Introduction
Presently in America it seems that cohabitation is becoming a new alternative
in the way male to female unions are formed. It has become an indirect
form of courtship. The trend seems to be that “Americans are marrying less
and succeeding less often at marriages because alternatives have become
more attractive, relative to marriages” (Cohabitation, 4). Those
who are single and possibly considering getting involved in a long-term
relationship are aware of the risks involved with marriage. Couples
hunger for stability and a different life for their children. “As
children of divorce, they are all eager to rewrite history, not repeat
it” (Problems of Cohabitation). The question at hand, is cohabitation
becoming the new form of marriage? According to social science
evidence, cohabitation presents numerous troubles for the couple.
Through the research provided by the historical, political science, sociological
and psychological perspectives, the problems will be examined.
Historical Perspective
Throughout history, it has been shown that cohabitation has become
more accepted due to societal issues, legal issues, and the changes over
time. By definition cohabitation is "two unmarried people of the
opposite-sex living together." In the past, cohabitation has
been referred to as "living together," "shacking up," "serial monogamy"
or "living in sin" (Problems of Cohabitation). The tendency to move
in the direction of cohabitation and away from marriage is unique.
"Never before in Western history has it been acceptable for unmarried couples
to live together," said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins
University. "It was unacceptable a couple decades ago. It is
acceptable now" (Stalcup 1997).
Before the 1960s, statistics show that one out of ten couple’s were
cohabiting. Approaching the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s it was five to seven out
of ten. The numbers for cohabitation have risen steadily since 1960,
from 439,000 in 1960 to 5,500,000 in 2,000, according to the Census Bureau
(See Table 1). “Cohabitation has sky rocketed 1,150% in forty years”
(Problem of Cohabitation).
Table 1. Couples Living Together: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR TOTAL
2000 5,500,000
1998 4,236,000
1997 4,000,000
1995 3,700,000
1990 2,856,000
1980 1,589,000
1970 523,000
1960 439,000
______________________________________________________________________________________
(Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census)
In the 1960s and 1970s, the small number of couples in America who were cohabiting could be justly described as "anti-marriage." They were purposely looking for an alternative to traditional marriage. They viewed marriage as "repressive" or "irrelevant." The outlook of many cohabiting couples today has changed. Rather than "anti-marriage," it may be more accurate to say that many of these couples are "anti-divorce." Meaning, they are so afraid of a marital breakup that they are looking at cohabitation as a "trial marriage" that can protect them from entering a marriage that could end up in divorce (Mattox 1997).
Youth Outlook on Cohabitation
Between 1975 and 1995, the number of high school seniors agreeing that
"it is usually a good idea for a couple to live together before getting
married in order to find out whether they really get along," went up from
thirty-five percent to fifty-nine percent (Popenoe 1999). According
to the National Marriage Project of Rutgers University, the youth today
are more interested in having fun and making money than being focused on
establishing lasting relationships that lead to marriage and raising a
family (Popenoe & Whitehead 1999). The report states that young
people are in favor of living together as a try-out for marriage or as
an alternative to marriage. Although, strangely enough, most expect
to someday meet and marry someone who can satisfy their emotional and spiritual
needs.
Societal Change
The societal history of cohabitation has changed from being an “uncommon
alternative lifestyle.” It has progressed from a “more common lifestyle”
to the present attitude of a “prevalent lifestyle.” In the past,
cohabitation was seen as a “scandalous Victorian norm.” It evolved
through history to a “trial premarital strategy” and now to the present
acceptable and progressive way of living (Evolution of the Acceptance of
Cohabitation).
Legal Change
Cohabitation started out illegal in all states prior to 1970.
It later became a common law; meaning about fifteen states recognized cohabiters
married as long as several requirements were met. The next step in
the legal history of cohabitation was the consensual sex acts. The
living together contracts followed, which were like prenuptial agreements.
Institutionalization was the next step in the acceptance of cohabitation.
