After two marriages and two divorces, I am delighted to have a partner but don't see a need to marry or even live together. Research on live apart together (LAT) indicates they are happier and more committed than those who live together, married or not. You rarely take a partner for granted when you have to work hard to stay connected. And you can have a certain amount of freedom, as can your partner, which is hard to have when you are with someone 24/7. True, living together is more economical than maintaining two residences, but economics shouldn't be the main factor in choosing how one lives and loves.
3
A phenomenon I noticed some twenty years ago was that siblings, divorced and with children, were moving back in with each other, forming blended families. Information on the number of such arrangements and their eventual outcomes has proved elusive. But their numbers could be substantial -- single parents too busy to date but with a pre-existing legal family relationship. I got the impression that a number of people frowned on such arrangements, which might explain the public silence. Still, I'm curious. Like the older couples in this article, sibling co-habitants with kids could have found refuge in a common household. Not unlike Rachel Lynde and Matthew Cuthbert of "Anne of Green Gables" fame.
3
Laura and I met 3/19/76. We moved in together that summer. It was her view - since we had ruled out children - that we would only get married if it was, in her words, "expedient." There were simply no benefits to be had by involving the state in our relationship. Her father, a physician, had married six times, so her outlook on the whole deal was dubious. Later, when she became disabled, about 25 years in, the costs of her health care would have sunk us. In the event, 41 years together, we're quite happy. To be sure, should I predecease her (pretty unlikely at this point) she would miss out on my social security. She would, however, get my pension and all other accrued assets - so, clinically - she could never be poor. If it made 'sense' I'd be quite happy / willing to involve the state (sorry about the 'Libertarian' tenor of this share) in our relationship. Right now we just don't see it.
6
It's actually more common then reported and makes total sense. Asset protection for your kids. Retirement benefits etc. And it works. And for getting infirmed there's no guarantee the other person will stick around to
help you married or not. And you enjoy the other persons company.
help you married or not. And you enjoy the other persons company.
In many states,Divorced women don't want to remarry because doing so will end their alimony from their former husbands.
2
In almost all states, a divorced woman--who'd been financially dependent on her husband and may have no assets she can legally call her own--is dependent on a court-agreed ruling on what is hers and what is her ex-husband's. As has been well-documented for over 50 years, women suffer financially post-divorce in ways that men never do: they earn far less; they pay more for the children even when child-support is being paid; they have far, far less for retirement; they sink into poverty at rates their divorced husbands simply do not.
Until public policy rectifies this utterly discriminatory financial result of divorce--and that's unlikely to happen since most state legislatures are male-dominated--women have no choice but to remain single in order to receive any post-divorce support that they are legally entitled to, regardless of how paltry they may be.
The issue you glibly refer to is a complicated result of historic and ongoing devaluation of women's work in the home. The raising of "human capital" has never been economically valued; women's historical domestic work has never been economically valued; women still earn far less than men for the same work. Women are expected to be sufficiently satisfied when they have been able to end a marriage, even if they are left in penury.
Until public policy rectifies this utterly discriminatory financial result of divorce--and that's unlikely to happen since most state legislatures are male-dominated--women have no choice but to remain single in order to receive any post-divorce support that they are legally entitled to, regardless of how paltry they may be.
The issue you glibly refer to is a complicated result of historic and ongoing devaluation of women's work in the home. The raising of "human capital" has never been economically valued; women's historical domestic work has never been economically valued; women still earn far less than men for the same work. Women are expected to be sufficiently satisfied when they have been able to end a marriage, even if they are left in penury.
15
Decisions are indeed based on economic survival. Men can also receive alimony. My partner was acknowledged as the at-home dad and received a lump sum payment, but this is no way made up for being out of the work force for many years, and trying to completely start over in a new place well into his 50s. He is somewhat reliant on his ex-wife's Social Security which is significantly higher than his. After all, (she had the big career and made $$$ while he was tending the home fires) but he would lose that if we married.
1
I think it is great to have a special person in your life living with you at any age without the paper if it is not needed for children or money or other tax/financial reasons. Being someone who is married but who knows what future can be or me in any age -- 53 now -- it is something to know that being with someone you like or love in the home or apartment rather then just dating or being in steady commitment but not living together is option that work for many in the 40 - death range of life. It is positive article and appreciated to hear that love and like and being in a relationship is more then the paper or the legal BS unless you need the money issues resolved in marriage law by state and not personal lawyer and lawyer for partner made to work out for both parties for anything that is financial or concern now or future issues with self, partner, kids, medical, money and property when death happens, medical issues and other concerns.
2
"But relationships with adult children sometimes suffer." I'd like to see an article about the psychological toll on older people whose children punish them for making themselves happy. It surely must hurt deeply to gain a life companion only to lose closeness with your child.
4
Adult children worried about inheritance issues are always the problem.
That has to be worked out. That's difficult.
That has to be worked out. That's difficult.
3
Hmmm...
I am 60 and I just got married to the man I have been with for 13 years...
All of our friends, old and young, are ecstatic for us.
I am happier, knowing I have security and connection. My Husband has just been WONDERFUL about my becoming his Mrs.
Shacking up is for amateurs.
I am 60 and I just got married to the man I have been with for 13 years...
All of our friends, old and young, are ecstatic for us.
I am happier, knowing I have security and connection. My Husband has just been WONDERFUL about my becoming his Mrs.
Shacking up is for amateurs.
6
The ideal of the 60s remains
4
I resent the header of this thoughful, well-written piece, and I'll wager there are many women readers who will find it less than respectful.
7
Older people have God in perspective, so they might as well make a deal, shake hands and do their best.
They might have Tax or inheritance planning....
It's a growing trend....people over 30 are using contracts. Marriage is fading in a conventional sense. If we really followed the 1st amendment there would be no religious preferential laws,
Many friends are getting ordained on line so they can marry their buddies. Churches are way down on weddings. They are a waste of Government bureaucratic time and money and unconstitutional in a real world.
Theocratic interference will die a natural death....gone by 2099.
They might have Tax or inheritance planning....
It's a growing trend....people over 30 are using contracts. Marriage is fading in a conventional sense. If we really followed the 1st amendment there would be no religious preferential laws,
Many friends are getting ordained on line so they can marry their buddies. Churches are way down on weddings. They are a waste of Government bureaucratic time and money and unconstitutional in a real world.
Theocratic interference will die a natural death....gone by 2099.
