"The price of permanent love is unconditional commitment."

You cannot 'buy' permanent love at any price. People change, and the world changes around them. To assume that two people who made each other happy at age 25 are going to make each other happy at age 65 is such a wild and unjustified claim that only a theist could make it. Let those who are happy remain together: let those who are not separate. Putting a false and delusive value on permanence and official recognition of a relationship merely distorts reality -- and that is when people get hurt.

Given that attitudes towards shacking-up have changed, we need to consider whether government policy needs to catch up. At the moment, if a centrelink recipient is living with their partner, it is assumed that the partner is prepared to financially support them and benefits are reduced. ISTM that living together isn't necessarily equivalent to a marriage type agreement and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

It's likely that the majority of couples who enter into marriage do so hoping for and believing in "permanent love" and "unconditional commitment."

Very many don't realise either of those dreams, and either settle for what they can have, or go their separate ways.

That is pragmatism.

Setting such ridiculously unrealisable goals for marriage as "permanent love and unconditional commitment" makes marriage a very scary thing to contemplate. Seeing how many marriages fail doesn't help.

Maybe if we took some of the pressure off marriage and added a bit of realism that acknowledges the difference between hope and intention, and what actually happens in life, people might be more inclined to make marriage vows.

Children do need parents who have a commitment to maintaining their families. But "successful" families take many forms, and marriage is not necessarily always one of them.

These demands for permanence and unconditional commitment are in the end just childish. It's what we wanted as children - that something we loved would never, ever change. Adults know change is inevitable and necessary. All we can do is the best we can.

The HILDA survey did not cover much ground regards de facto relationships.

Evidence from other countries indicate de-facto relationships are not only short-lived, but contain higher rates of DV, drug and alcohol use, STD's, infidelity, and because so many are short-lived, higher rates of single parents, government dependency and poverty.

If anything, they should be declared a health hazard for any children involved.

'Cohabitation isn't grounded in promises regarding the permanence of a relationship in the same way as marriage is, even if it looks similar in practice.'

How do you know what promises the cohabitants make to each other. A promise not publicly declared is still a promise.

'In reality, a woman who is hoping that cohabitation is the stepping stone to marriage that it once was will likely hold back on complaining that the toilet seat is up - until she has a ring on her finger.'

I think that's a pretty offensive view of women.

'In the midst of the cohabiting majority, young people put marriage in the "too good to be true" box.'

Have you spoken to many young people? If they want marriage there is nothing stopping them, so what makes you think they want it when they choose not to?

The Author seems to think marriage is a guarantee of happily ever after. One in two marriages doesn't last, so even if it is statistically better than de-facto it's still not exactly an impressive success rate.

Broad brush comparisons between marriage and de facto relationships are ill-founded as they are based on assumptions about intent that are very likely wrong. Marriage is a participant instigated legally declared life-long commitment so there can be a reasonable assumption that many people entering into marriage start with some kind of intent to commit for life (or thereabouts). De-facto relationships are legally declared (by the government) after one year of cohabitation regardless of the intent of the participants. No doubt many participants do not wish to be declared “de facto”. They simply cannot avoid it (without doing something illegal). There may be a huge proportion (possibly way more than 50%) of “de facto” relationships in which there is no intent to commitment or formal relationship status at all, simply a legal assessment for government administrative purposes (taxation, welfare and so on). For this reason, you can’t compare the two on an equal footing. What needs to be compared is: those married people who willingly became married and have an intent to a life-long commitment against those “de facto” couples who willingly remain unmarried and have an intent to a life-long commitment against those people who have been declared “de facto” due to their living arrangements regardless of their intent (I’m thinking on the run here – no doubt this could be refined). Come on researchers – no guts no glory. Sure, its far, far, far more work to do this research but you’d get much closer to the truth.