Sweden and Denmark are the world’s cohabitation leaders; here cohabiters
have essentially the same rights and obligations as married couples.
Many people in these two countries look at cohabiting as an alternative
rather than an introduction to marriage. Nearly all marriages in these
nations are now preceded by cohabitation.
Present Trends
In 1960, there were ninety married couples for every one cohabiting
couple. Currently there is one cohabiting couple for every twelve married
couples. If the present trend continues, by the year 2010 there will
be seven married couples for every cohabiting couple. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau, unmarried couples make up 5.5 million households
in the U.S., this is 11.5 times the amount in 1960. Today in the
U.S., one in three women choose to live with their partner before marriage,
compared to one in ten in the 1950's (Whitman 1997). Nearly fifty
percent of individuals in their twenties and thirties are involved in cohabitating
relationships (Bumpass & Lu 1998; Bumpass & Sweet 1995; Sweet 1989).
It is evident that cohabitation has become the norm in today’s society.
Times have changed.
Political Science Perspective
Whatever their reasons are for living together, couples need to be
aware of their legal rights and obligations. Cohabitation does not
have a defined set of legal rights. Legal security, protection by law,
is one thing that distinguishes true marriage from cohabitation.
States that have cohabitation laws on the books include Arizona, Florida,
Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia, and
West Virginia (AASP ). Many want the laws against cohabitation repealed.
Some of the problems that cohabiters face in these states consist of
criminal laws, which impose penalties for consenting sex in private for
unmarried cohabitation. Courts that have restricted the civil rights
of unmarried cohabitants have cited the criminal laws against cohabitation
as the rationale for doing so. In the following sections, the effects
that cohabitation has on the workplace, housing, child custody, and the
division of property will be examined.
Work Environment
The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act does not prohibit marital
status discrimination. Only twenty-one states have laws that prohibit
employers from discriminating on the basis of marital status (AASP).
In states with cohabitation laws, there is discrimination in hiring and
firing practices. In other states cohabiters cannot be state employees
and can be paid less benefits than married employees. Cohabiters
are denied equal benefit compensation by some employers with domestic partner
programs, which exclude unmarried heterosexual couples (AASP). In
addition, they can be refused the option of a joint insurance policy for
domestic partners.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case, Whisenhunt v. Spradlin, cohabitating employees were punished for their living arrangements. A patrolwomen and a police sergeant were suspended from their jobs, and the sergeant demoted to patrolmen, because they spent several nights together (FindLaw 2001). The punishment was imposed even though the department failed to provide the petitioners with any reasonable warning that their conduct was prohibited. The Court reinforced the position taken by the Chief of Police and upheld the punishment of both officers.
Housing
The Federal Fair Housing Act does not prohibit marital status discrimination,
however, fewer than half of the states have laws that prohibit landlords
from discriminating on the basis of marital status (AASP). In these
states, courts have narrowly interpreted the law so that unmarried couples
do not receive protection from housing discrimination. For example,
courts in Washington, Minnesota, Michigan, and Maryland have relied on
these criminal laws as the basis for denying fair housing rights to unmarried
couples despite expressed prohibitions against “marital status” discrimination
(AASP). In addition, some landlords, especially those with religious
bias for marriage, can refuse cohabiters housing. In other states,
the courts have broadly interpreted these laws to give unmarried couples
protection from housing discrimination.
