by Sarah Wright

The Wilmington Star-News (North Carolina)
April 2, 2004

Between 1990 and 2000, only eight states had larger increases in the number of unmarried partner households than North Carolina. Yet, the case of Melissa Sheridan and John Finger reveals how anachronistic the state's 199-year old anti-cohabitation law is.

Ms. Sheridan is a young woman who was convicted of welfare fraud in New York. Because both she and the father of her two year-old child have family in North Carolina, they decided to relocate. Unaware that cohabitation is illegal here, Ms. Sheridan now faces three choices that will affect her probation: get married, move to a state where cohabitation is not illegal, or live separately in North Carolina.

The problem with the first choice is that both Ms. Sheridan and Mr. Finger are married to other people and cannot afford to file for two uncontested divorces in New Hanover County. Plus, they are understandably reluctant to remarry, given their previous marital experiences.

The second option would deny the entire extended family the benefits that come with geographic proximity, namely closer kinship ties. Family support is a critical variable that alleviates many social problems, including criminal recidivism. On this empirical truth, conservatives and liberals often agree. In fact, this cohabitating couple is currently living with relatives.

The irony of the third choice is that it almost guarantees welfare dependence for one or both households, depending on the children's living arrangements. In another era, if Ms. Sheridan were on welfare, she might have been subject to midnight raids designed to ensure no adult men resided with her. Such raids supported "man-in-the-house-rules," which were supposed to prevent welfare payments going to the "wrong" people.

Mr. Finger is right to support his child with Ms. Sheridan. He is absurdly underappreciated for supporting her two children from previous relationships. After all, he is a Walmart employee whose presence avoids a fatherless situation and whose income keeps the entire family off of welfare.

As if this were not enough, there is the whole issue of whether North Carolina's anti-cohabitation law is constitutional since the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas last year. I have every reason to believe that the local ACLU will explore this question.

It is very important for voters and legislators in North Carolina to know that the average American now spends the majority of his or her lifetime unmarried. Most couples who walk down the aisle today are living together before marriage. For younger people especially, cohabitation is a step between dating and marriage, a way to gauge compatibility. Married at the age of 18, Ms. Sheridan left because her spouse abused her.

Economics also play a significant role in cohabitation and marriage decisions. Typically, marriage rates rise in times of economic prosperity and fall in economic slumps. Perhaps they simply stagnate in times of economic uncertainty. The point is that a lot of people simply cohabit until they can afford the wedding they want.

Finally, divorce explains many cohabitation statistics, as Ms. Sheridan and Mr. Finger acknowledge. Census data show that the majority of cohabiting couples include at least one person who was previously married.

In a country where the number of households with unmarried couples increased 72% during the last decade and in a state where the same figure is over 100%, prosecutorial discretion would do well to avoid family dissolution. It may not be the legal thing to do, but it is surely the moral choice.

Sarah Wright is a member of the board of directors of the Alternatives to Marriage Project. She lives in Medford, Mass.