Cohabitation is becoming a popular practice in today's society. In 2018, the American Census Bureau reported that within a decade, and for adults between 25 to 34, the cohabiting rates had increased from 12% to 15%. There is also a 29% reduction in marriages when compared with statistics for the same age group in 1978. In the light of these developments, what would be the arguments for marriage compared to co-habitation?
What are the arguments for marriage compared to co-habitation?
1,445 views
0
1 Reply
Notable Reply
I can think of two ways to answer this; from a relationship quality point of view and from a legal benefit standpoint.
Relationship Quality
It is easy to assume that there isn't much difference between a cohabiting relationship and a married one, besides the legal document that one lacks, but a research by The Wheatley Institution and National Marriage Project confirms there are relationship quality gaps between both.
The following were the key findings.
After adjusting for education, age and relationship duration, married adults are more likely to report being happy in their relationship compared to cohabiting adults. For cohabiting men and women there was a 40% and 35% likelihood of being in the group with the highest relationship satisfaction. For married women and men, it was respectively a 54% and 49% likelihood.
By using metrics that guaged how much individuals valued their relationship and wanted it to continue, married adults were found to be more likely to report higher levels of commitment in their relationships. For married adults it was 46% and for cohabiting adults it was about 30%. This is understandable given that in another study the top reasons cohabiting couples provided for living together were convinience, financial benefits, and 'testing the relationship', all of which are 'less committed' reasons for which people get married.
Lastly, married adults were found more likely to report higher levels of stability in their relationship (defined by how likely respondents thought their relationship would continue). After adjusting for age, education and relationship duration, it was 54% overall for married adults, while for cohabiting adults it was 28%
Legal Benefits Standpoint (English Law)
Unlike what many cohabiting couple think, each is not considered to be their partners common law spouse, and thus can't make financial claims against their partner if the relationship hits a bricwall in the future. A common law marriage doesn't exist under the English law, cohabiting couples do not have the same legal rights and financial protections that married couple enjoy in the event of a separation.
Here are more specifics:
- When cohabitant passes away, their property passes to whoever is named on the will. If they don't have a will, it passes on to their family members. To get anything, the living cohabitant will have to prove that they were more or less living together like a 'husband and wife' for at least two years before the death of the partner or were dependent on the deceased partner. With a married partner when there is no will, the property goes to the living partner and their children (if they have have children).
- Cohabitants who stay at home to care for children cannot make any capital claims for themselves except on behalf of the children. Claims can only be made against a property if the partner can prove they contributed to its purchase.
- A cohabitant has no right to remain in a property, if there partner is the named tenant and has asked them to leave for any reason. With married couples, a spouse can remain in the 'matrimonial home even if they are not named on the tenancy agreement, and only a formal divorce can change this.
- Cohabitants are not eligible for a pension sharing order for either themselves or their children.
- Cohabitants cannot access a partners bank accounts if their partner passes away, but married couples can.
- There is no legal obligations making cohabiting couples financially support each other if the relationship ends, unlike married partners who under common law, have a duty to provide.