Illegitimacy Laws and Child Custody
There are forty-one states that stigmatize children born to unmarried parents (AASP). Thirteen states have statutes that call such children “bastards” while the laws or judges in the other twenty-eight states call them “illegitimate.” Those living together are not recognized as legal parents. Both parents to be listed on the birth certificate and the father needs to sign a statement of paternity. Courts have also cited criminal laws against cohabitation for the decisions denying child custody or restricting visitation rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court case Jarrett v. Jarrett raises the question whether the State can deprive a divorced mother the custody of her children because she is cohabitating with an unmarried male. Jacqueline Jarrett was awarded the use of the family home and child support; Walter Jarrett had visitation rights. The Circuit Court granted full custody to Walter, finding the custody change necessary for the “moral and spiritual well-being and development” of the children (FindLaw 2001). The case went to the Appellate Court who reversed the decision. The Illinois State Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court decision. The Court applied the Illinois law that a change in custody would be ordered only if necessary to serve the best interests of the child (FindLaw 2001). The Court felt that custody by Jacqueline Jarrett adversely affected the best interests of the children since there was a possibility of harm to them.
Division of Property
Courts have cited criminal laws, as a basis for refusing to enforce
cohabitation or “palimony” agreements, on the grounds that doing so would
violate public policy (AASP). Palimony is a word coined by journalists
meaning “alimony” for a “pal,” it is not a legal concept (Laskin &
McNiff 2001). The Supreme Court in Marvin v. Marvin declined to treat
unmarried cohabitants like married persons, overruling two prior decisions
of the Court of Appeal, which had applied the Family Law Act to cohabitants
(Laskin & McNiff 2001). A non-marital partner’s right for support
or property is dependent upon the existence of an expressed or implied
contract, or some other legal or equitable basis for the claim, as set
forth in Marvin (Laskin & McNiff 2001).
On the other hand, some couples do make material contributions during the premarital cohabitation. In the case of Moriarty v. Stone, the parties’ contributions during their ten-year period of cohabitation before marriage were properly considered by the trial court as a factor in the division of property (National Legal Research Group 1996). This case involved an eight-year marriage preceded by a ten-year cohabitation. In the parties’ divorce proceedings, the court found that both had made valuable contributions to the premarital partnership and had resulted in significant assets. Most of the assets were held in the husband’s name, so he argued that clear statutory authority was needed to consider premarital contributions. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts rejected the husband’s argument. Massachusetts is an “all property” jurisdiction that permits distribution of all property to which a party holds title, wherever and however acquired, including property acquired before marriage (National Legal Research Group 1996). In dual-classification jurisdictions, property acquired before marriage is separate property and must be awarded to the owner upon the marriage being dissolved. The longer couples live together, the more important a written contract concerning property ownership becomes.
Sociological Perspective
Sociologists are interested in numerous aspects of cohabitation.
They are interested in how it affects society, marriage, children, and
families. Many sociologists use polls to get the opinions of citizens
on particular issues.
Why Cohabitation?
Many people in today’s modern society are choosing cohabitation in
place of marriage. Cohabitation is a result of a generation growing
up during the divorce revolution. Young adults of the divorce revolution
feel that living together is a good way to get the benefits of marriage
without the risk of divorce. Living together means couples can share
bills and responsibilities. It also gives the couple a chance to
learn more about each other in order to decide if they are right for marriage.
When and if things do not work out, breaking up is much easier without
the legal aspects associated with divorce. When you look at cohabitation
this way it seems like a very good option (USA Today).
Cohabiting couples believe that living together allows them to experiment and find the perfect match before deciding to get married. They believe that a divorce can be avoided if they have a trial period where they get to know each other first. There are, however, other reasons why people cohabitate. Some couples cohabitate with no intentions of ever getting married, while others will live together only briefly before entering into marriage. Some people will cohabitate with several different people in order to be prepared if they ever make the decision to marry. Many believe that cohabitation is a realistic approach to today’s society (Maranville).
