Long-Term Heterosexual Cohabiters and Attitudes Toward Marriage

Abstract

AbstractLimited research has specifically examined long-term heterosexual cohabiters (LTHCs), whose lengthy unions challenge the notion that cohabitation is a life stage. Drawing upon in-depth interviews with 48 LTHCs, this article identifies six themes that LTHCs use to talk about their attitudes toward marriage. Three of these themes highlight ways in which heterosexuals are trying to construct anti-oppressive heterosexual identities. These six themes are especially structured by social class, elucidating a broader class-based bifurcation of family life in the United States. These findings challenge existing paradigms about cohabitation and illuminate the diversity of reasons people choose to cohabitate. Implications for broader shifts in intimate life are discussed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI gratefully acknowledge funding support received from the following sources: The National Science Foundation: Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant, University of Minnesota (UM) Graduate School—Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship, UM Graduate School Thesis Research Grant (Patrick & Kathy Lewis Fund), and the Sexualities Section of the American Sociological Association: Martin P. Levine Memorial Dissertation Fellowship. Additionally, many thanks to Kathy Hull, Nancy Fischer, Penny Edgell, jim saliba, Annie Jollymore, Danielle Docka-Filipek, anonymous reviewers, and the editors of The Sociological Quarterly for their comments on drafts of this article.NOTESNotes1 I use the term "sexual minority" to refer to lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.2 Four years was chosen as the cutoff point, because 15 percent of cohabitating relationships survive (without breaking up or transitioning into marriage), setting this group apart as a small minority of cohabiters (CitationLichter et al. 2006). I considered setting the cutoff point at five years, but because only 7 percent of "nonpoor women" have cohabiting relationships that survive five years or longer (CitationLichter et al. 2006), this would have hindered recruiting a diverse subject pool.3 To operationalize a respondent's social class background, I use a combination of educational attainment, personal income, household income, and age (as a proxy measure of for one's potential for earnings growth). For those categorized as upper middle class (N = 16), both partners in a couple have a bachelor's degree or higher, at least one earner in the household makes $60,000 a year, and the annual household income is over $100,000 (or $80,000 or higher if one partner is around age 35 or younger). The middle-class category (N = 16) included respondents with greater educational diversity, but everyone in this category has at least a high school diploma or equivalent. Individually, people in this category make at least $20,000 a year, or have a household income of at least $40,000 a year (or $30,000 with a bachelor's degree at age 35 or younger). The categories low income and working class (N = 16) include the remaining respondents with a household income less than $40,000 a year; most have personal incomes less than $20,000 a year. No one in these latter categories has completed a degree higher than an associate's degree.4 In May 2013, Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage. On June 26, 2013, section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited the federal government from providing federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples, was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear how these changes in the legal situation for same-sex couples will affect the marriage aspirations of people who invoked the Marriage Boycott theme.5 State and federal benefits associated with marriage include, but are not limited to, assumption of a spouse's pension, inheritance, divorce protections, child custody, insurance breaks, immigration, some tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, medical decision-making authority, and sick leave.6 Sampling bias may also factor into the high prevalence of the Marriage Boycott theme. Those aware of the Minneapolis domestic partner registry and different-sex couples' eligibility to register are likely to have discovered this information from lesbian, gay, or bisexual friends and family.