2
I don't necessarily agree that this is really a brand new practice. I remember my mom telling me 20-30 years ago, when she was living in a retirement community, about all the non-married couples she knew, and for exactly the same reasons people stated in this article. Perhaps its more widespread among baby-boomers.
3
While that is fine for some, I would like a ring on my finger.
3
There may be many reasons for older couples to not marry, but the asserted loss of Social Security survivor's benefits, as stated in the article, "Most Older Couples Are 'Shacking Up,' " cannot be one of them. Sections 202(e)(3) and (f)(3) of the Social Security Act [42 USC §402(e)(3) and (f)(3)] make clear that remarriage after age 60 will not result in a loss of widow(er)'s benefits. This has been the law since December 1978. In the event a widow(er) does remarry after reaching age 60 and then survives the later spouse, as well, the survivor would be eligible to receive a widow(er)'s benefit on the account of either deceased spouse, but no greater than the highest amount payable on any one account.
11
Thank you for clarifying, Mr. Sacks. The over 60 "exception" is an, important distinction that is apparently not widely understood, based on the comments.
2
Thank you. What may not be so well understood, and what may be confusing is that if a divorced spouse who is receiving divorced spousal benefits (and NOT widow(er)'s benefits), or is eligible to receive divorced spousal benefits (because the first spouse is still alive), remarries at any age, that spouse will no longer be able to receive a divorced spousal benefit on the account of the first spouse, so long as the remarried spouse continues to be married to a subsequent spouse.
1
My mother passed away last month. She was married at 22 to her first husband and he died when she was 31, leaving her with 3 children to support. She married a widower with 3 children at 38 and they added 2 more children to their blended family. He died when when she was 58. Both of her husbands were older than her and died after a long illness. She re-connected with a high school classmate at church (he was an usher) when she was 62. Their union was "blessed" by a Catholic priest without benefit of a NJ marriage license license when she 68 and they were together until his death 6 years ago. That last union, while not legal, satisfied them and the Catholic Church, morally. I am surprised to see no mention of this option in the comments. I fail to understand why the distinction between legal, state sanctioned marriages and religious marriage is not used more often to resolve other intractable problems.
Mom was deeply depressed after her last partner died but not being legally bound to him meant that dealing with his estate was the responsibility of his children and caring for our mother was ours. They had years of companionship together and both families were happy for them.
Mom was deeply depressed after her last partner died but not being legally bound to him meant that dealing with his estate was the responsibility of his children and caring for our mother was ours. They had years of companionship together and both families were happy for them.
18
Marriage is a tax minefield. I wonder why Congress thought it was a good idea to lay so many tax traps for the elderly?
Oh, for the same reasons that the scamsters target them. They have the money.
Oh, for the same reasons that the scamsters target them. They have the money.
9
A female neighbor at 64 met a 50 yo man, a year later, he moved in and then got married . She was retiree and stable financially, he in the other hand never had a steady job, been working odd jobs all his life. Two years in a marriage, she felt the change financially, lost her health care and had to reapply and doing so was so frustrating....only to get the call that she was not qualified and tried another one again and again. Some of her medicine that she used to get refilled from the pharmacy and now had to pay full price .They pay more taxes and etc. She wouldn't admit but marring at her age was a mistake, financially of course . The good thing is they love each other. Especially her husband ( I think because he found a place to stay).
This article is very informative, thank you and keep writing more on this subject .
This article is very informative, thank you and keep writing more on this subject .
5
For many older persons, children play significant role in their living conditions & habits. Each Senior has needs very real for the situation, so generalizing is no answer. What is really good is that society has changed to accept new reality in the present day society.
4
Here's a conundrum: one partner in a household such as those in this article comes into the relationship with a small fraction of the assets of the other. After ten, twenty years (you decide) of sharing all responsibilities other than the financial burden of a great lifestyle, the "poorer" partner still has few assets. The richer partner dies. The heirs decide that the surviving partner gets nothing and must move out. What does the surviving loyal loving partner deserve? Talk amongst yourselves.
26
Those scenarios can and should be worked out well in advance. Establish a living trust that protects each/both. Involve an attorney.
5
The richer partner presumably makes a will which includes the poorer partner, just like anybody makes a will,
8
Each partner should specify the "payable on death" option on the main bank accounts etc. Then if/when one dies the account immediately passes to the named beneficiary.
2
I am 53 and my girlfriend is 51, as soon as we can we will be living under one of two roofs, the city house and the cabin in the woods, both of them as a couple. I could never see living alone. Why should people older than me? And what does that piece of paper really mean anyway? That you can have kids? That you can be considered non-single? What exactly? That People are living a bit longer and that we have more abilities to study the outcomes of that age, is the reason you see the trend that likely might have always had potential of being the trend anyway.
11
We need to change tax laws so marriage is irrelevant.
20
I'm jealous! It's wonderful that people later in life have someone to love, do stuff with, and, yes, maybe even have sex with. That's more than a lot of married people have! And it seems to me that the financial benefits clearly go to the unmarried; if one needs a nursing home, the other one stands to lose nothing.
25
About Social Security, widow's benefits: When I was widowed at 59, SS explicitly informed me that I would NOT lose my benefits if I should decide to remarry. The SS employee said that a "Dear Abbey" exchange had convinced many, incorrectly, that you would lose widow's support if you remarried. I have not re-married but would still love to know what the rules are. Anybody?
3
It's complicated. It depends.
Widows/widowers can remarry at age 60 or later without losing benefits.
If the surviving spouse is disabled, they can marry at age 50 or later and retain the widow/ widower benefits.
If the surviving spouse is disabled, they can marry at age 50 or later and retain the widow/ widower benefits.
4
Here you go:
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/divspouse.html
The SS person who told you that was wrong. Remarriage does affect benefits, at least while the remarriage lasts.
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/divspouse.html
The SS person who told you that was wrong. Remarriage does affect benefits, at least while the remarriage lasts.
2
Marriage is in the best interests of children for their care and protection. What is in the best interests of mature adults depends upon their situation.....
Older married couples with money are advised by estate attorneys to split their assets into separate accounts and trusts to protect it from burdensome taxes. Other married couples and singles pass their savings on to their adult children to eventually be eligible for Medicaid for their care. Machinations of money dictate decisions later in life. There is no other means of income if lost. Let's fact it. Divorce impoverishes people so why take the risk.
As for marrying in the eyes of God.....seems that it is man who has enabled life to be extended longer. Unless "God will provide" man better have his/her own plan!