Problems with Cohabitation
While cohabitation seems like a logical choice, there are some problems
with it. Research has shown that couples who cohabitate increase
the risk of divorce if they ever do marry. Furthermore, there is
an increase in the occurrence of domestic and child abuse among those couples
living together outside of marriage. Although not proven, it is said
couples that cohabitate are not as happy as married couples. (USA today)
The National Council on Family Relations did a study on the level of marital happiness of married couples who cohabitated and those who did not. The study included 309 newlyweds. The results indicated that couples who cohabitated before marriage were less happy once they did marry. The main problem associated with this was complaints about a lack of communication after marriage by women in cohabitating relationships. Many researchers believe that those who have “trial” marriages will not and do not have better marriages. Many of these couples cohabitate because they believe that their marriage will be stronger since they got to know each other first. However, research shows that cohabitating couples have lower marital satisfaction and weaker marriages than those who did not live together first. It is believed that married couples make an attempt to compromise and accommodate to each other’s life because the marriage is supposed to last for life. It is believed that cohabiting couples do not do this because they don’t have a life long commitment.
Sociologist Linda Waite of the University of Chicago contends, “Cohabitating couples lack both specialization and commitment in their relationships.” She also goes on to say these couples will make less money and since they are not legally married, have to pay separate taxes on their separate incomes. Waite believes that cohabitating couples are not the same as married couples and that their behavior proves this.
Although in other countries, such as Scandinavia, the cohabitating relationship is usually long-term, Waite has done research to show that in the United States the relationship between cohabitating couple is usually short-term and lacking commitment. Thomas W. Smith, of the National Opinion Research Center, conducted a survey and found that the average cohabitating relationship lasts just a little over a year and will either end in marriage or break-up. Many statistics show that two-thirds of Americans choose to live together before they decide to get married (Jabusch).
Divorce
The evidence indicates that cohabitation can be detrimental to a marriage.
Living together before marriage can actually increase the risk of divorce
after marriage. A study done by Yale and Columbia University showed
that the divorce rate of women who live with their spouse before marriage
is nearly eighty percent higher than those who do not live together first.
Other studies have shown that those who live together first are fifty to
a hundred percent more likely to get a divorce. Researchers insist
that those who cohabitate often become serial cohabitators. They
enter into one unsuccessful cohabiting relationship after another; in turn
this makes it easier to keep leaving other relationships (Maranville).
Many researchers believe that cohabiting couples lack the commitment and responsibility that married couples have. Those who live together before marriage have no plans for the future and no official pronouncement of love. Researchers believe cohabiting couples have only an emotional bond and that their commitment to living together is based on whether or not they are happy in the relationship at the time. Researchers suggest that as soon as things get bad cohabiting couples will break up whereas married couples would work it out. It is believed that those who have a “till death do us part” commitment are more likely to try to work it out because they have made a life-long commitment (Sociological reasons).
Children
The chances that a cohabiting mother will actually marry the child’s
father are declining. Statistics show that only forty-four percent
of the cases end in marriage and if they do marry, three quarters of the
children will see their parents split up before they are 16. Only
one third of the children born to married couples will see their parents
divorce (Maranville). Parents who cohabitate could lead their children
to cohabitating. Parent’s attitudes toward cohabitation could directly
influence children attitudes toward cohabitation. Studies show that
the attitudes that children receive from their parents will affect the
child’s behavior. It is believed that children who consider cohabitation
to be justifiable, will not cohabitate if their parents feel strongly against
it (Axinn & Thornton).
Who is cohabiting?
Cohabitation tends to be more common for people in a low socioeconomic
class, usually measured by their amount of education and income.
The data specifies that of the women who cohabitated at some point in their
life, sixty percent were high school dropouts compared to thirty-seven
percent who were college graduates. Cohabitation also seems to be
common among people who are more liberal and less religious.
There are few race differences in the chances of cohabitation.
A recent survey was carried out with participants between the ages of nineteen
and forty-four. The outcome showed that forty-five percent of Caucasian
and African-Americans and forty percent of Latino women have cohabited
at some point. Also, research shows that African-Americans are less
likely to marry than Caucasians (Smock).
Psychological Perspective
When there is discussion about the changes in the family, a relevant
topic is cohabitation and the psychological pressure it may have on those
involved. The people that are most implicated in this type of situation
are the cohabiters and any children that may be involved. Several
questions need to be addressed. Why are Americans rejecting traditional
marriage, and is it because of psychological reasons? According to
many different documents there are several outcomes of cohabitation; increases
in domestic violence, disadvantages for the children involved, and lower
levels of happiness and well being than married couples.
