Item from the Smart
Marriages Archive, reproduced in the Divorce Statistics
Collection
Changing the shape of the American family
There was a time when an unmarried couple living together would have
scandalized the neighbors. But today, it has become so commonplace that
it hardly raises an eyebrow. More than 50% of opposite-sex couples tying
the knot lived together first, up from 10% in 1965, the latest statistics
show. The 2000 Census will provide a new snapshot of live-ins. While the
neighbors may be sanguine, many social scientists are not. Some of them
say marriage is losing out to cohabitation, and living together is
changing the shape of the family, especially when children are involved.
Standard studies show that those who first cohabit are at higher risk for
divorce - up to 48% higher - but that trend may be abating. The
dramatically increasing numbers of live-ins and the swelling numbers of
kids involved are transforming family life, with "legal marriage losing
its primacy as the manifest center of family ties," says University
of
Michigan sociologist Pamela Smock.
04/18/00
Changing the shape of the American family
By Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY
Sarah Abbott has lived with Daniel Price for about 18 months. A wedding
may well be in their future, but it isn't a sure thing, says Abbott, 24,
of San Francisco. She is a little scared by the fact her mom divorced. "I
want to be sure, and I think either subconsciously or not, it affects the
way I look at marriage. It is not a huge priority in my life now."
There was a time when that attitude would have scandalized the neighbors.
But living together has become so commonplace that it hardly raises an
eyebrow. More than 50% of opposite-sex couples tying the knot lived
together first, up from 10% in 1965, the latest statistics show. The 2000
Census will provide a new snapshot of live-ins. Experts hope folks fill
out their Census forms accurately and return them promptly to provide
fodder for their research.
While the neighbors may be sanguine, many social scientists are not. Some
of them say marriage is losing out to cohabitation, and living together
is changing the shape of the family, especially when children are
involved. Standard studies show that those who first cohabit are at
higher risk for divorce - up to 48% higher - but that trend may be
abating.
The dramatically increasing numbers of live-ins and the swelling numbers
of kids involved are transforming family life, with "legal marriage
losing its primacy as the manifest center of family ties," says
University of Michigan sociologist Pamela Smock. She is a co-author of a
report from the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research to
be published in the Annual Review of Sociology in August. Smock crunches
the numbers and analyzes the latest studies.
In general, living together is not good for cohabitors' well being, says
Linda Waite, a University of Chicago sociologist. Her book The Case for
Marriage, arriving this fall, will detail research showing that living
together can undermine marriage. "Cohabiting changes attitudes to a
more
individualistic, less relationship-oriented viewpoint," she says.
Live-ins become less committed to marriage and that affects the quality
of their married life later.
She finds that live-ins are less happy than marrieds, less sexually
faithful and less financially well-off. Cohabiting and being married are
not the same, she says. "Marriage forms a new unit. Cohabiting is more
like roommates with sex."
Smock finds that fewer cohabitors are choosing to marry, and women are
more likely to live with men than to marry if they get pregnant. The
trends, she says, suggest cohabitation is becoming a substitute for
marriage.
The general public and even some experts don't realize the profound
impact the exploding numbers of live-ins will have on the American
family, Smock says.
The report notes everything from increasing numbers of children living
with couples who cohabit - possibly more vulnerable than those in
standard stepfamilies - to a suggestion that women who live in don't do
as well as men do.
Reasons for the soaring numbers of cohabitors run the gamut, from the
increased acceptance of premarital sex to the expanding economic
independence of women, freeing them from the need to marry.
While awaiting data from the Census, several researchers have new
findings:
Living together now often involves kids. "About one-half of previously
married cohabitors and 35% of never-married cohabitors have children in
the household," Smock says. What happens to the kids if Mom and her
boyfriend split is one of the field's most hotly contested issues.
Those who live together before marriage still tend to get divorced more
than those who don't, partly because they enter the union prepared to end
it. But the dismal numbers may be in retreat, says demographer Robert
Schoen of Pennsylvania State University in University Park.
Those who cohabited 15 years ago tended to be more liberal, not
particularly religious, not given to commitment, more independent - a
population more prone to divorce whether they lived together or not,
Schoen says.
Now that cohabiting "is majority behavior," Schoen says, that
population
has been diluted by adults looking for more stable unions. "As a group,
cohabitors are now probably a lot less distinct population." However,
he
says, "there is still a feeling in the field that cohabitation is
associated with divorce."
People who cohabit are less likely to marry their partners than in the
past. University of Wisconsin-Madison demographer and sociologist Larry
Bumpass says the probability of marrying within five years declined 8%
between the early '80s and the early '90s, while the probability of
breaking up without marrying rose 20%. Bumpass says the stigma associated
with cohabiting continues to decrease, encouraging those not particularly
interested in marriage to live together. Still, most couples either break
up or marry within 1 1/2 years.
