Saying “I Don’t” to Matrimony: An Investigation of Why Long-Term Heterosexual Cohabitors Choose Not to Marry

Background

Cohabitation research often finds cohabitors fit into one of three categories. For some, living together is a step in the marriage process as a way to determine compatibility and some make marriage plans and choose to cohabit before getting married. In either case, this category comprises the majority of cohabitors, those who conceptualize living together as part of a trajectory that will ultimately lead to marriage (Bumpass, Sweet, & Cherlin, 1991; Manning & Smock, 2002; Smock, 2000; Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007). A second, albeit less common, view is that cohabitation is an alternative to single life and viewed as a cheaper and more convenient way to live (Rindfuss & VandenHeuvel, 1990; Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007). If cohabitation is merely an extension or attribute of dating, it follows that these relationships are not permanent in nature (Rindfuss & VandenHeuvel, 1990). The third category of cohabitors consists of those who understand cohabitation as a substitute or alternative for marriage (Smock, 2000). These couples do not see cohabitation as a “dress rehearsal” for legal marriage and either do not have stated plans to marry the person they cohabit with, or experience changes in their circumstances that alter their intentions, or ability to fulfill intentions, to marry (Seltzer, 2000).

This present study suggests that there may be an additional subset of cohabitors that actively resist marriage altogether, and do not see their relationship as a “trial” for or “substitute” of marriage. Resistance to marriage is not a new phenomenon, as U.S. history is replete with people who have found marriage objectionable. The “free-love” movement in the 19th century is an early example of mobilized resistance to marriage in the United States. According to free love disciples, love and sex should be given freely without the desecration of church or state, and thus legal marriage was wrong (Stansell, 2000). In the early 20th century, Greenwich Village “bohemians” also embraced the free-love philosophy. Emma Goldman argued at the time that marriage was a failing institution that enslaved women, and encouraged people to practice free love instead (Solomon, 1987). The late 1960’s and 1970’s “counterculture” movement argued marriage was a conformist, dull, and hypocritical institution, and part of the objectionable middle-class lifestyle (Zicklin, 1983). And radical feminists took a critical stance against marriage in the late 1960s and 1970s, arguing that marriage was an institution in which women “consorted with the enemy” (Echols, 1989).

Today, antimarriage sentiments still exist, though contemporary critics of marriage are not organized in a “movement” or “counterculture.” Despite the prevalence of concerns and debates about the contemporary state of marriage, to my knowledge there are no sociological studies conducted on heterosexual couples living in the United States that deliberately resist marriage. There are, however, several relevant studies that are helpful in framing this research. In 1998, Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller launched the national nonprofit “Alternatives to Marriage Project” (currently renamed, “Unmarried Equality”). In a heterosexual, committed and unmarried relationship themselves, Solot and Miller wanted to create a grassroots organization that fought for the recognition and fair treatment for those who, by choice or necessity, are unmarried. In 2002, following the creation of their organization, Solot and Miller released their book, Unmarried to Each Other: The Essential Guide to Living Together as an Unmarried Couple. The book is intended to be used as a guide for couples who choose to live together “unmarried”; consequently, it incorporates a lot of legal information and general advice. However, the authors also interviewed over a hundred people to get a sense of the issues unmarried couples face and they intersperse their findings throughout the text. Their sample was not statistically representative nor was their research academic in nature. However, their research is an important contribution to the study of actively unmarried couples. They found that some common reasons couples refrained from tying the knot included feeling the timing was not right, concerns about finances, and the simple lack of any compelling reason to marry.

Vivienne Elizabeth’s (2000) research discussed in the article, Cohabitation, Marriage, and the Unruly Consequences of Difference, is based on a small number of heterosexual cohabitors in New Zealand who are critical of marriage. Elizabeth interviews 19 people (12 women and 7 of their male partners), and analyzes heterosexual cohabitation as a form of marriage resistance and finds that they conceptualize cohabitation as a privileged position while constructing marriage negatively. Specifically, utilizing a discourse of freedom, her respondents argued that cohabitation was “free from social prescriptions,” in that they were free to organize their finances independently, free to determine division of household labor without relying on gendered norms, and free to remain individuals without having their identities subsumed by their partner’s. Additionally, her respondents felt that their relationships were superior because cohabitation does not “cement two individuals together and constrict personal development,” as they believe is true in marriage.