Domestic Violence
It has been shown that living together outside of marriage increases
the risk of domestic violence for women. One study found that the risk
of domestic violence for women in cohabiting relationships was double that
of married relationships. The U.S Justice Department found that women
are sixty-two times more likely to be assaulted by a live-in boyfriend
than by a husband (Colson 1995). According to a study done by Northern
State University, they found that men typically cohabitate because of the
“convenience” of the relationship, whereas women cohabitate with “the expectation
that cohabitation will lead to marriage.” Thus, creating a relationship
in which men are likely to “hold a position of power” over women who expect
much more from the relationship than they do.
Numerous studies have found that physical attacks are clearly much more common and more severe among live-in couples than among those who are married. Dr. Jan Stets of Washington State University, one of the most noted researchers on the issue of cohabitation, found evidence “that aggression is at least twice as common among cohabiters as it is among married partners” (Stets 1991). During a one year period, about thirty-five out of every 100 cohabiting couples have experienced physical aggression, compared to fifteen out of every 100 married couples (Stets 1991).
A study conducted by Penn State University confirmed that cohabiters
argue, shout, and hit more than married couples (Brown and Booth 1997).
The Family Violence Research Program at the University of New Hampshire
found that after studying 2,143 adults, “cohabiters are much more violent
than married couples”(Yllo and Straus 1981). Before 1960, cohabitation
was relatively uncommon. By the mid 1990s, more than fifty percent
of young couples were choosing to cohabitate before or in place of marriage,
causing the incidence of domestic violence to increase.
Children
While some cohabitating couples have children living with them, the majority does not. During the 1990s, there were almost a million households with children living with cohabitating adults. “In most of these households, the children were under age ten and had been born to one of the cohabiting partners in a previous relationship” (Shehan and Kammeyer 1997). A study done by the National Marriage Project has found that children living with cohabiting couples tend to be disadvantaged compared to those living with married couples (Popenoe 1999). The main reason for this is that cohabiting couples have a much higher breakup rate than married couples; the average is about two years. They also have a lower level of household income and a much higher level of child abuse.
Children raised in cohabiting families may experience different developmental outcomes because of their parent’s economic circumstances and psychological or social well-being (Manning 2000). The psychological well-being of cohabiters has been contrasted with that of married adults and singles, with regard to many dimensions such as depression, happiness, relationship quality or happiness, health, violence and alcohol problems (Booth and Brown 1996; Brown 1999; Brown 2000; Horvitz and White 1998; Ross 1995; Stets and Strauss 1990; Stets 1991; Waite and Joyner 1999).
Emotional Well- Being
Married couples see their relationship as much more stable than cohabiting
couples do, and for any couple thinking that their relationship is likely
to break up, this has a dampening effect on their spirits. Because
of this, cohabiters show lower psychological well being than similar married
people. Cohabiters describe being more depressed and less satisfied
with life than do married people. According to sociologists Susan
Brown, “worrying that one’s relationship will break up is especially distressing
for cohabiting women with children, who show quite high levels of depression
as a result” (Waite 1999). A common statement from cohabiters pertaining
to depression is that they were depressed and dissatisfied people that
have trouble getting married. Brown says this is not so, she has
found that their scores before the start of the union do not explain cohabiters’
higher levels of depression. She claims it is the person’s perception of
the chances that the relationship will break up (Waite 1999).
The National Institute for Mental Health maintains that, cohabiting women have rates of depression three times higher than married women. Nearly twenty-five percent of cohabiting women suffer from neurotic disorders, compared to fifteen percent of married women. Cohabitating women are more irritable, anxious, worried and unhappy (All About Cohabitating Before Marriage). There is a powerful mass of new research that shows that marriage offers a huge advantage in mental and emotional health. A review of more than 130 empirical studies, from the 1930s to the present, demonstrates that married people generally livelonger. Additionally, they are more emotionally and physically healthy, more content, and more likely to recover from cancer than unmarried people (Coombs 1991).
