There are strong moral reasons why couples shouldn’t just live together without being married. There are also strong psychological reasons why this is not a good idea. (See also this.) The Washington Post‘s financial advice columnist, Michelle Singletary, points out that there are also strong financial reasons not to, that sharing housing expenses, bank accounts, and buying property together can be disastrous if the couple isn’t married.
I will continue to caution couples about living together before marriage out of concern for their financial well-being.
Often I hear people say they’ve decided to live together to save on rent. They argue that since they are spending so much time together anyway, why not economize their expenses?
Or, they figure, why not commingle their money in joint bank accounts since they are spending together? They get joint credit cards or authorize each other to use their own card. They get cellphone plans together. Co-signing on a car for a credit-challenged significant other, well that’s okay because, after all, they love and trust each other. And you help out the one you love, right?
Some even purchase homes because they’ve been told it’s a wealth-building move.
It has become “no big deal” to mix love and money outside of marriage.
But I want to set aside the debate about whether cohabitating is right or wrong and focus on a key financial point. Are you sliding into a relationship without really considering how difficult it can be to separate your financial commitments when the love is gone? . . . .
“Out of our research on cohabitation, we have found that people slide through life-altering transitions without seeing at the time that that’s what they are doing,” [Denver professor Scott] Stanley said.
Because there is little structure in how people date, they can end up in relationships that in the long haul aren’t suitable. But before they grasp that fact — because they are riding high on their love rather than reason — they’ve had a child or commingled their finances or both.
“You realize that while this person is great, they’re not great for you,” the narrator says in the video. “You’d like to break up but, uh-oh, you are more locked in than you realize. What about that car loan? How much will it cost to break your cellphone contract? And just imagine how much harder it would be to break up if both your names are on the lease?”
In the case of their finances, couples acting under the influence of a romantic high can establish financial bonds before “they’ve developed a mutual and clear dedication to a future with each other,” Stanley said. “They are giving up options before making a choice.” Referring to research by Norval D. Glenn, Stanley says that’s called “premature entanglement.”
[Keep reading. . .]
Marriage laws have worked out all of these practical financial matters, both when the couple is married and in cases when they divorce. But unmarried couples who try to mimic the financial oneness of marriage have no protection, either during the relationship or when it ends.
I can see why gay couples would not be satisfied with simple cohabitation, though “domestic partner” laws could presumably address some of this. But I can also see why getting the state out of the marriage business and leaving it to the church also cannot work. There have to be laws to sort out these issues, and that means government involvement. And yet there is more to marriage than what the government can deal with. Marriage is not just a romantic commitment, but a social, economic, legal, psychological, spiritual, and biological relationship.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In