Marion Willetts (2003) conducted an exploratory study of 23 heterosexual cohabitors who have chosen to register as domestic partners but not pursue legal marriage. Although some of her respondents indicated that their licensed cohabitating union was a step in the process toward marriage, others defined their relationship as distinct from marriage. Willetts found that the respondents had varying reasons why they legitimized their relationship through a domestic partnership registry as opposed to a legal marriage, including to gain economic benefits (e.g., health insurance), to avoid legal remarriage, as an alternative way to legitimize marriage, and because of an ideological opposition to marriage (e.g., concerns about sexism and heterosexism).

In addition to the work addressed above, other scholars have documented people critical of, or resistant to, marriage. For example, in her research on polyamorous ¹ communities, Elisabeth Sheff (2005) found that while many polyamorists were married, or wished to be able to marry more than one person, others were critical of marriage and rejected it as an “ill-conceived experiment” (pp. 262-263). In her research of contemporary egalitarian intentional communities, Jade Aguilar (2008) found that long-term monogamous relationships often run counter to the communities’ philosophies. Specifically, community members were concerned that a couple’s exclusivity kept them from bonding with the larger group. Additionally, research on economically marginalized women indicates some poor women reject marriage—in the face of welfare reforms that encourage marriage—because they know marriage does not necessarily confer security and stability (Walsh, 2005).

Although we are not currently experiencing another wave of the “free-love” movement, there is evidence that some couples actively resist marriage. Though contemporary marriage resistance is not an organized movement, the respondents in this study can situate themselves among a long U.S. history of marriage resistance and countercultural alternatives to traditional marriage. Based on interviews with cohabiting heterosexual couples in committed but unmarried relationships, this study investigates the reasons why some choose to abstain from legal marriage. Participants indicate a variety of reasons for forgoing legal marriage, including political views, economic practicalities, divorce concerns, and a lack of rationales or incentives to marry. The reasons offered fit into two larger categories: unease about the meanings associated with marriage and concerns about what marriage does to the relationship. Ultimately, this study attempts to fill the gap in cohabitation literature on couples who are committed to “unmarriage” and present a glimpse of modern-day marriage resistance.

Method

This article draws on 45 semistructured interviews with 45 couples who were “in committed, heterosexual relationships, who have been together for at least 1 year and who have made the decision to not pursue legal marriage.” I felt qualitative methods were the most appropriate to access the many different opinions and feelings my respondents had about marriage. Additionally, I felt it was important to include both members of the couple, as I did not want to assume they necessarily shared the same viewpoints. In his discussion of interviewing spouses together, Allan (1980) notes that joint interviews are advantageous not only because they contain more material for the researcher but also “the interaction of the couple as they create their accounts that provides the researcher with material he [sic] would not otherwise obtain” (p. 206). In a joint interview, the couples can corroborate and correct each other, provide additional information, and jog one another’s memory. In other words, the respondents have to work together to create a joint narrative. This is not to say that joint interviews are without their faults. For example, I experienced several interviews in which one person clearly dominated the conversation. Additionally, it is possible that one member of the couple “edited” their responses because the other member was present.

The concept of “marriage” can mean different things to different people. For example, it could be a religious celebration of an intimate union or a ceremony of commitment based on local customs. Thus, marriage may not necessarily refer to a legally recognized union. For the purpose of this study, I was interested in “marriage” only as it refers to legally recognized marital unions. To be legally recognized, a couple’s commitment is defined by way of a state authorized, nationally acknowledged, marriage certificate. Additionally, I was interested in couples who have consciously made the decision not to legally marry. It would be problematic to assume that a couple is “consciously deciding” not to marry solely because they are cohabiting, as previously discussed, evidence indicates cohabitation is only a step in the trajectory toward marriage. Thus, I looked for couples who have discussed marriage with one another and have decided against it. Although Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin (1991) found that disagreement about marriage plans between partners in cohabiting relationships was common, only a few respondents in this study indicated that they were not as “on board” as their partner in their commitment to not getting married. In other words, no couples suggested that they disagreed about their decision to be and remain unmarried per se, though a handful of individuals seemed less enthusiastic about their choice as their partner. However, as Manning and Smock (2002) note, a woman or man whose partner refuses to marry is unlikely to report that they expect to marry, regardless of their own wishes. In any case, marriage decisions (hopefully) require the consent of both parties involved, and therefore this is a sample of couples that have, for varying reasons, consciously decided together to not to pursue legal marriage.

