basics” approach appears to be developing. There seems to be a rejection of the belief that marriage is a necessary task. Rather it is an embrace of the belief that pursuing love and commitment is about spiritual fulfillment above all else. Thus, the decline in marriage rates may indicate an expansion of our understanding of marriage into something more grand than an “institution.” 

Arizona, U.S. Discrimination Bill Vetoed

UC blog 3.4.14This February, the State of Arizona received considerable attention throughout North America. Attention was focused on a bill that would have allowed business owners to refuse service to customers on religious grounds. The bill was specifically intended to protect business owners from lawsuits resulting from a decision to deny service to lesbian or gay customers on grounds of strongly held religious belief. However, critics of the bill pointed out that it could have numerous unintended consequences. Republican Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer ultimately chose to veto bill, though not before many voices weighed in. In contrast to a number of other recent legislative actions that took place in the United States, this bill had nothing to do with gay marriage.

Is Discrimination a Religious Right?

Proponents of this controversial bill said that personal religious freedoms were being protected by allowing people to express their religious beliefs without fear of lawsuit. Though a few business owners have been named in lawsuits alleging discrimination, these lawsuits took place in locations where discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was already illegal. Additionally, the services refused were specifically related to gay marriage ceremonies; bakers, florists, and other service providers who denied customers planning a gay marriage did so on the grounds that their religious convictions held that homosexuality was wrong.

The Arizona bill would have given business owners blanket permission to refuse services to customers, giving rise to questions about how the owners would ascertain whether or not a customer was actually gay. Even prominent Republic politicians argued that this bill would make it too easy to discriminate against people while using religion as a mask; Governor Rick Scott of Florida and former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney expressed hesitation over the bill on precisely these grounds. Gov. Brewer chose to veto bill, saying that it “does not address a specific or current concern related to religious liberty in Arizona.”

Other Impacts of the Proposed Bill

The financial impacts this proposed legislation were felt even before Gov. Brewer opted to veto bill.

  • The National Football League (NFL) began looking for alternative locations to hold next year’s Super Bowl, even though a location in Arizona had already been selected.
  • The Hispanic National Bar Association canceled its annual convention, already slated to take place in Arizona.
  • Businesses across the state worried that their income and reputations would be harmed if the Governor did not veto bill.
  • Major corporations, including Apple and American Airlines, threatened to withdraw their business from the state.

Though gay marriage is perhaps the civil rights concern most widely recognized as being important to gay and lesbian members of our human family, there are numerous other challenges that are even more pressing. Access to the public marketplace without fear of discrimination is important to everyone.