Older married couples with money are advised by estate attorneys to split their assets into separate accounts and trusts to protect it from burdensome taxes. Other married couples and singles pass their savings on to their adult children to eventually be eligible for Medicaid for their care. Machinations of money dictate decisions later in life. There is no other means of income if lost. Let's fact it. Divorce impoverishes people so why take the risk.
As for marrying in the eyes of God.....seems that it is man who has enabled life to be extended longer. Unless "God will provide" man better have his/her own plan!
3
Illness and disability can absolutely cost you every penny and every asset. If you marry, your spouse's illness and disability can cost you everything. An unmarried person is not financially responsible for their loved one's nursing home care. That's the bottom line. Medicaid pays for nursing home care after all your assets are gone. Unmarried, your partner retains his/her assets. Medicare does not pay for nursing home care and Medicaid is means-tested. This is especially important if you are too young to qualify for Medicare and if Obamacare is destroyed.
12
Obamacare has nothing to do with nursing home care.
2
No but Medicare does, quite a bit actually, and the potential $800 billion reduction in funding along with block grants to the states will have plenty of impact on nursing home care.
2
MediCARE is a direct relationship between the FEDERAL government and the US citizen.
800 bilion in block grants to the STATES for MedicAID (for poor people) has absolutely NOTHING to do with MediCARE for elderly people.
At the rate that most people receive SS retirement benefits, the STATE many times will pay their premium for MediCARE! BUT, it is STILL a direct relationship with the feds.
800 bilion in block grants to the STATES for MedicAID (for poor people) has absolutely NOTHING to do with MediCARE for elderly people.
At the rate that most people receive SS retirement benefits, the STATE many times will pay their premium for MediCARE! BUT, it is STILL a direct relationship with the feds.
Don't forget that a lower base will create a greater percentage increase with fewer raw numbers. So the 75% figure sounds dramatic, and is newsworthy, but it doesn't necessarily mean a complete realignment of living habits among older Americans.
2
Great article In older years there is no need to wed. You are not having/raising children and many people have accomplished financially their goals. Many wish to leave their wealth to children and grandchildren and they do not wish to complicate matters. I think it is great there is no judgment on "shacking up" and if it works for people that's great. Life is short; enjoy.
28
Faced with a hip operation, I invited a gay couple to share my home, look after the dog and generally settle in. They had been together for 60 years, had an adventurous life abroad and due to an unfortunate financial decision were left dependent on the aged pension. They were wonderful during my rehab and as the house was big enough, no one was unduly compromised. In fact Ralph, the stronger person in the couple took charge and insisted that I must eat my vegetables he had prepared - both of them laughing at my facial grimaces.
When Ralph developed terminal cancer, my women friends, his partner Ken and I saw him though to the end.
Now Ken (15 years older) and I are good housemates, I see that he remembers his meds, accompany him to doctor's appointments as the terminology gets him flustered. He still insists that I eat vegetables at the evening meal. Nowadays I make no faces, just resigned to my fate. Tomorrow we are off to a theatre performance, as we have similar tastes in literature and entertainment.
When Ralph developed terminal cancer, my women friends, his partner Ken and I saw him though to the end.
Now Ken (15 years older) and I are good housemates, I see that he remembers his meds, accompany him to doctor's appointments as the terminology gets him flustered. He still insists that I eat vegetables at the evening meal. Nowadays I make no faces, just resigned to my fate. Tomorrow we are off to a theatre performance, as we have similar tastes in literature and entertainment.
55
This is exactly the type of co-living that elders should engage in. Retirement communities are growing and have apts, condos and SFH but sharing a house hasn't become vogue. It should. Young professionals in cities have done it for years to get on their feet and seniors should too.
3
With all due respect, the purpose of sex is for married people to procreate (not for pleasure), so the thought of people who are done with childbirth having sex grosses me out. Especially with women who have reached menopause, since "parts" undergo hygienic changes which are counter-productive to sex. It can also cause an unnecessary expenditure for health fees in many cases too (like birth control or checkups for STD's). Seriously, does anyone like the thought of their parents having sex or tow unmarried partners shacking up?? This is not the '60s.
4
You are joking. Right?
18
With all due respect, each individual person controls and decides what they do with their own body and with others from mutual adult consent, according to their principles and moral views, regardless of the limits imagined by outsiders. So you don't get to decide what is the purpose of sex for everyone else, thank goodness.
25
I don't know your age, but I am in my '60's. I didn't realize that we should not be having "pleasure" during sex. I also apologize for grossing you out. I will desist from such actions posthaste.
23
These arrangements beat being legally married and cohabiting but never talking to one another. But in either case, living as two (and as cheaply as one) is excellent insurance against senior poverty. Statistically, only a tiny percentage of couples ends up destitute. Single, never married women are most at-risk... the famous 'bag ladies' of yesteryear. The emergent senior co-housing movement might help them.
10
My 'new' wife and I were together as 'life partners' (a term many of our 7now adult children disliked) for 18 years before eloping in a neighboring state just two years ago. We had each divorced after 15+ year first marriages, and these occurred years before we got together. Why get married after all that time? Simplicity and clarity probably sum it up. We gradually shared the news. After 2 weeks when we were together with all our children and grandchildren, with select friends and extended family when we had opportunity to be with them, face to face in most instances. Lots of good cheer, some ribbing, some surprised.
12
Like my mother said when co-habitating with another when she was in her 60's - "We're not going to have any more kids - so why bother getting married!"
23
This article is about members of the Boomers (1946-1964) or the lower end of the Silent Generation (1929-1945).
So I'm not surprised.
If they were of the Silent Generation (1928-46) or earlier, I'd be surprised.
So I'm not surprised.
If they were of the Silent Generation (1928-46) or earlier, I'd be surprised.
7
The "Silent Generation" consists of people who came of age during the 1950s.
1
>But Americans are far more accepting now, she said, and the people turning 60 “are very different from the people who were 60 twenty years ago.”
Yeah, us "older couples" were the ones who ushered in the Sexual Revolution. You young people will not remember a two-decade era when the most severe STD could be cured with a shot, and pregnancy could be prevented with a pill, but the largest cohort in the history of demographics was reaching its emancipation and the peak of hormonal urgency at that time. "If it feels good, do it" was more than a bumper sticker, and "love the one you're with" was more than a catchy tune. It was a perfect storm of desire, defiance, drugs, and a cultural compulsion to test every limit until it breaks.
Good times...
