If marriage is ‘just a piece of paper’, Labour’s latest proposals to revolutionise family law raise an awkward question. Why is the government so keen to give the legal consequences of that ‘piece of paper’ to people who never signed it?

The Government’s consultation on cohabitation law, A Fairer End to Relationships, closes at midnight. The consultation proposes a new automatic legal framework for unmarried couples who have lived together for more than three years, giving courts powers to make financial orders affecting property, pensions and capital when they separate.

The lyrics capture something increasingly familiar in modern relationships

One might be tempted to think that imposing financial obligations on break-ups would inspire a needed dose of responsibility into a generation of serial monogamists. But the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has newly-published research suggesting that importing some of marriage’s legal consequences into cohabitation could have consequences far beyond lengthy court battles a hefty fee at the family lawyer’s office. In Finland, where a similar ‘marriage-lite’ policy was introduced in 2011, the results have not been to foster increased stability and permanence amongst co-habiting couples – but rather, the opposite. Women’s first marriage rate was 23 per cent lower within seven years of the reform than it would have been in its absence. The change was not followed by an increase in household stability amongst cohabiting couples, which also declined in the following years.

Furthermore, the Finnish fertility rate fell by an estimated 21 per cent by 2018, compared to similar countries where reforms did not happen. Academic studies have shown that in Finland, 42 per cent of the decline in first births has been attributed to the decline in fertility in cohabiting couples.

Needless to say, these results should concern a country already experiencing a family and fertility crisis. Our fertility rate has already fallen to a record low of 1.41 children per woman, far below the 2.1 replacement level. Had England and Wales introduced equivalent reforms in 2011, the CSJ estimates there could have been 111,014 fewer marriages between 2012 and 2023, including almost 25,000 fewer marriages in 2023 alone. Since 2021, that could translate into around 75,000 fewer babies being born each year.

This would have a huge impact on the future of our country, with an aging population depending on dwindling younger generations to prop up a strained and expensive welfare system. The erosion of marriage itself, too, has a detrimental impact. It has proven biologically beneficial for humans to be in stable unions. Married people statistically report higher life satisfaction, lower stress levels, and better overall health (including a lower likelihood of heart disease). Children of married parents are 23 per cent more likely to go to university, 10 per cent more likely to get married themselves, and 16 per cent less likely to go on government benefits.

Cohabitation simply doesn’t offer the same advantages. Married parents make up 84 per cent of couples who are still together when their child turns 14. By age five, 53 per cent of children of cohabiting parents experienced their separation, compared to just 15 per cent of children with married parents, putting them at a higher risk of academic difficulties, behavioural problems, and psychological distress compared to peers from intact families; and up to twice as likely to live in poverty, and experience their own family instability. The CSJ estimates that the cost of family breakdown to the public purse is around £51 billion a year.

On an individual level, these reforms don’t make sense either. Should successful individuals really owe a break-up penalty to exes who refused to commit? Consider our ultimate millennial female archetype – Taylor Swift – and her ex-cohabitating partner, Joe Alwyn. When Swift began dating the British actor in 2016, she was already extraordinarily wealthy, with an estimated fortune of around $250 million (£190 million). Alwyn was a 25-year-old fledgling drama graduate at the beginning of his career, with no known fortune to his name. After six years together (with various properties in the UK and the USA), they separated in 2023. Swift was on her way to becoming a billionaire; Alwyn was reportedly worth around a comparatively paltry $4 million (£3 million).

Had Labour’s proposed framework applied to them, Alwyn could potentially have sought a financial award from Swift, with a court considering factors including their respective resources, earning capacity and standard of living during the relationship.

Most of us can’t relate to Swift on a financial level. But a growing number of millennial and Gen-Z relationships also don’t fit the earning stereotypes, with women now being the breadwinner in one in four heterosexual couples. The scenario is revealing because, if Swift’s songs are anything to go by, she shares another similarity with many women. Across a vast array of British social surveys, more women want to get married than not.

When Swift was celebrating her early love with Alywn, in her album Lover, she didn’t sing about potential legal and financial settlements. She sang, “I like shiny things but I’d marry you with paper rings”. But as the long relationship broke down, in You’re Losing Me, the romantic optimism had disappeared: “I wouldn’t marry me either.” In her eventual break-up song, So Long, London, she raged bitterly that she had “died on the altar waiting for proof” of his love. Elsewhere on the album, she bitterly recalled fantasising over “imaginary rings” that never materialised in their six years living together.

The lyrics capture something increasingly familiar in modern relationships: one person wants permanence; the other shies from commitment. One wanted a public declaration of permanent partnership; the other wanted to be a forever-boyfriend that could split off at any point.

Labour’s proposal risks creating the worst of both worlds: marriage-like financial and legal obligations upon splitting, without marriage’s explicit consent or fulfilling public promise of permanence. It’s not twee or starry-eyed to believe that love is not an optional ingredient of marriage. You can’t manufacture family stability through financial threat. A bland, passionless, automated legal obligation is no replacement for a connection of souls at the altar. If we want more stable families and more children, we should promote full-fat marriage on a national scale – not marriage-lite.