Love, no marriage: More folks over 50 are 'shacking up'

Tags 

Pensions

A great part of this is simple sin, but another part of it is pensions and disability benefits that terminate when one (usually the woman) remarries.  This old system only worked as long as people instinctively got married, but that ended (if it was ever the case) about half a century ago.  Now we are reaping the consequences.

Yep

My uncle passed away in 1989. My aunt never remarried, because if she does, she'll lose his pension benefits. She's been living with another man since 1992. The pension is why she hasn't married him.  

TylerR is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs here.

family member

A member of my extended family is getting married (but not applying for a marriage license) because her ex husband earned substantial income and is a number of years older than her. She will be able to collect her ex's social security benefits if she doesn't marry. She will live with the new husband and everyone will assume they are married, without ever registering the marriage with the courts.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Huh.  I'll have to run this

Huh.  I'll have to run this idea past my soon-to-be fiance (she's 52; I'm 57).  But . . . one drawback to being a member of a solid Bible-believing church that actually practices church discipline is that we couldn't get away with this and still remain in the church.  Well, so much for that idea.

Devil's Advocate

So if a couple of 75 year olds who have no sexual relationship share a home and resources, is it a sin?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

New housing options

Common, NYC's Latest Co-Living Start-Up, Expands Its Brooklyn Footprint

It's been only four months since Common, "flexible, community-driven housing" launched in Crown Heights, but the company is already growing. Its second Crown Heights home opened on Albany Avenue in early January, and this week, Common announced its biggest project yet: a 20,000-square-foot home in Williamsburg, on South 3rd and Havemeyer Streets, which is set to debut in the spring. The complex, which has 12 suites spread out over four buildings, can accommodate as many as 51 people, each of whom gets their own room, but share kitchens and other spaces.

"I think a lot of people hear, 'Oh, living with roommates,' and they think a dingy dorm room," says Brad Hargreaves, Common's founder, during a recent tour of the new space. "We're trying to turn over that expectation."

Granted, the dorm comparison isn't too far off the mark. Common is one of a handful of companies advancing a theory of so-called "co-living," or sharing space (if not bedrooms) with a group of strangers. Common residents inhabit a home with anywhere from 19 to 50 other people, depending on which building they reside in. While residents get their own rooms, bathrooms are shared, and essentials like bed linens, paper towels, and toilet paper are provided. 

Observation: Here in the Twin Cities Metroplex, many Millennials will rent a 4 bedroom house and pack 4-6 singles in the same. Typically these are coed arrangements but not necessarily cohabitating arrangements. Rental arrangements are sometimes initiated through Craigslist or other on-line tools

 

Toronto housing

When I lived in Toronto in 1977 I rented a room in a 3 storey house for $30 a week. There were 4 other rooms that were rented by the family, who lived on the main floor. The 5 of us shared a bathroom and kitchen. I worked 2nd shift, getting home close to midnight and the situation worked perfectly for me. I was cooking at noon time and shaving/showering at midnight, so had both the kitchen and bathroom to myself. Very seldom saw the other tenants.

Most of the homes in the neighborhood had similar housing setups.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Common-law?

dmyers wrote:

Huh.  I'll have to run this idea past my soon-to-be fiance (she's 52; I'm 57).  But . . . one drawback to being a member of a solid Bible-believing church that actually practices church discipline is that we couldn't get away with this and still remain in the church.  Well, so much for that idea.

You probably know more about this than I do, but if you are in one of the "common-law" marriage states, why would the church care about having a license, if you properly marry in the eyes of the church?  If the state allows it, I see no reason a church ought to insist on a state license.

Of course, if you are talking about lying to authorities about whether you are married, that's a different issue entirely, so of course this scheme would not be that helpful for tax purposes.

Dave Barnhart

On civil marriage

I'm tempted by the arguments for calling marriage a part of the church and leaving the government out of it, especially as human governments have done so much damage with pensions, the tax system, the Health Insurance Deform Act, and 1000 (literally) different provisions in the law regarding marriage that often penalize the married.  But that said, part of me still holds to the reality that a child has a right to know who his parents are (not a problem for dmyers' relationship, I'd guess), and marriage law provides a convenient way for implementing family law.


▴ Top of page