Yeah, us "older couples" were the ones who ushered in the Sexual Revolution. You young people will not remember a two-decade era when the most severe STD could be cured with a shot, and pregnancy could be prevented with a pill, but the largest cohort in the history of demographics was reaching its emancipation and the peak of hormonal urgency at that time. "If it feels good, do it" was more than a bumper sticker, and "love the one you're with" was more than a catchy tune. It was a perfect storm of desire, defiance, drugs, and a cultural compulsion to test every limit until it breaks.
Good times...
35
"I can understand their financial considerations but how about religious considerations? Americans are the most religious among western countries, religion still plays a a dominant role. "
I answered that question earlier. you get married by a friendly rabbi, priest or minister in a religious ceremony and not civlly.
there are degrees of religiosity. please do not lose sleep over this point.
I answered that question earlier. you get married by a friendly rabbi, priest or minister in a religious ceremony and not civlly.
there are degrees of religiosity. please do not lose sleep over this point.
6
Marrying religiously but not civilly creates more than it solves. States have common law marriage laws, and becoming enmeshed is not all that difficult. A religious ceremony can be easily construed as intent to marry, or holding oneself as married.
2
So the government payments encourage young mothers to stay single and also encourage the elderly not to marry. But they are encouraging gays to marry. What a topsy turvy world.
9
And the New York Times cheers on the moral depravity, as per usual.
4
How, exactly, are "government payments" encouraging gays to marry? Is there some sort of gay marriage cash bonus that isn't available to straight couples?
24
There are very few payments to unmarried mothers now. There are some states with no cash grants at all.
11
We are in that demographic and our relationship has lasted longer than any of our past three marriages.
It helps that we are both mature and financially stable, independent of the other.
Families on both sides are gracious.
Grandchildren got used to Grandma's boyfriend.
We both have interests that are independent of the other, and do frequently travel independently.
We are on our third dog, my two having passed as the years went by and now have an our dog. In truth my one dog was her baby and thought I had brought her home so that she could have her own human.
We are a strange couple, but have love and respect for each other. That is what counts when you say good night to each other.
It helps that we are both mature and financially stable, independent of the other.
Families on both sides are gracious.
Grandchildren got used to Grandma's boyfriend.
We both have interests that are independent of the other, and do frequently travel independently.
We are on our third dog, my two having passed as the years went by and now have an our dog. In truth my one dog was her baby and thought I had brought her home so that she could have her own human.
We are a strange couple, but have love and respect for each other. That is what counts when you say good night to each other.
55
Unless one partner is in need of financial security, older folks know what a mine field, a marriage certificate is. Without a piece of paper if things don't work you can pick up a exit. Great feeling.
14
I was married for 50 years to my soul mate. She died of cancer a year ago. My new friend was married for 56 years to her soul mate. He died of pneumonia a year ago. Today we're called friends with benefits. Both of us are over 70. We enjoy dining, music, hiking, reading, TV, and sex. Lots of sex. We have no plans to get married. We both have children and grandchildren whom we love and we don't want financial complications. We have roughly equivalent amounts of money; enough, probably to live comfortably til death do us part. She has a beautiful home which I enjoy. I have a beautiful home which she enjoys. There is life after death.
152
I was married 61 years - my friend was married 64; we knew each other casually before our spouses died , and have since become friends and partners, although we keep our own homes in the same city. Our children all live far away, and are equally happy to see us enjoying life so much; our friends are startled to hear we text each other on days we are not together; being 87 and 88 has never been so full of delight!
33
How wonderful that you found each other, and that you found that there is life after death. Every day is a gift, enjoy it to the fullest.
16
I am so glad for you!
3
As a family law attorney, I frequently advise clients over 50 to not get married without several good reasons. The primary problem is finance - if you take a financial dive at that age, you don't have time to make up for it.
41
Not if you have a stong pre-nuptual agreement.
1
The idea of needing/ having a "strong pre-nuptial agreement" in itself is a sign that for a particular couple, marriage is not the best option (from a legal / practical perspective).
10
As a Certified Financial Planner Practitioner, (CFP) I regularly counsel divorced / widowed clients with substantial assets (esp women) to be very careful when taking up with a new partner by protecting those assets. I recommend waiting at least five years before combining assets if ever, because it greatly complicates estate plans that previously included children and grandchildren. It can be "yours..mine and ours"...with home ownership being joint held so that the surviving spouse / partner can stay in it as long as they can.
3
Just get married already and stop playing house.
7
I agree. Sex outside marriage is just plain wrong, and I am young and liberal. Call me "Donna Martin" (from the 90's Beverly Hills 90201 fame) if you must.
Why is "sex outside of marriage is just plain wrong"?
4
So it's ok in your broad brush morality that a person, male or female sweeps in and seduces mom or dad and by right of marriage unethically gets title to property that mom or dad wanted left to children...just because of a legal instrument called a marriage certificate (or in this case a license to steal)?
2
Smart.
1
Interesting and helpful article, but with a couple big gaps. A major reason to remarry is to pass on your IRA, tax-free, to the one you love. If you name your cohabiting partner as Beneficiary, they will inherit your IRA - minus a huge tax bill. The only way the surviving partner can avoid this tax bill is to be married. Also, the article is very misleading on Social Security Survivors' Benefits - a widow or widower's survivor benefits do _not_ stop if they remarry after age 60. And I wish this writer had said more about whether marriage means each is responsible for all the others' debts. I think that's the case for debts incurred after the re-marriage - but it does not apply to previous debts to the IRS. If you wish to marry someone who owes the IRS from previous years, I've heard there's an "innocent spouse" form you can file so your tax refund is not consumed by your partner's IRS debt. One does needs to consider whether, in the future, an ailing spouse could qualify for Medicaid - if married, the spouse with more assets could be forced to pay for the nursing home. Couples may give money to adult children so they can reach the threshold to qualify for Medicaid, but it's not easy - I think there's a 5-year look back period. I've heard of couples divorcing for this reason alone, which is sad. I'd like more details on these questions, but perhaps that's beyond the scope of this good, yet brief article. (I must have been an accountant in a former life.)
14
In the case of the couple in Oklahoma, Ms. Jasper, they were both receiving survivors benefits after the deaths of their spouses, but intended to claim their own Social Security benefits on the basis of their work histories (which entitled them to higher monthly benefits) when they reached full retirement age. Remarrying before full retirement age would have stopped those survivors benefits.
18
You state that "remarrying before full retirement age would have stopped those survivor benefits". That doesn't make sense. If one remarries after age 60 -they don't have to wait till full retirement age-they keep their "survivor" benefits. This is a very important distinction for those co-habitators. Yes they would lose "spousal" benefits but not "survivor"benefits.