To conduct the interviews, I used a semistructured interview schedule. Sample questions included “How did you reach the decision not to marry?” “How did your family and friends react to your decision to forgo marriage?” “Are there ways in which not being married makes your life easier or more difficult?” The discussions often strayed from the questions asked, and the list of items I wished to focus on changed based on the circumstances of each particular couple. All but two couples agreed to have their interviews audiotaped (in which I took copious notes instead) and the average length of interview was about 2 hours.

Data Analysis

All interviews were subsequently transcribed and analyzed. I utilized “grounded theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in my analytic approach, by building theory inductively from detailed analysis of the qualitative data. First, I developed a list of questions that I hoped would help achieve the goal of understanding why couples choose to resist legal marriage. After completing the first few interviews, I read the transcripts and started to adjust the questions I asked to more accurately reflect the stories I was hearing. Since analysis occurs throughout the research process (Daly, 2007), the interview questions continued to change throughout the data collection process and often the interviews strayed from the schedule. I also gave each respondent the ability to share anything else they wished to discuss during, or at the end of, the interview. However, despite the sometimes open-ended nature of the interview, there was a set of questions asked uniformly among all respondents to allow for later data comparison.

To code the data, I began by reading a handful of interviews and then created an index sheet with topics and subtopics that emerged from the transcripts. Using the method of open coding (Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987), I analyzed data minutely by beginning with a wide opening and remembering that more is better at these initial coding stages. I then labeled passages and comments with the codes listed on the index sheet. I continually added codes throughout the process when I was confronted with new information or perspectives.

As my “analysis deepen[ed] through the process of coding transcripts,” I began “to see similarities in [my] participants’ descriptions of events and activities.” These “common indicators” are referred to as concepts (Daly, 2007, p. 231). When I was able to see even broader themes in my data, I was able to arrange some concepts into larger categories. I was then able to compare and relate concepts and categories with one another, a process known as “axial coding” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss, 1987). Through this process, I was able to organize the responses into categories and subcategories, as will be explained in the findings section.

Sample Population

To generate this sample of respondents, I relied on snowball sampling and also placed advertisements in newspapers and on Internet listservs. The 45 in-person interviews occurred across seven states, with most interviews taking place in Colorado. All interviews occurred with both members of the couple present and in mutually convenient locations, typically in coffee shops or in the respondent’s homes. To help increase my sample size, some of my advertisements, primarily those placed in newspapers and online, offered $20 to the couple to compensate for their time.

The ages of the participants ranged from 23 to 70 years, with the average age for women 39 years, and for men 40 years. Posting ads and the use of a snowball sampling technique were useful methods in attempting to locate a specific type of cohabiting couple; however, it resulted in a fairly homogenous sample. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents identified as “White” or “Caucasian”; 0.4% identified as “Chicana,” “Hispanic,” or “Latina”; 0.2% identified as “Asian” or “South Asian”; 0.1% identified as “Arab”; and 0.3% identified as “other.”

Thirty-three percent of the women and 29% of the men had been married and divorced at least once before. Relatively few couples in this study had children together. Although some of the respondents had children from previous relationships, only seven couples had children that were products of the current unmarried relationship and two couples were pregnant at the time of the interview. A number of pairs indicated that they would like to have children together in the future or at least consider the possibility of doing so.

Overall, the respondents were highly educated; 76% of the respondents had a college degree or a graduate degree. This finding is analogous to Willetts (2003) study of heterosexual couples that register as domestic partners, where 74% of the respondents had either a bachelor’s degree or graduate degree. Though tempting to make an association between choosing to be unmarried and high levels of education, many of the sample methods used in this study likely produced a more educated populace (e.g., e-mailed advertisements to college departments). Additionally, most respondents (69%) identified as either having no religious affiliation or identified as atheist.

Cohabitation was not necessarily a prerequisite for respondents of this study; instead, I was looking for a stated commitment to one another, a relationship that was at least 1 year in length, and the decision not to pursue legal marriage. In the end, all but two of the couples resided in the same home together. However, since the responses from the couples that did not live together did not differ enough from the responses of the cohabiting couples, I have left them out of the analysis. It is possible that there are unexplored reason(s) as to why these partners are not cohabiting that sets them apart from the other couples in the sample. ²

Although I did not directly ask about infidelity, the vast majority of couples described their relationships as monogamous, although two respondent pairs shared “open” pasts or periods in their relationship in which a member engaged in nonsanctioned outside sexual activity. That the majority of these couples embraced monogamy runs counter to the stereotype that people who choose not to marry do so because they “cannot commit” to a relationship either emotionally or sexually. Instead, the vast majority of couples in this study consider themselves committed to each other in every sense of the word.

