In order to define the growing trend of unmarried couples living together, many municipalities have labeled these types of relationships as ‘domestic partnerships.’ According to the Information Please™ Almanac, "In March of 1993, New York City joined San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Minneapolis, and other municipal governments in legally acknowledging domestic partnerships. The rights granted include the same unpaid leave that married city workers receive and the same standing as married couples in qualifying for apartments. The registered domestic partners of homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals also receive the same health benefits the married city workers receive." (434). This shows that larger metropolitan areas have already recognized the need to accommodate the increasing number of people who choose this alternative lifestyle. The laws that grant benefits to unmarried partners undoubtedly make premarital cohabitation a more feasible option for many people. In America, cohabiting couples make up about 7 percent of all couples sharing households. In Sweden, "where unmarried couples --who have all the rights, benefits, and obligations of married partners, unmarried couples make up about 30 percent of couples sharing households" (Tolson, 48). This shows a positive correlation between the governments’ tolerance and the couples who choose this style of partnership. The easier it is to cohabit, the likelier people will be to try it.

The participants of premarital cohabitation may think that a ‘test drive’ is a good way to tell if marriage would be a success. However, many studies indicate that people who live together prior to marriage actually have rockier marriages and a higher rate of divorce than those who do not live together before marriage. It could be that people who cohabit are less traditional in their ideas and less reluctant to divorce. But it’s also possible that the experience itself has an effect. Pamela J. Smock, a sociologist from the University of Michigan, says "We need to do more qualitative research and talk to people in their 20s…to find out why they are doing what they are doing." (Tolson, 48). According to U.S. News & World Report, cohabiting relationships have more negative impacts than positive ones. The article states, "While there is a little more sex between unmarried cohabitors than between married couples (one more act per month), there’s also more cheating by both partners. Then, too, there’s more domestic violence and a higher incidence of depression." (Tolson, 48). Studies presented at the Population Conference of America in April 1995 indicate that married life is more "beneficial to the health, financial, and emotional well-being of couples than either cohabitation or single life." (1997 Information Please™ Almanac, 434).

Another downfall to cohabiting could be the financial problems that can make this type of relationship more complicated. According to USA Today (Magazine), "a partner who has contributed mortgage payments or renovation funds on a home owned by the other partner may find that he or she has no legal claim to the property if the couple splits up" (p. 8). This article goes on to suggest that unmarried couples have an attorney help write up a legal contract ahead of time, but points out that "such contracts are not enforceable in all states" (p. 8). Married couples do not have the same problems because they do have legal guarantees regarding the ownership of property purchased together.

It seems as though the number of people engaging in these cohabiting relationships should be decreasing, knowing that it can be complex and decrease the chances for future success. However, the number of people choosing to live as unmarried couples has actually risen at a remarkable rate over the past several decades. Today there are seven unmarried couples for every 100 married couples, compared with only one for every 100 in 1970 (1997 Information Please™ Almanac, 434). Of these unmarried couples, 1.3 million or 35% had children under fifteen years old. William Kornblum explains that "cohabitation has become a predictable part of the family life cycle, not only before marriage but in the interval between divorce and remarriage" (p. 257). Leslie Carborne, a policy analyst at Family Research Council, states "By paying women outside wedlock, welfare has created a caste of people who don’t even know anyone who’s married" (Knight Ridder, p. K0359). The children who are raised in this type of environment will see this as an alternative to the traditional marriage, believing that there are no negative consequences.

In conclusion, we can see that cohabitation overall has a negative impact on the traditional family structure. Unfortunately, people seem to see this as a viable alternative because they can have a lifestyle similar to marriage, but without the long-term commitment. Children who are socialized to believe that cohabiting is an acceptable option will be more apt to consider this type of relationship for themselves. Some people "advocate a return to traditional family norms and values, others urge greater tolerance for a variety of family types and accommodation to their needs" (Kornblum, 257). I feel that if the government continues to encourage premarital cohabitation by increasing the level of benefits and legal rights offered to unmarried partners, we will see a continuing trend of more people opting for this lifestyle. Rather than supporting alternative lifestyles that have been proven to deteriorate the quality of life, we should be working to educate people so they realize what risks are associated with their choices.

American Families: Traditional and Otherwise. (1997). 1997 Information Please™ Almanac. N1. P.434.

Carborne, Leslie. (1999, January 15). Family Breakdown Worsening. Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. P. K0359.

Domestic Partnerships. (1996). 1996 Information Please™ Almanac. P.434.

Tolson, Jay. (2000, March 13). No Wedding? No Ring? No Problem. U.S. News & World Report. Vol. 128 Issue 10. P. 48.

Unmarried Couples. (2000, January). USA Today (Magazine). Vol. 128 Issue 2656. P. 8.