2
I'm not sure you're correct in stating that inheriting an IRA is a taxable event for a non-spouse. Required minimum distributions are taxable in any event for non-Roth IRAs.
My significant other and I have happily been shacking up for 48 years.
However, we are married :-)
However, we are married :-)
10
45 years here. We have always planned to divorce for our 60th anniversary though.
2
Over 100 years ago, my widowed great-great-grandmother lived for 25 years with her second life partner until his death. If they had married, she would have lost her spouse's railroad pension from her deceased husband. It was politely ignored by all the family, who were practical folk who would actually have been shocked if she had done otherwise. Even today, the military supplemental "aid and attendance" benefit for surviving spouses is forfeited upon remarriage. So not everyone who decides not to marry is making a statement of some kind, just doing what is best to pay the bills.
35
Thank you for sharing that! There is nothing new under the sun.
1
This has been going on for some time, it just wan't publicly acknowledged due to the prevailing social disapproval in prior decades.
1
Please, ADOPT a dog. Or two.
15
When someone posted about the last illness bankrupting, the peabrain flashed on the thought that collectively the last illnesses will bankrupt the Long Term Care Insurers.
1
No, the insurers will just find a way not to pay.
6
Well, duh. Older men want a nurse or a purse. Or both. Apologies to the enlightened exceptions. Really.
55
Bitter?
7
Not bitter. Pragmatic. I was 45 when I started dating after my divorce, and almost without exception any man who responded on Match dot com was 10 years+ older than me. My boyfriend, who is a year older, was the exception. We've been together 8 years, living together for 4. We have no plans to marry. I will gladly care for him until death if necessary, but will not date again if he predeceases me. Older women seem to do fine alone, most men seem to need caretakers. I've watched that dynamic play out a number of times, and it's not for me.
50
She's not bitter or crazy. Just sensible.
5
Regarding Social Security: If you were widowed and remarry after age 60, your surviving spousal benefits are not affected. However, if you were divorced, your spousal benefits generally will end at remarriage. Of course you may become entitled to new benefits based on the earnings record of your new spouse.
5
My wife and I are good for each other in our "Golden Years", but so much of that gold is being taken away by the way our government has set things up financially.
My wife has been disabled for several years and was receiving disability payments which were needed for her medication and doctors bills not covered by medicare or medicaid, or whatever. We still needed to pay dentist bills, auto repair, and etc. I worked until 2007 not planning on retiring until at least 65. Then things began to happen and the bills mounted and I paid.
Then I received a small inheritance. Now because I was above poverty level because of the economic situation my business vanished plus I was no longer able to work as a contractor/handyman, and my drivers license was taken away.
With the small inheritance my wife could no longer receive her SSDI so I used my little bit of money with the SS money and we did ok.
I don't understand why we have to waste money in order for her to regain her SSDI. Couldn't a system be set up where the money is set in an account and you can use so much per month and the SSDI remains. That would help guarantee that we would be able to maintain our car, have some money for emergency and a new pair of socks.
A system like that would work and we all know that hiding money is not very easy and if it came down to a fraud situation and the Federal Trustee caught wind of it, which is easy today, they could get their money back. It would keep us honest. etc.
My wife has been disabled for several years and was receiving disability payments which were needed for her medication and doctors bills not covered by medicare or medicaid, or whatever. We still needed to pay dentist bills, auto repair, and etc. I worked until 2007 not planning on retiring until at least 65. Then things began to happen and the bills mounted and I paid.
Then I received a small inheritance. Now because I was above poverty level because of the economic situation my business vanished plus I was no longer able to work as a contractor/handyman, and my drivers license was taken away.
With the small inheritance my wife could no longer receive her SSDI so I used my little bit of money with the SS money and we did ok.
I don't understand why we have to waste money in order for her to regain her SSDI. Couldn't a system be set up where the money is set in an account and you can use so much per month and the SSDI remains. That would help guarantee that we would be able to maintain our car, have some money for emergency and a new pair of socks.
A system like that would work and we all know that hiding money is not very easy and if it came down to a fraud situation and the Federal Trustee caught wind of it, which is easy today, they could get their money back. It would keep us honest. etc.
16
SSDI is not an income and resource-based benefit, the amount of the benefits is based on what the wage-earner paid in while working and the person being disabled. Your receiving an inheritance would not have affected your spouse's receipt of a SSDI benefit.
If your spouse stopped receiving benefits because of your receiving what is considered by SSA to be a "countable resource" (i.e., the inheritance) then she was receiving SSI benefits. SSI is an income and resource based benefit (paid from the general fund, not either of the SS trust funds). For her to be re-entitled to SSI, you'd have to spend down your (joint) non-exempt resources to less then $3,000, and, if it's been more then a year since she was eligible for benefits, go through the disability determination process again. If you object to that rule (and the resource amount has been fixed for YEARS, no CPI) then complain to your Congressperson. I doubt if you'll get anywhere given the current Congressional majority, but doesn't hurt to try.
If your spouse stopped receiving benefits because of your receiving what is considered by SSA to be a "countable resource" (i.e., the inheritance) then she was receiving SSI benefits. SSI is an income and resource based benefit (paid from the general fund, not either of the SS trust funds). For her to be re-entitled to SSI, you'd have to spend down your (joint) non-exempt resources to less then $3,000, and, if it's been more then a year since she was eligible for benefits, go through the disability determination process again. If you object to that rule (and the resource amount has been fixed for YEARS, no CPI) then complain to your Congressperson. I doubt if you'll get anywhere given the current Congressional majority, but doesn't hurt to try.
6
Something is wrong with your story. Your wife does not receive SSDI. She must be getting SSI Disability. If you get SSDI like I do, you can have as much unearned income as you want, such as an inheritance or interest. Earned income you earn yourself is another story. But with SSI Disability, if you have any extra income, your SSI is reduced.
2
The "golden girls" scenario might also appeal to men and women....
But only if all household members were honest, kind, considerate, financially self-sufficient (even if of humble means), responsible, and intellectually/socially active, interested and interesting.
Its about everyone feeling that there are good people around them....
But only if all household members were honest, kind, considerate, financially self-sufficient (even if of humble means), responsible, and intellectually/socially active, interested and interesting.
Its about everyone feeling that there are good people around them....