Although research indicates that marital relationships are typically longer than cohabiting relationships and characterized by more commitment (Smock & Gupta, 2002), findings from this study indicate that there is a good deal of commitment and longevity among participants with the mean length of relationship between 7 and 8 years.

Findings

The participants offered a variety of reasons and motivations as to why they made the decision to not pursue legal marriage. When asked to discuss why they were not married, or why they were not planning on getting married, many respondents remembered engaging in complex decision-making processes that included many different variables. In other words, no couple seemed to have one main rationale in their desire to remain unmarried and most offered multiple and overlapping reasons. Despite the varying motivations, what this group of respondents shared is their difference from the majority of cohabitors. No one indicated that they were “trying out” the relationship, or using cohabitation as a step in the progression toward legal marriage. Instead, the heterosexual model of marriage simply was not feasible or did not fit their personal beliefs, desires, or needs.

The variety of explanations offered derived from one of two larger categories. First, many of the stated reasons to resist marriage stem from the participants’ concerns about the meaning of marriage. In other words, some do not want to marry because they do not agree with what marriage, as an institution or a ritual, means in today’s society. These respondents were concerned with issues of civil liberties, and equality and religious freedom, and they felt as though marriage conflicted with those ideals. In addition to concerns about the meanings associated with marriage, respondents also indicated trepidation about what marriage does to the relationship. Thus, the second larger category of responses comprised fears about the consequences of marriage and the belief that the perceived risks associated with marriage outweigh the perceived benefits.

Discussion

As discussed previously, cohabitation research often finds cohabitors fit into one of three categories. For some, living together is a step in the marriage process as a way to determine compatibility (Bumpass, Sweet, & Cherlin, 1991; Manning & Smock, 2002; Smock, 2000; Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007). For others, cohabitation is an alternative to single life (Rindfuss & VandenHeuvel, 1990; Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007). Last, some cohabitors understand cohabitation as a substitute or alternative for marriage (Seltzer, 2000; Smock, 2000). To some degree, the respondents in this study can be understood as part of the category of couples who cohabit as a substitute for marriage. For example, many indicated they felt “the same as,” if not “better than” a married couple and did not see the need to make it “official.” On the other hand, some respondents were critical of the very notion of needing to have a marital license and State-sanctioned approval of their relationship. In this respect, their relationships probably should not be understood as “substitutes” for marriage—since they would argue marriage is not the measuring stick in which their relationship should be judged. If marriage is unnecessary or arbitrary, so is any “substitute” for it. Additionally, while some couples cohabit as a substitute for marriage because they cannot marry for some reason (e.g., financial reasons, married to someone else) the majority of respondents in this study could marry but chose not to. Thus, cohabitation research may be limited in understanding this particular subset of heterosexual couples who are committed to remaining unmarried. Arguably, this present research indicates the need for another subset of cohabitors, those who resist marriage altogether. Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman (2009) echo this concern. After finding a small percentage of cohabitors who indicated they did not believe in the institution of marriage in their own research, the authors noted the need to for cohabitation literature to distinguish between cohabiting individuals who do not believe in marriage from those who do.

Other studies, not all necessarily related to cohabitation research, mirror many of the findings of this study by indicating that there are at least a few reasons why heterosexual couples may make the conscious decision not to enter the institution of marriage. For example, some decide not to marry as a form of active resistance to the gender role expectations that seem common in marriage. Historically, women are expected to take over household duties and child rearing in marriage and research indicates that married women spend more hours per week on housework than cohabiting women do (Shelton & Daphne, 1993). Thus, some women (and men) choose not to get married to resist seemingly intrinsic sexist marital roles (Bernard, 1982; Geller, 2001; Solot & Miller, 2002; VanEvery, 1995; Willetts, 2003). Some couples view marriage as a confining institution and choose to resist marriage to maintain freedom and choice (Elizabeth, 2000). Other research indicates that some couples may choose to resist marriage because they feel as though marriage is an exclusionary institution that actively discriminates against gays, lesbians, and polyamorous family groupings (Solot & Miller, 2002; Willetts, 2003). In addition, there is evidence that people forgo legal marriage due to their fear of divorce, the inability to afford or conscious revolt against the expenses associated with the marriage ceremony itself, and others simply desire to limit the role government plays in their life (Solot & Miller, 2002; Willetts, 2003). This study adds to this existing literature a few additional explanations as to why heterosexual couples may choose not to marry.

