# Cohabitation in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Domestic partnership in the United States

Cohabitation in the United States is loosely defined as two or more people,[1] in an intimate relationship, who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by marriage nor a civil union.[2] Cohabitation of unmarried couples totals about 8.1 million couples who live together in the United States as of 2011.[citation needed]

## Contents

[hide]

- 1Statistics
- 2Stability
- 3Legal status
- 4See also
- 5References
- 6Further reading
- 7External links

## Statistics[edit]

In most parts of the United States, there is no legal registration or definition of cohabitation, so demographers have developed various methods of identifying cohabitation and measuring its prevalence. The Census Bureau, currently describes an "unmarried partner" as a "person age 15 years and over, who is not related to the householder, who shares living quarters, and who has a close personal relationship with the householder."[3] Before 1995, the Bureau identified any "unrelated" opposite-sex couple living with no other adults as "POSSLQs", or Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters.[4] and the Bureau still report these numbers to show historical trends. However, such measures should be taken loosely, as researchers report that cohabitation often does not have clear start and end dates, as people move in and out of each other's homes and sometimes do not agree on the definition of their living arrangement at a particular moment.[5]

In 2001, in the United States 8.2% of couples were calculated to be cohabiting, the majority of them in the West Coast and New England/Northeastern United States areas.[6]

In 2005, the Census Bureau reported 4.85 million cohabiting couples, up more than ten times from 1960, when there were 439,000 such couples. The 2002 National Survey of Family Growth found that more than half of all women aged 15 to 44 have lived with an unmarried partner, and that 65% of American couples who did cohabit got married within 5 years.[7]

In 2011, the Census Bureau reported 7.6 million opposite-sex cohabiting couples in the country with a separate report listing the number of cohabiting same-sex couples at 514,735 as of the 2010 Census.[8][9]

The cohabiting population includes all age groups, but the average cohabiting age group is between 25-34.[10]

## Stability[edit]

In 2003 a study was made of premarital cohabitation of women who are in a monogamous relationship.[11] The study showed "women who are committed to one relationship, who have both premarital sex and cohabit only with the man they eventually marry, have no higher incidence of divorce than women who abstain from premarital sex and cohabitation. For women in this category, premarital sex and cohabitation with their eventual husband are just two more steps in developing a committed, long-term relationship." Teachman's findings report instead that "It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions."[12]

A survey, conducted by researchers at Denver University (2009), of over 1,000 married men and women in the United States found those who moved in with a lover before engagement or marriage reported significantly lower quality marriages and a greater possibility for splitting up than other couples.[13] About 20 percent of those who cohabited before getting engaged had since suggested divorce - compared with only 12 percent of those who only moved in together after getting engaged and 10 percent who did not cohabit prior to marriage.[13]

Psychologist Dr. Galena Rhoades said: "There might be a subset of people who live together before they got engaged who might have decided to get married really based on other things in their relationship - because they were already living together and less because they really wanted and had decided they wanted a future together. We think some couples who move in together without a clear commitment to marriage may wind up sliding into marriage partly because they are already cohabiting."[13]

Some people[who?] have claimed that those who live together before marriage report having less satisfying marriages and have a higher chance of separating. A possible explanation for this trend could be that people who cohabit prior to marriage did so because of apprehension towards commitment, and when, following marriage, marital problems arose (or, for that matter, before marriage, when relationship problems arose during the cohabitation arrangement), this apprehension was more likely to translate into an eventual separation. It should be noted this model cites antecedent apprehension concerning commitment as the cause of increased break-ups and cohabitation only as an indicator of such apprehension. Another explanation is that those who choose not to cohabit prior to marriage are often more conservative in their religious views and may hold more traditional views on gender roles, a mindset that might prevent them from divorcing for religious reasons or confronting crisis in relationships despite experiencing marital problems no less severe than those encountered by former cohabitants.[citation needed]

In addition, the very act of living together may lead to attitudes that make happy marriages more difficult.[citation needed] The findings of one recent study, for example, suggest "there may be less motivation for cohabiting partners to develop their conflict resolution and support skills." (One important exception: cohabiting couples who are already planning to marry each other in the near future have just as good a chance at staying together as couples who don’t live together before marriage).[14]

A 2001 study of 1,000 adults indicated that people who cohabited experienced a divorce rate 50% higher after marriage than those who did not, though this may be correlation and not cause-and-effect.[15] A subsequent study performed by the National Center for Health Statistics with a sample size of over 12,000 individuals found that there was no significant difference in divorce rate between cohabitating and non-cohabitating individuals.[16]

In 2011, The National Marriage Project reported that about 2⁄3 of children with cohabiting parents would see them break up before they were 12 years old. About 1⁄4 of children of married couples would experience this by age 12.[17]

## Legal status[edit]

Some places, including the state of California, have laws that recognize cohabiting couples as "domestic partners". In California, such couples are defined as people who "have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring," including having a "common residence, and are the same sex or persons of opposite sex if one or both of the persons are over the age of 62".[18] This recognition led to the creation of a Domestic Partners Registry,[19] granting them limited legal recognition and some rights similar to those of married couples.