6
Yes, there are many variants of shared housing and cohousing. I wrote about two women adopting the "Golden Girls" scenario, a few years back. And in this story, you'll find links to other New Old Age blog posts about cohousing.
https://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/real-life-golden-girls/
https://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/real-life-golden-girls/
7
Marriage has its problems. Once I became married, my relationship with a man changed. It happened twice. You are no longer friends but a wife with all its baggage, motherhood, family and friends that expect you to perform a certain role. Regardless of your career, your husband expects you to focus on him. Should you have children, they belong to the family and the work is yours. In laws believe you should be in sync w family. My ex-husbands mother would call and remind me to tell him to wear dark socks. It doesn't change the possibility that your husband may be drawn to his previous life and resent how much $ he spends on his family or that he still wants to sleep w his exgirlfriend. The double standard is ever present. Husbands to seem to think women are their employees 24/7 and that sex is part of the deal. I never saw any one in my family have it any other way. While I loved my husbands and the child from one marriage very much, I prefer having my own $ and making independent decisions. Unlike my mother, I cannot be my husbands property. Given the legal difficulties of marriage, I opt out.
67
"Once I became married, my relationship with a man changed. It happened twice. You are no longer friends but a wife with all its baggage...'
That is an indication of the kind of men you married, not of marriage itself.
That is an indication of the kind of men you married, not of marriage itself.
40
I think that part of what is attractive in the stories depicted in this article is that the women made a "new deal" for themselves, with more independence and their own space, and having a life outside the relationship. Living with a man without having to manage the in-law relationships, lopsided responsibility for household chores, or planning and organizing family life - just opting out of these things makes it a more agreeable arrangement
7
I believe you miss the point that marriage has all kinds of cultural requirements for women that are not nearly as onerous for men. I do not think anyone of the fairer sex will forget that not until the 70s were we even considered intelligent enough to apply for credit, take out mortgages, or even rent an apartment without the backing of some man, even our father would do.
The expectations are innate to the institution and will take several generations to erase, if ever. These are not bad men who suddenly look upon women as chattel. They look upon us as something akin to their remembrance of the married woman they knew the best, their mother. We still do the lion's share of the work and nurturing in the home no matter our economic prowess. With no other example, what would we expect men to believe about roles. If this very real potential conflict in life is not for you, avoid getting married.
No need to chastise someone about their partner pick because they do not want to play.
The expectations are innate to the institution and will take several generations to erase, if ever. These are not bad men who suddenly look upon women as chattel. They look upon us as something akin to their remembrance of the married woman they knew the best, their mother. We still do the lion's share of the work and nurturing in the home no matter our economic prowess. With no other example, what would we expect men to believe about roles. If this very real potential conflict in life is not for you, avoid getting married.
No need to chastise someone about their partner pick because they do not want to play.
6
It is interesting how our laws about marriage, as well as our social programs like Social Security, are affecting people's decisions. When you come down to it, it's about money. You can pair together and find love with or without marriage.
Imagine if we had single-payer health insurance, and everyone were covered. You wouldn't have to worry that a new spouse's medical bills would eliminate your own careful savings. There would be no need to get or stay married in order to maintain health benefits (I've known people for whom this has been the deciding factor).
What about the cost of long-term care? Will the last illness of your partner bankrupt you? Is your prospective partner spending too much on his/her growth children, such that retirement savings are lacking? There is no reason to marry someone who isn't very, very stable.
Imagine if we had single-payer health insurance, and everyone were covered. You wouldn't have to worry that a new spouse's medical bills would eliminate your own careful savings. There would be no need to get or stay married in order to maintain health benefits (I've known people for whom this has been the deciding factor).
What about the cost of long-term care? Will the last illness of your partner bankrupt you? Is your prospective partner spending too much on his/her growth children, such that retirement savings are lacking? There is no reason to marry someone who isn't very, very stable.
32
Just the uncertainty of having one set of assumptions for four years, that changes as soon as a POTUS with a different agenda gets in office, means that there is never clarity and stability around programs that are so central to our lives.
5
I was under the impression that the Affordable Care Act (ACA or "Obamacare") had a provision called "A Class Act", which provided for LTC insurance.
Who are we or anyone to judge? If two people, especially Seniors, can find happiness and joy AND live together, why not? Live and let live. Like the article stated at the end . . . "Married or not, “we were committed to each other,” she said. “I can’t imagine his getting sick and my saying to his kids, ‘It’s your problem.’ After 20 years? No.” This is what happens from real love, commitment, friendship. I find these relationships inspiring. They also warm my heart.
30
“It used to be called shacking up, and it was not approved of,” said Kelly Raley, . . former editor of The Journal of Marriage and Family. Families and religious groups often condemned living together outside marriage."
"Shacking up" was a term my very Catholic mother referred to whenever any young couple lived together without the benefit of marriage. She was dead set against it back then in the 1960s and 1970s. It was her tone more than anything that gave "shacking up" such a negative and almost dirty connotation. None of her kids even entertained the notion for fear of her wrath. Funny how a particular perception and belief system can melt and transform into a "hipster" kind of impression of today.
My wonderful mother-in-law was married twice. Both of her husbands passed away. When "husband" number 3 came into the picture (2000), neither she nor he wanted to get married for financial reasons - both would have taken a huge financial hit if they had combined their incomes. They lived together for a number of years - so incredibly happy. Unfortunately, he passed away from a stroke at the age of 93 and two days later, she passed away from a heart attack, although I am sure it was from a broken heart.
I often wonder how my mother would feel today if she was still alive, reading about seniors who "shack up". I honestly think her staunch religious views would have soften in lieu of the practical and financial side of living together but staying single.
25
Members of the Greatest Generation (1915-1928) would NEVER think of such an immoral decision and arrangement! : ) But Young Traditionalists (1928-46) and, of course, those Boomers, well, they sure have those ideas!!
My mom, who was a Greatest Gen, and a number of "widow ladies" in her neighborhood from the same demo, didn't even want to get married again. And didn't. A couple of them had "boyfriends" who never stayed over - they were turned out and drove to their own homes before the proverbial coach became a pumpkin. These women relished their freedom after years of living under Greatest Gen mores and found and enjoyed the amount of "their own way" they wanted. They were all most grateful for the Womens Movement, which hit as they wrangled with small kids and, once the kids were grown, allowed them to have their own credit, buy their own cars, finish paying off the mortgage, and keep working even though their husbands had died.