In many respects, the relationships in this study were similar to marital relationships. These 45 couples shared mutual commitment to one another, shared homes and finances, and some had children in the home. They argued about similar issues as their married peers (e.g., the division of housework) and spent their time worrying about similar issues (e.g., retirement). A few couples even celebrated their commitment to one another among family and friends in commitment ceremonies that resembled marriage ceremonies. Where they differed from married couples, and the majority of cohabitors that eventually marry, is that they have chosen to forgo making their relationship a legally recognized marriage. This decision often comes at a price, as many faced legal obstacles in their attempts to secure the rights and privileges given automatically to married couples (e.g., the right to coverage by a spouse’s health insurance). Additionally, most to some degree faced social pressure to marry, which reflects Andrew Cherlin’s (2004) argument that despite the increase in cohabitation and “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, the symbolic significance of marriage remains high within the culture. On the other hand, there were a few respondents who actually benefited financially from remaining legally unmarried (e.g., higher social security payments) and several believed their decision to remain unmarried made their relationship stronger because they were less likely to take the relationship for granted.

As mentioned previously, a significant drawback of this research is the lack of diversity among respondents. The homogeneous group that was largely a result of snowball sampling lacks racial and economic diversity in addition to diversity in educational attainment. It is likely that more diversity would yield different and varying reasons as to why some couples remain committed to unmarriage. Additionally, there are disadvantages to interviewing couples at the same time. One such disadvantage is the potential for the loss of individual voices in the construction of a joint narrative. In other words, some of the opinions of the respondents may not have surfaced because the interview was conducted with both members present. Joint narratives may also obscure important gender power relations, as research indicates men play a dominant role in determining relationship progression (Sassler & Miller, 2011).

It is possible that some of the respondents in this study will eventually legally marry. For example, some couples indicated that they would consider legal marriage if they needed to marry for health insurance. In this regard, their marriage “resistance” is dependent on particular circumstances that may change. On the other hand, many of these respondents will likely remain unmarried, as they had deeply held antimarriage convictions. A longitudinal study to determine how many “committed unmarrieds” do ultimately marry would be a good project for future research. Also, future studies could interview each respondent individually after (or before) the couple interview to allow for additional data and to rectify the inherent problems with interviewing both members of the couple together. Future research could also investigate the correlation between choosing not to marry as a political statement and the recent legalization of gay marriage in various states across the nation. As more states legalize gay marriage, it is possible fewer heterosexuals will abstain from marriage as a statement of political solidarity with the marriage equality movement. Additionally, future research could focus on the levels of relationship satisfaction and quality in committed unmarried relationships, as research on cohabitation has shown an association between long-term cohabiting partners and lower relationship quality (Skinner, Bahr, Crane, & Call, 2002), and between premarital cohabitation and poorer marital outcomes, referred to as the “cohabitation effect” (for a thorough discussion of the “cohabitation effect,” see Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006).

Conclusion

Overall, this article discussed the most commonly mentioned reasons the respondents cited in their decision not to marry. The rationales fit into two larger categories. First, there were stated concerns about the meanings of marriage, and second, there were concerns about the effects marriage may have on the relationship. Regardless of their stated reasons for forging marriage, their responses point to what could be considered a public relations problem for legal marriage. Whether it is the fear of lapsing into traditional gender roles, the desire to keep government at bay, or just simply because there are no compelling reasons to wed—committed unmarrieds challenge our societal belief that marriage is, or should be, the ideal relationship form. Although currently the vast majority of Americans marry in their lifetimes, it is worth contemplating whether fewer people will marry in the future due to similar concerns. Additionally, despite the plethora of research on cohabitation, little research directly explores the reasons why a number of couples, whether cohabiting or not, identify as committed to one another yet choose to forgo legal marriage altogether (for notable exceptions, see Elizabeth, 2000; Solot & Miller, 2002; Willetts, 2003).

This study makes an important contribution to an otherwise little-studied phenomenon. It adds to the existing literature on “alternative” family formations, and helps fill a gap in the literature on this specific subset of committed unmarrieds and explores the reasons behind contemporary marriage resistance. This research also draws attention to some of the ways in which families and relationships do exist—despite societal discourse that renders such families nonexistent.