Cohabiting may be a better deal for men than women. Women can end up with
the responsibilities of marriage but without the legal protections.
Researcher Susan Brown at Bowling Green (Ohio) State University finds
that women who cohabit are more prone to depression than married women,
especially if children are involved. If such women constantly feel the
union could dissolve at any time, "the instability is terribly
detrimental to their psychological well-being."
Other researchers are coming up with sophisticated profiles of who lives
together. And there is decreasing support for the "one size fits all"
view. Researchers Lynne Casper (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development) and Liana Sayer (University of Maryland in College
Park) find that couples cohabit for a variety of reasons, all of which
affect the outcome. They say some view cohabiting as a:
Substitute for marriage. They are certain about a partner but uncertain
about marriage itself. They tend to continue living together.
Precursor to marriage. They are certain about both their partner and
marriage and are most apt to wed.
Trial period. They are uncertain about a partner but certain about
marriage. They are apt to split up.
Serious dating relationship. They are uncertain about everything "except
their desire for a good time." They are apt to break up.
It gets trickier, of course, if the partners disagree on what the outcome
should be. But overall, the two researchers emphasize the diversity of
reasons couples live together.
So do Marshall Miller and Dorian Solot, cohabitors and twentysomethings
who celebrate those who live together for whatever reason and believe
that researchers miss the love boat by insisting on comparing cohabitors
to marrieds. They have started the Alternatives to Marriage Project
(www.unmarried.org).
"There is danger in saying there is only one right answer for how to
create a relationship or a family," Solot says. Championing marriage
over
living together indicates "some element of denial about the realities
of
families today."
Demographer Bumpass agrees that those who live together are just creating
a form of the American family that is undergoing complex changes. "Living
together is more similar to marriage than it is dissimilar," he says.
And
"like marriage, it can be a good thing or a bad thing."
He also says he and demographer Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore believe that reported negative effects for
cohabitors don't mean doom for everyone. Statistics are about averages,
not the experience of any one particular person. "One's life script
is
not written as a negative thing" because one cohabits, he says.
Bumpass says those who debate whether cohabiting weakens marriage must
remember that "living together is not going away. We have to realize
this
is the world we live in."
Sarah Abbott of San Francisco says she probably will marry her live-in
and definitely would if she were to have a child. But for now, living
with him is no big deal. "I can really only go on how it has worked
for
me. I am surprised by how well it is working. I wouldn't want to do it
any other way."
______________
04/18/00
Wedded to relationship but not to marriage
By Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY
Living together without a marriage license tends to be a transitory
stage. Within about 18 months, most couples either wed or break up.
Only about one-sixth of live-ins last at least three years, and only
one-tenth endure five years or more, says University of Michigan
sociologist Pamela Smock.
Many social scientists are concerned about opposite-sex unmarrieds -
particularly those who plan children - and the future of the family.
"When you look at the data, it becomes difficult to maintain the position
that marriage isn't better," Smock says.
Janna Cordeiro and Stephan Toomey fall into the one-tenth category,
couples who stay together for the long term. They are among many who
think the experts are off-base.
The two fell in love in college 10 years ago and elected to forsake
assigned housing with its unpredictable roommates and to live "with
someone we love," says Toomey, 30, of Atlanta. But over time they made
a
conscious decision to stay together and not marry.
"We did not take it for granted that we would still be able to make
each
other happy in five years," says Cordeiro, also 30. "We assumed
that we
might change and grow apart. We decided to check in with each other on a
regular basis and re-evaluate." At first it was about every six months,
because she felt too young to make a longer commitment.
Toomey, a graduate student at Georgia Institute of Technology, notes:
"For the first four or five years, we were very careful not to talk
about
plans years ahead. We were careful to give each other our own space, to
not be dependent on each other for ultimate happiness."
They do not need wedding vows to cement a union. "We didn't want a
relationship based on some false sense of security," says Cordeiro,
who
works as an AIDS researcher with a consulting firm. "Our relationship
is
about getting up and treating each other each day with respect and love.
I don't need a marriage license to give me that."
They have, she says, "built a life together. It is a cop-out to say
that
living together makes it easier if we want to leave. It would still be
hard, but in a way that would not involve a judge or court system."
They have talked through the nitty-gritty issues. "I never wanted to
fight with him about money," Cordeiro says. "It is not worth it.
We have
separate checkbooks. We split everything 50-50. In the beginning, though,
we had different ideas about money. I worry about it; he doesn't."
He is, she says, "a better cook. He cleans better, too. But I do the
laundry better." They split such chores.