My mom, who was a Greatest Gen, and a number of "widow ladies" in her neighborhood from the same demo, didn't even want to get married again. And didn't. A couple of them had "boyfriends" who never stayed over - they were turned out and drove to their own homes before the proverbial coach became a pumpkin. These women relished their freedom after years of living under Greatest Gen mores and found and enjoyed the amount of "their own way" they wanted. They were all most grateful for the Womens Movement, which hit as they wrangled with small kids and, once the kids were grown, allowed them to have their own credit, buy their own cars, finish paying off the mortgage, and keep working even though their husbands had died.
5
I share your outrage Berkeley Bee. I can assure you that my generation, Generation X (1965-1982), does not share the flippant attitude of the Boomers. We believe marriage is a commitment for life and would never divorce or shack up or have children out-of-wedlock. We suffered from our Boomer parents divorcing in our childhoods.
See you in 20 years...
3
Multiple legal issues arise for older couples, many mentioned in the article - power of attorney, health care decision making, estate planning. For many, however, the primary obstacle to wedlock is the risk to assets accumulated over a lifetime once an individual becomes financially responsible for a spouse's medical and long term care needs.
The financial conseqences can be devastating, virtually impoverishing an unprepared spouse. Older cohabitants should consult with an elder law attorney before tying a knot that may tie up a lot more than they bargained for.
The financial conseqences can be devastating, virtually impoverishing an unprepared spouse. Older cohabitants should consult with an elder law attorney before tying a knot that may tie up a lot more than they bargained for.
34
When my mother and stepfather -- both of them widowed -- announced that they were getting married at the ages of 75 and 79 respectively, my siblings and his children suggested that they just live together because there was a large difference in assets and benefits and there could be unanticipated financial and estate issues. But they were "old fashioned" and just couldn't "live in sin". And besides, they would both sign prenups that would stipulate keeping assets separate during their marriage and in the event of their deaths. As a military widow, my mother lost all of her benefits as well as the option of being buried with my father at Arlington, but she was fine with that.
A few years after the wedding, my mother was diagnosed with dementia and we went to an attorney to formalize giving me medical and durable powers of attorney. Both my mother and my stepfather were unpleasantly surpised to learn that their prenups were worthless in calculating "countable assets" to qualify for Medicaid should one of them incur substantial medical fees. Not only that, but some states allow a surviving spouse to claim a percentage of the deceased's estate, no matter what the prenup says. My stepfather said that had he known that, as the one with much fewer assets, he would never have insisted upon getting married; the thought that if he got ill it could essentially wipe my mother out was appalling to him.
My stepfather died of a sudden and massive MI a year before my mother died.
A few years after the wedding, my mother was diagnosed with dementia and we went to an attorney to formalize giving me medical and durable powers of attorney. Both my mother and my stepfather were unpleasantly surpised to learn that their prenups were worthless in calculating "countable assets" to qualify for Medicaid should one of them incur substantial medical fees. Not only that, but some states allow a surviving spouse to claim a percentage of the deceased's estate, no matter what the prenup says. My stepfather said that had he known that, as the one with much fewer assets, he would never have insisted upon getting married; the thought that if he got ill it could essentially wipe my mother out was appalling to him.
My stepfather died of a sudden and massive MI a year before my mother died.
11
Good read. 24 years together and still going strong with my partner. She was married previously, didn't want children, and maintains a full schedule of vocational and creative interests. The only time the question of marriage comes up is when it's asked by others. Our relationship is solid and fulfilling, so what if it remains independent of marital vows and traditions?
19
This trend makes a lot of sense to me. Once society removes the stigma of "sin" from cohabitation, it's difficult to come up with a single good reason to unsettle one's legal status so late in life, after houses are bought, children are raised, finances are settled. If my husband goes before I do (likely, based on our ages and family longevity histories), I would likely seek a new partner in my life, but never a new husband. And if I can't get myself the right human partner at that point, well then I guess I'll just have to find myself a nice little rescue dog (for mutual rescue) and a stimulating retirement community.
65
“The whole idea of marriage as the ideal starts to fade"
According to the 2000 Census, of the roughly 10 million individuals currently cohabiting, more than 1 million are older than age 50. Why older couples are living together and skipping marriage are understandable. There are enough financial reasons for cohabiting over getting married, Concerns about debt, benefits, taxes and cash flow, these are often the primary reasons they decide not to walk down the aisle. If you're divorced and chose to remarry, you could lose alimony, pension and Social Security benefits from your former spouse. If you're widowed, you could also lose survivor's pension benefits. I can understand their financial considerations but how about religious considerations? Americans are the most religious among western countries, religion still plays a a dominant role.
According to the 2000 Census, of the roughly 10 million individuals currently cohabiting, more than 1 million are older than age 50. Why older couples are living together and skipping marriage are understandable. There are enough financial reasons for cohabiting over getting married, Concerns about debt, benefits, taxes and cash flow, these are often the primary reasons they decide not to walk down the aisle. If you're divorced and chose to remarry, you could lose alimony, pension and Social Security benefits from your former spouse. If you're widowed, you could also lose survivor's pension benefits. I can understand their financial considerations but how about religious considerations? Americans are the most religious among western countries, religion still plays a a dominant role.
I am seventy five years old and this sounds like a charming idea IF I had done that 10 or 15 years ago while I was still ME and not the person I am now.
There is also the fact that you cannot change your mind once you have committed to a relationship like that, it would be extremely cruel to abandon a person when he is really needing you.
I have ruined the lives of three men (if you hear them tell it) by divorcing them and I believe it is best to leave it at that.
There is also the fact that you cannot change your mind once you have committed to a relationship like that, it would be extremely cruel to abandon a person when he is really needing you.
I have ruined the lives of three men (if you hear them tell it) by divorcing them and I believe it is best to leave it at that.
5
nice article . I m a lawyer and I would stress make sure you have the legal stuff worked out. i.e. property, life insurance etc. unbelievable how crazy it can get once someone is dead and the fighting begins. I m seeing it now with one of my sisters who did the less but wants the most.
27
In the drive for marriage equality gay people pointed to their lack of such rights as hospital visitation for their committed but unmarried partners. It would seem that these couples would face similar problems, especially if their children are hostile to the relationship.
There's also the question of when "palimony" and similar rules will begin to impinge on what these folks think is their lack of legal responsibility to each other.
There's also the question of when "palimony" and similar rules will begin to impinge on what these folks think is their lack of legal responsibility to each other.
7
That's why it's smart to have a consultation with a good family law specialist before one or the other gives up his or her living space for cohabitation.
