At the Young Leaders Prayer Breakfast on Sunday, September 6, First Lady Jeannette Kagame put words to a shift many families can already see. Fewer young people are marrying, many are delaying marriage until every other box is checked, and relationships can remain loosely defined for years without a clear obligation. Her warning should not be reduced to “young people must marry earlier.” The deeper question is why commitment itself is becoming easier to postpone. Part of the answer may be direction. And direction matters because commitment asks people to sacrifice alternatives. If you ask someone to walk toward a destination they cannot clearly picture, they may start moving, but motivation eventually weakens. I think the same thing happens with marriage. Too often, young people are shown the wedding but not the destination: the entrance, dress, photographs, vows, reception and social-media posts. Those are meaningful moments, but they are not the marriage. Marriage is the life after the guests leave: shared direction, responsibility, patience, exclusivity, family, sacrifice and the daily decision to keep building together. The First Lady described today’s “situationship” culture as offering closeness without promise. That deserves serious reflection. When emotional and sexual intimacy can exist indefinitely without a defined commitment, some people will naturally ask what marriage adds. My own view is that sexual intimacy belongs within marriage. Not because commitment should be forced, but because intimacy carries vulnerability, trust and responsibility. If society separates the benefits of deep partnership from the responsibility of commitment, we should not be surprised when commitment starts to feel optional. Some young people also enter the marriage debate carrying fears about its legal and financial consequences. Whether particular fears are accurate, exaggerated or based on stories from others, dismissing them will not make them disappear. Nor should the answer be blaming men or women. The better answer is clarity. Before marriage, both people should understand their rights, responsibilities, property arrangements and the consequences of the commitment they are making. Rumour creates fear. Accurate information creates informed decisions. We also need to distinguish between readiness and avoidance. Someone genuinely not ready for marriage can normally explain what the waiting is for: completing studies, becoming financially stable, resolving an important disagreement, understanding each other better, or reaching another specific milestone. There is a direction. Avoidance sounds different. “Let us see.” “Why put a label on it?” “Why rush?” The relationship continues, but the destination never becomes clearer. Readiness has a destination. Avoidance only has a delay. This is where young men and women both need greater awareness. Do not confuse the length of a relationship with its direction. A relationship can last for years and still be going nowhere. Couples should eventually be able to answer: What are we building? What must happen before commitment? Are we both moving toward the same future? This is also why the First Lady’s broader message about foundations matters. We can be disciplined about education, careers, loans and businesses while leaving our most intimate decisions undefined. Professional intelligence does not automatically produce relationship wisdom. The answer is not to pressure everyone into marriage. A marriage entered without readiness can create its own pain. The answer is to restore clarity around what marriage means, what it requires and why commitment still matters. The First Lady called young leaders toward “covenant over convenience.” That is perhaps the most important distinction. Taking time before marriage can be wise. But time should produce clarity, not become a substitute for it. Time measures duration. Clarity reveals direction. The writer is a career and relationship clarity coach based in Kigali, Rwanda.