Three states, Mississippi, Michigan, and Florida, have laws on their books against cohabitation by opposite-sex couples.[20][21] Anti-cohabitation laws are often not enforced[2]although as of 2011, cohabitants were regularly being charged with misdemeanors in Florida.[22] Many legal scholars believe that in light of in Lawrence v. Texas, such laws making cohabitation illegal are unconstitutional (North Carolina Superior Court judge Benjamin Alford struck down the North Carolina law as unconstitutional on that basis).[23] TheSupreme Court of Virginia found the commonwealth's (unenforced[citation needed]) law making fornication (sex between unmarried persons) illegal to be unconstitutional in Martin v. Ziherl.

The IRS will not grant exemptions for a cohabiting dependent and relatives if cohabitation is illegal in the local jurisdiction.

The charge of "unlawful cohabitation" was used in the late nineteenth century to enforce the Edmunds Act, and other federal anti-polygamy laws against the Mormons in the Utah Territory, imprisoning more than 1,300 men.[24] However, incidents of cohabitation by non-polygamists were not charged in that territory at that time. Some modern scholarship suggests the Edmunds Act may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Free Exercise Clause,[25] although the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that neutral laws that happen to impinge on some religious practices are constitutional.[26]

## See also[edit]

- Domestic partnership in the United States
- Marriage in the United States
- Divorce in the United States
- Society of the United States
- American family structure

## References[edit]

1. Jump up^ http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h734.html
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Cohabitation Law & , Legal Definition. USLegal. Retrieved on October 17, 2012
3. Jump up^ See "Household Type and Relationship".
4. Jump up^ See "Current Population Survey (CPS) - Definitions and Explanations"
5. Jump up^ Manning, Wendy D. and Pamela J. Smock. 2005. "Measuring and Modeling Cohabitation: New Perspectives from Qualitative Data." Journal of Marriage and Family 67(4):989-1002.
6. Jump up^ Anne-Marie Ambert: Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related?. The Vanier Institute of the Family, Fall 2005
7. Jump up^ "Report: Most Couples Living Together Marry". Retrieved 2010-03-11.
8. Jump up^ "America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2011, Table UC1". United States Census Bureau. November 2011. Retrieved 2013-12-11.
9. Jump up^ "Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Same-Sex Married Couples". United States Census Bureau. September 2011. Retrieved 2013-12-11.
10. Jump up^ Cohabitation is replacing dating USA Today 7/17/2005
11. Jump up^ Jay Teachman (2003), "Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women", Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2), 444–455.
12. Jump up^ "Premarital Sex, Cohabitation, and Divorce: the Broken Link" (PDF) (Press release). National Council on Family Relations. 2003.
13. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Couples who live together before marriage more likely to get divorced". The Daily Telegraph (London). 2009-07-16.
14. Jump up^ "The Top Ten Myths of Marriage" (Press release). National Marriage Project. 2002.
15. Jump up^ Martin, Paige D. (Fall 2001). "Adolescent Premarital Sexual Activity, Cohabitation, and Attitudes Toward Marriage". BNET. Retrieved 3 May 2009.
16. Jump up^ Jayson, Sharon (October 14, 2010). "Report: Cohabiting has little effect on marriage success" USA Today. Retrieved on 2/29/2012
17. Jump up^ [1]
18. Jump up^ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/fam/297.html
19. Jump up^ Domestic Partners Registry
20. Jump up^ Miss. Code 97-29-1
21. Jump up^ Mi. St. 750.335, Fl. St. 798.02
22. Jump up^http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/FL_Couples_Living_Together_Without_Being_Married_Can_Get_Arrested_128845313.html
23. Jump up^ See "Judge strikes down law banning cohabitation" and "N.C. law banning cohabitation struck down".
24. Jump up^ U.S.History.com, Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882.
25. Jump up^ "The Practice of Polygamy: Legitimate Free Exercise of Religion or Legitimate Public Menace? Revisiting Reynolds in Light of Modern Constitutional Jurisprudence" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-04.
26. Jump up^ E.g., Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

## Further reading[edit]

- Pleck, Elizabeth H. Not Just Roommates: Cohabitation After the Sexual Revolution (University of Chicago Press; 2012) 290 pages; Explores the continued bias and stigma against heterosexual cohabitation in American law and custom despite the practice becoming extremely common.