Conclusion
Cohabitation has become more accepted because of societal and legal
issues, and simply changes over time. The number of couples involved in
cohabitation has risen steadily, and the outlook of these couples today
has changed. Young adults are in favor of living together as an alternative
to marriage or on a trial basis before marriage. However, most young adults
expect to someday meet and marry someone who can satisfy their emotional
and spiritual needs.
While cohabitation was illegal in the United States until 1970, the
practice does not have a defined set of legal rights. The Federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Act nor the Federal Fair Housing Act do not prohibit
marital status discrimination. There are also very controversial issues
with illegitimacy laws, child custody, and the division of property.
Sociologists believe that cohabitation is the result of a generation
growing up during the divorce revolution. Many couples believe that cohabitation
is a realistic approach to today's economic and social situations. However,
the risk for divorce among couples who cohabitate before marriage is higher.
Cohabitation tends to be more prevalent in lower socioeconomic classes
and among couples who are more liberal and less religious. One interesting
statistic of couples who cohabitate is that there are few racial differences
in the chances of cohabitation.
There are benefits to cohabitation, but there are also problems with
it. Couples who cohabitate have an increase in domestic violence. There
are unlimited disadvantages for the children of cohabitation. The most
prevalent problem with cohabitation is that couples who are cohabitating
experience lower levels of happiness and well-being than couples who are
married.
The question again is has cohabitation become the new form of marriage?
While cohabitation has become more accepted by society, it has no legal
support or protection. Sociological and psychological problems with cohabitation
also make it less appealing. Couples want stability and security and "As
children of divorce, they are all eager to rewrite history, not repeat
it."
References:
American Association for Single People (AASP) (no date). Laws affecting
single people.
Issues affecting single people. <http://www.singlesrights.com/laws-affecting.html>
(2001, September 4).
FindLaw (2001). Jarrett v. Jarrett. FindLaw for legal professionals.
<http://caselaw.
lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us…/927.htm>
(2001, September 10).
FindLaw (2001). Whisenhunt v. Spradlin. FindLaw for legal professionals.
<http://casela
w.lp.findlaw.com./scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/u…/965.htm>
(2001, October 22).
Laskin, J. & McNiff, T. (2001). Marvin issues in marital dissolutions.
<http://www
palimony.com> (2001, October 5).
Laskin, J. & McNiff T. (2001). Unmarried couples and the law. <http://www.palimony
.com> (2001, September 5).
National Legal Research Group, Inc. (1996). Contributions during premarital
cohabitation. Divorce source. <www.divorcesource.com>
(2001, September 4).
Solot, D. & Miller M. (December 1998). Law an invasion of privacy.
Alternatives to
marriage project. <www.unmarried.org> (2001, September
4).
The Center for Arizona Policy (January 2001). There’s nothing archaic
about protecting
marriage. Family issue fact sheet. <http://www.azpolicy.org/issues/fact_archaic_laws
.htm> (2001, September 4).
Truncellito, E. (September 2000). Why no one is married. About FACE
newsletter
archives. <http://www.facenj.org/aboutface/00q3/no1ismar.html>
(2001, September 4).
Works Cited:
All About Cohabitating Before Marriage. Psychological Reasons.
http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/index.htm. July 1999.
Brown, S. “Why are Cohabitors Prone to Violence?” Association of America.
New York.
1999.
Brown, S. “The Effect of Union Type of Psychological Well-Being: Depression
among
Cohabitors Versus Marrieds. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
41, 241-255.
2000.
Brown, Susan., and Booth, Alan. “Cohabitation Versus Marriage: A Comparision
Of Relationship Quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
58, 668-678.
