Today’s Romance Reality: First Comes Love, Then Comes Cohabitation

It is an issue that I thought I’d never have to face; thought I’d sidestepped when I got married at 21 and started a family. But at 39, I wound up single; and at 44, I fell in love.

And now, at 46--with three children and a man who loves them and me--I find myself engaged and contemplating marriage, against the backdrop of a social revolution that seems to have rendered it all but unnecessary.

Should we get married or just live together? I’d always considered that question the province of the young; the unfettered, unconventional. But changing notions of family these days have conferred on “living together” a newfound respectability.

Cohabiting, the social scientists call it. And census figures released last week show that it is on the rise not just among young never-marrieds (giving Mr. or Ms. Right a test drive) or among senior citizens (shacking up so their retirement benefits aren’t jeopardized), but among middle-aged, once-married moms and dads.

“It’s happening more and it’s happening among demographic groups that you would be surprised about--in square, staid places with mainstream, conventional people,” says Oakland lawyer Frederick Hertz, who specializes in financial planning for cohabiting couples.

Many have messy divorces in their pasts and want to avoid legal and financial entanglements. Others have been on their own for so long, “they think of themselves as autonomous people. They want to retain their independence,” Hertz says.

And some avoid tying the knot out of a sense of loyalty to a previous marriage and the children it produced. “They don’t want to convey to their kids that this is like the relationship they had with the mother or father,” Hertz said. “It’s a conscious effort to allow the childbearing relationship to retain a sort of primacy in the family.”

*

According to the census data, families like the one I had--two married parents, living with their biological kids--are going the way of the dinosaur.

Today, less than a quarter of all households in the United States consist of a married couple and their children. And the number of unmarried couples living together has increased in the past 40 years more than tenfold--from about 400,000 to more than 4 million.

And one-quarter of those cohabiting couples are over 44. Almost 40% live with children--his, hers or theirs--a number that’s risen 800% since 1960.

Sociologists say the trend reflects a growing disregard for marriage and an acceptance of nontraditional lifestyles. “Marriage is losing much of its status and authority as a social institution,” declares the annual report of the National Marriage Project, a nonpartisan initiative aimed at promoting the stability of marriage.

The social and moral stigma that once tainted “living in sin” is fading. Today, you can add your “life partner” to your health insurance in many places. And so many married women keep their maiden name, it’s hard to tell by name alone who’s married and who’s not these days.

Polls show that almost two-thirds of teenagers consider living together a good idea. Researchers predict that between one-fourth and one-half of all children under 16 will spend some part of their lives in a household shared with a parent’s unmarried partner.

“I don’t hear anybody worried about the moral issues,” says Hertz of the couples he counsels. “The bigger concern they have is that [living together] is perceived as a trivial relationship, a casual relationship. They may not see their relationship that way, but there is a risk that others will.”

And maybe the cohabitants should, as well, says Rutgers University sociologist David Popenoe, coauthor of the National Marriage Project. “Cohabiting couples have a higher breakup rate than married couples,” he says. “The reality is we’re forming and unforming families, bringing people in and out of our lives, which can be devastating to a child.”

But Hertz said many couples believe that living together without marriage creates a buffer zone for children, who are often anxious when a parent embarks on romance. “It’s a way of sending a signal that says, ‘You don’t need to invite my partner to a family event. You don’t need to like him. You don’t need to worry that he’s going to spend [your] daddy’s money.’ ”

In other words, you can ignore the man sitting here at the breakfast table, helping you with homework, sleeping with Mommy every night.

Somehow, I can’t imagine that ever sounding right.

*

I understand the dilemma midlife romantics face. We remember the upsides of marriage--companionship, support, a warm body in the bed--and we recall its complications, as well.

That’s why my friend--call her Anne--has opted to cohabit instead. She moved her boyfriend into her home last fall. They plan to get married, she said, “just not yet.” She works as a real-estate agent. He owns a carpet-cleaning business. Both have children--hers live with them--and neither wants to be financially responsible for or dependent on the other.

The arrangement has gone over well with her 12- and 15-year-old sons, she claims, in part, because their father did the same thing. “He moved in with his girlfriend before the ink was dry on our divorce,” Anne says. “I hated it then, but now I think it was a good thing. They’re still together, eight years later, so the boys understand that it’s not marriage that gives a relationship permanency, it’s the way you feel about each other.”

Remarriage, she says, would jeopardize her financial stability. Her former husband might skimp on his alimony payments; she might get saddled with her beau’s child-support bills. “Right now, my kids qualify for financial aid for college,” she says. “With another income . . .” She shakes her head. “We’d have to pay. I have to think practically, not romantically.”

Finances, romance, what the kids will think, what the neighbors might say . . . they are part of the swirl of things we consider when we decide whether to make another lifelong commitment or simply hedge our bets in middle age.

Cohabitation thrives because humans crave companionship and want the benefits of marriage, without the risks or fallout. As Hertz says, “It’s nice to have somebody around, to share your life with somebody without having to merge into one.”

As for me, I’m looking forward to the merger.

We may not “need” marriage anymore, but I’m still old-fashioned enough to want my children to know that the man across the breakfast table cares enough for their mother to say “I do.”

*

Sandy Banks’ column runs on Tuesdays and Sundays. Her e-mail address is sandy.banks@latimes.com.