Cordeiro does not believe cohabiting will weaken their relationship.
Marriage is no guarantee of longevity, she says. "I've seen a lot of
people get divorced. Some divorces are amicable, and others are really
messy."
The "marriage industry" infuriates her. A friend's father "just
spent
$40,000 on her wedding. That just takes the focus off the spiritual and
legal bond of marriage."
She also feels strongly about some political issues around marriage,
going back to when women were considered the property of husbands. And
she has "a lot of gay and lesbian friends, and just because I am
straight, why should I get all the privileges they don't?" Same-sex
partners can't legally marry.
The two are coming up on their 10th anniversary. They are planning
lifestyle changes, including having a baby and moving to San Francisco.
But they will not be looking for a justice of the peace. "We will get
the
paperwork done if we have a child, to protect his or her legal rights.
But I am not concerned about any stigma. The most important thing is the
child is loved, not whether we have a license."
She would like to celebrate with a 10-year blowout party but is not quite
sure what to do. "We have worked hard. I want a big celebration, but
any
kind of ritual is still connected to marriage."
The two have no regrets. But one reality still pulls at their
heartstrings. "One of the hardest things is that our relationship is
not
considered culturally legitimate," Cordeiro says. "We would like
to help
change that. We want people to value our 10-year partnership."
______________________
04/18/00
The legal path to unmarital bliss
By Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY
Couples who decide to live together without marrying need to talk through
exactly what they expect from the relationship, says Janna Cordeiro, 30,
of Atlanta. She is a nine-year veteran of the growing trend to
cohabitation.
"Talk about everything from who does the laundry to your legal rights"
and where you want the relationship to go, she says. "Some people may
want to draw up a legal contract, although others won't go that far."
Increasing numbers of opposite-sex couples live together for reasons
varying from convenience to practice for a scheduled marriage. The number
of live-in, opposite-sex couples increased from 523,000 in 1970 to
4,236,000 in 1998, the Census Bureau says. Within about 18 months, most
of those couples either marry or split up.
Just how to handle a live-in relationship is a mystery for many couples,
experts say. "No widely recognized social blueprint or script exists
for
the appropriate behavior of the cohabitors themselves, nor for the
behavior of the friends, family and other institutions with which they
interact," say researchers Lynne Casper and Liana Sayer.
"Because of the lack of rules and regulations surrounding cohabiting
relationships, cohabitors are forced to make up their own rules," the
two
told a recent meeting of the Population Association of America.
Various kinds of couples live together without marriage - and without an
accepted social blueprint - for a host of reasons. Gay couples cohabit
because they are prohibited by law from marrying. Seniors cohabit rather
than marry to protect finances, such as a pension from a previous spouse,
experts say.
All types of live-in couples need to know what they are doing, say
Marshall Miller and Dorian Solot, live-ins for seven years who started
the Alternatives to Marriage Project in 1998. The project provides
financial, legal and personal information for a variety of couples
through its Web site, www.unmarried.org.
Their effort was the result of personal necessity. The two decided to
live together in a long-term, committed relationship, but they ran into
discrimination in the areas of health insurance, housing and tenant
insurance. They also dealt personally with "social pressure to get
married in a culture focused on marriage as the ideal," Miller says.
Their goal, Miller says, is to combat "the message people get over
and
over again: If you are not married, you have fallen short. Something is
missing in your life."
Their Web site notes that "unmarried couples can gain most of the legal
rights of married couples, but it does not happen automatically: It
requires thought, paperwork and possibly the help of an attorney."
Many recommend a sort of pre nuptial agreement even though no nuptials
are planned. Couples need extra precautions if they're buying a house or
bringing children into the relationship or having a child together or
adopting one, experts say. Live-ins also should be aware that some states
have anti-cohabitation laws on the books, although they are rarely
enforced.
A small number of towns have registries for domestic partners. Couples
pay a small fee and become "registered," making a public statement
that
they are together, the project says. While most registries accept all
couples, some are restricted to same-sex couples. The registries are not
the same as domestic-partner benefits, Miller says, which are offered by
some employers so unmarried partners have benefits similar to those given
to spouses of employees.
There is a good deal of confusion about common-law marriages, Miller and
Solot say. "There is a common misperception that if you live together
for
a certain length of time, you are common-law married. This is not true in
most places," Solot says. Only 15 states recognize common-law marriages,
she says, and they may require a variety of restrictions. At the least,
"you must use the same last name (and file) joint income tax returns."
The definition of the family is evolving, Miller says. "We have moved
away from the Ozzie & Harriet ideal of the 1950s. What our organization
does is recognize the diversity."
| Smart
Marriages Archive | New Divorce
Statistics and Studies Blog | Older Divorce
Statistics Collection Archive |