1996.
Colson, Chuck, “Trial Marriages on Trial. Why They Don’t Work.” Breakpoint.
March 20, 1995, Washington D.C URL: http://multimag.com/mag/nmc/column12html
Coombs, Robert. “Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature
Review,”
Family Relations 40(1991): 97-102.
Horwitz, A., and White, H. “The Relationship of Cohabitation and Mental
Health:
A Study of a Young Adult Cohort.” Journal of Marriage and the
Family. 60,
505-514. 1998.
Manning, Wendy D. “Implications of Cohabitation for Children’s Well-Being.”
Pennsylvannia State University. 2000.
Popenoe, David., and Whitehead, Barbara. “The State of Our Unions: The
Social
Health of Marriage in America.” The National Marriage Project.
Rutgers. 1999.
Ross, Catherine. “Reconceptualizing Marital Status as a Continuum
of Social
Attachment.” Journal of Marriage and the Family. 57, 129-140.
1995.
Shehan
Stets, Jan E. “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social
Isolation,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991) 669-680.
Waite, Linda J. “The Negative Effects of Cohabitation”.The Responsive
Community.
Volume 10, Issue 1, Winter 1999/2000.
Waite, Linda J., and Kara Joyner. “Emotional and Physical Satisfaction
in Married,
Cohabiting, and Dating Sexual Unions: Do Men and Women Differ?”
In
Studies on Sex, E. Laumann and R. Michael(Eds.). Chicago: University
of
Chicago Press. 1999.
Yllo, Kersti and Murry A. Straus, “Interpersonal Violence Among Married
and
Cohabiting Couples,” Family Relations. 1981.
References
“A Pastoral Approach to Cohabiting Couples Seeking Matrimony,” Family
Life Services, Diocese of Galveston-Houston, Houston TX, 1987.
Bumpass, Larry and Hsien-Hen Lu, “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts.” Unpublished manuscript, Center for Demography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 1998.
Bumpass, Larry L. and James A. Sweet, “Cohabitation, Marriage, and Union Stability: Preliminary Findings from NSFH2” (NSFH Working Paper No 65) Center from Demography and Ecology: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1995.
Bumpass, Larry L., Jamies A. Sweet and A. Cherlin, “The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage, “Journal of Marriage and The Family, 53 (1991)913-927.
Loomis, L.S. and Nancy S. Landale, “Nonmarital Cohabitation and Childberaing Among Black and White American Women,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56 (1994)949-962.
Mattox, William R., Jr, “Rebuilding a Marriage Culture – Why Capturing Young People’s Imagination Is Key” Family Policy, 10, No 3. (May 1997), the Family Research Council. Washington, D.C.
Popenoe, David. Changes in Teen attitudes Toward marriage, Cohabitation, and Children, 1975 – 1995. New Brunswick, M.J.: nati9onal marriage Project, 1999.
Popenoe, David and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Yo8udn Adults Need To Know about Cohabitation before Marriage,” The National marriage Project, The Next Generation Series, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Jan., 1999.
Stalcup, Elizbeth Moll, “Why Can’t We Just Live Together in the Name of the Lord?” (What Pastors Do To Reverse the Trend), “Strang Communications, 1996. URL: http://www.strang.com/mt/stories/mu197103.htm
Stanton, Glen “Only a Piece of Paper?” The Social Significance of the Marriage License and the Consequences of Cohabitation, Divorce, and Stepfamilies, Public Policy Division, Focus On The Family, August 1995.
Sweet, James A., “Differentials in the Approval of Cohbitation” (NSFH Working pager No. 8) Madison, WI: Center for Demographsy and Ecology, University of Wisconsin, 1989.
Waite, Linda J. and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially), Random House, Inc. New York, NY 2000.
Whitman, David, “Was It Good For Us?”, U.S. News, (May 19, 1997). URL:
http://usnews.com/usnews/issue/970519/19sex.htm