## External links[edit]

- Domestic Partners Registry - California Secretary of State
- Alternatives to Marriage Project
- National Survey of Family Growth - federal statistics

Categories:

- American society
- Living arrangements

## Navigation menu

# Martin v. Ziherl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

| This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2011)

Martin v. Ziherl
Court | Supreme Court of Virginia
Full case name | Muguet S. Martin v. Kristopher Joseph Ziherl
Decided | January 14 2005
Citation(s) | 269 Va. 35; 607 S.E.2d 367; 2005 Va. LEXIS 7
Case history
Prior action(s) | Demurrer sustained, RichmondCircuit Court
Holding
Plaintiff's lawsuit for the intentional transmission of herpes was not barred by the judicial rule against recovering for injuries suffered while engaging in illegal conduct, because Virginia's criminal prohibition against sexual intercourse between unmarried individuals violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Richmond Circuit Court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Judge | Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr.
Associate Judges | Lawrence L. Koontz, Jr.,Cynthia D. Kinser, Donald W. Lemons, Elizabeth B. Lacy,Barbara Milano Keenan, G. Steven Agee
Case opinions
Majority | Lacy, joined by Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Keenan, Agee
Concurrence | Hassell
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Va. Code § 18.2-344

Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005), was a decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia holding that the Virginia criminal law against fornication (sexual acts between unmarried people) was unconstitutional. The court's decision followed the 2003 ruling of theU.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which established the constitutionally-protected right of adults to engage in private, consensual sex.

## Background of the case[edit]

Muguet Martin and Kristopher Ziherl were an unmarried couple who had been in a sexually active relationship for two years when Martin's doctor diagnosed her with herpes. She then filed a lawsuit against Ziherl in the Richmond Circuit Court, alleging that he knew he was infected with herpes when they had unprotected sex, knew it was contagious, and failed to inform her. Her complaint claimednegligence, intentional battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, for which she sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The Supreme Court of Virginia had ruled in Zysk v. Zysk, 404 S.E.2d 721 (Va. 1990), that plaintiffs could not recover damages for injuries suffered while participating in illegal conduct. As sex between unmarried persons was criminalized under Virginia's anti-fornication statute,[1] Ziherl filed a demurrer in response to Martin's suit. Judge Theodore J. Markow rejected Martin's argument that the statute was no longer valid after Lawrence v. Texas, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional a Texas law criminalizing homosexual sodomy as an infringement upon the liberty of adults to engage in private and consensual intimate conduct under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Judge Markow instead believed the fornication prohibition satisfied the rational basis review that Lawrence ruled the Texas statute failed, because the fornication law was reasonably related to the legitimate government goals of protecting public health and encouraging marriage for procreation. Ziherl's demurrer was sustained, resulting in the dismissal of Martin's suit. She subsequently appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

On appeal, Ziherl argued that Martin lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute because she was under no threat of prosecution, as the law had not been enforced against consenting adults since the mid-19th century.[2] Invalidation would therefore not impact her liberty but would only allow her to pursue her lawsuit. The court refused to consider this argument, because of the longstanding rule that it would not consider a standing argument that was not first made at the trial court level.

## The court's decision[edit]

The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously ruled on January 14, 2005, that the Virginia fornication law violated the Fourteenth Amendment.[3] Because the conduct by which Martin was allegedly injured could not be considered illegal, Zysk did not apply and she could proceed with her suit against Ziherl in the Richmond Circuit Court.

Lawrence v. Texas was the sole foundation for the court's ruling, and so the majority of its opinion was an interpretation of that decision. The U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence had stated that it was adopting the reasoning of Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent to Bowers v. Hardwick, which Lawrence overruled. The Stevens rationale, as the Virginia Supreme Court presented it, was that "decisions by married or unmarried persons regarding their intimate physical relationship are elements of their personal relationships that are entitled to due process protection." The Virginia Supreme Court stated that sexual intercourse was clearly part of the personal relationship of an unmarried couple, and that criminalizing intercourse clearly infringed upon their constitutionally protected right to make intimate choices.

Regarding Ziherl's argument that the statute served valid public interests, the court stated that in Lawrence, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the Texas sodomy statute furthered "no legitimate state interest" that could justify infringing the right to intimate contact. The Virginia Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that all state interests must be insufficient to justify a prohibition on private, consensual sexual conduct, rather than only those advanced by Texas to support its statute in Lawrence. The court was careful to note that this did not pertain to laws involving minors, non-consensual or public sexual activity, or prostitution, all of which the Lawrence Court also distinguished.

## See also[edit]

- Sex-related court cases in the United States
- judicial review
- substantive due process

## Notes[edit]

1. Jump up^ Virginia Code § 18.2-344. Fornication. "Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor." According to that classification, a violation of § 18.2-344 was punishable by a fine of up to $250. Va. Code § 18.2-11.
2. Jump up^ See Grossman, 2005.
3. Jump up^ Chief Justice Hassell did not join the court's opinion. He filed a separate opinion stating, without elaboration, that he concurred in its judgment.

## References[edit]

- Full text of the court's decision at findlaw.com
- Virginia strikes down state fornication law by Joanna Grossman, FindLaw columnist. CNN.com, January 25, 2005.

Categories:

- Virginia state case law
- United States substantive due process case law
- 2005 in United States case law
- LGBT in Virginia
- 2005 in Virginia