7
I am no longer "Mrs. Eichner" primarily because, after marrying again at age 55, 4 years into it my husband's finances hit bottom (due to his oldest minor child's medical expenses) and he needed to file for bankruptcy. He had zero assets to address his problem, and we had already been in marriage counseling for 5 months due to other problems, so I had to made a difficult choice. If we had stayed married, he would not have been eligible for the debt relief he needed - because I have a well-paying job, I would have been seen as a resource for paying his debts. That would have jeopardized my ability to save for my retirement. So for $500 we amicably divorced. I may have another relationship in the future, or my ex and I may reconcile and live together again, but there will be no more marriages for me.
56
Good for both of you!
2
"Karen Kanter, for instance, had divorced twice after long marriages — 38 years, in total — when she met Mr. Tobin on Match.com."
Really -- what do you consider a long marriage? My marriage is going on 30 years and I expect it will be my only one. That's a long marriage.
Really -- what do you consider a long marriage? My marriage is going on 30 years and I expect it will be my only one. That's a long marriage.
8
A bad marriage becomes a "long" marriage very quickly indeed.
41
Oh, don't be snarky. If each of her marriages was in the neighborhood of 19 year, that's not a short marriage. And yes, I believe that even though my marriage is going on 30 years, too.
3
It's a wonderful life if you are lucky enough to find someone however children who are thinking about their inheritance are not very pleased.
17
The adult children should be a lot more pleased that you have decided simply to cohabit rather than to legally marry.
10
I disagree, I think childrens' inheritences will be protected if their elderly mom or dad does _not_ remarry.
4
I say spend your money on you.
4
one of the keys is medical bills. who want to go broke or be driven into penury by a partner's medical bill. it is a disgusting situation in the US. among it many elderly it is a common solution to marry in a religious ceremony but not
civically .
as to younger couples shacking up the poor and near poor certainly do it in large numbers not to lose government benefits food stamps, medicaid etc and numerous other benefits.
civically .
as to younger couples shacking up the poor and near poor certainly do it in large numbers not to lose government benefits food stamps, medicaid etc and numerous other benefits.
10
Please do detail all the benefits of being poor for us. Including families w/small children becoming homeless, in big cities in small towns, in the US, or being crammed into one bedroom apartments or a hotel room.
5
I would like to know more about whether these relationships are based on sex. Women in their 60s and 70s often can't have intercourse without artificial hormones that increase the risks for breast cancer and dementia. Are all of these cohabiters sexually active? I would be interested in some quotes from medical professionals and from the female partners as to whether the risks of breast cancer and dementia, and the probability of outliving the male partner and taking care of him while he's dying, are outweighed by the benefits of having a male companion.
7
Topical estrogen-based creams can help with that issue without the full risk profile of constant hormone replacement therapy. If libido is depressed or lost, however, prescription creams alone will not fix that.
5
I am a woman in my 60's, I do not need any artificial hormones, etc., to enjoy sex. Heard a doctor say once, "the most important sexual organ, is our brain!" Being open to a sexual relationship is 90% of being willing...and able!
18
If you are healthy you can absolutely enjoy sex. I am 65 and my husband is 70. I was widowed, he was divorced. We are both very fit and healthy, both work out, which we think contributes to our ability to enjoy life's pleasures regularly. You don't have to take hormone pills that act systemically. There are topical creams that do the job that are not absorbed into your bloodstream. Also, stay away from commercial lubricants, my wonderful gynecologist recommends olive or coconut oil (hope this is not TMI for the Times). Find a good, sympathetic and knowledgeable doctor and let her guide you. BTW, hubby doesn't need any little blue pills at all. Stay physically active, it makes a huge difference!
16
It would be interesting to see the stats on "gray" relationships with an age gap between partners. I fit into the "Macron scenario". My gentleman paramour is 15 years younger and has EU healthcare benefits. I look younger than he does but know that will not last then again his family tends to die at a rather young age. Interesting as we chart our scenario.
2
The revelation for me is that I can fall in love with all the passion of a young woman at the age of 72.
88
So did you? Give us hope!
2
I discovered that in my 70s, after years of being alone, men suddenly reappeared in my life. I have always been an optimist and do believe that life can be filled with wonderful surprises, not just predictable disappointments at my age. I am very much in love and feel absolutely blessed to have this experience now.
5
If couples don't want to make it legal because of financial effects, they can just have a religious wedding (or say their vows under a tree if not religious) without signing any legal document. As far as the state is concerned, you're not married, As far as you (or God) is concerned, you are.
In fact, this is the way people married prior to the Civil War. It was a completely private affair, without any government participation. Much more sensible.
In fact, this is the way people married prior to the Civil War. It was a completely private affair, without any government participation. Much more sensible.
16
Please note that clergy in most places in the US (if not all) are not allowed to perform a marriage ceremony without simultaneously signing the civil marriage certificate/seeing proof of previously performed civil marriage. That is the "price" they pay for being permitted to perform marriage ceremonies by the state.
A commitment ceremony--which is viewed as a purely religious matter, and not a (secular) legal matter--is a different story.
A commitment ceremony--which is viewed as a purely religious matter, and not a (secular) legal matter--is a different story.
6
A clergy person is licensed by the state. As such, they are an official of the government and the action because one sanction by the state. If one goes only so far as being religiously married, one still is married in the eyes of the state, and all that that means. So much for separation of church and state.
1
Good to see an article on this topic. Would like to learn more about adult children's expectations of divorced parents. Society hasn't caught up to the changes that Baby Boomers have wrought. Yes, there are more liberal views of "shacking up", but I think many adult children do not view their divorced parents as adults who need companionship. I think this is particularly true for sons' views of their mother. I don't think sons like to view their mother has independent (and sexual) beings.
9
I agree, it would be interesting for the researchers to study how adult children view "shacking up." I agree sons, especially do not want to see their mothers as sexual beings.
6
I think that women will do well to let their sons "go" in a psaychological sense... in the sense that the expectations of a son regarding companionship for either their parents are out there, but they should not affect the parent's decision. The son's views may or may not evolve over time, but essentiall each person has to assert control over his/her own life.
My partner and I have been together 13 years and have lived together for about 5 years. We've both had two previous marriages, both have 3 adult children. I proposed a few years ago, but it wouldn't have made much sense financially, and after going through the misery of legally assisted divorces (one in N.Y., which has to be one of the worst places in America to get a divorce), neither of us were in any hurry to give a government that legal power over our lives again. So we had a commitment ceremony - a wedding without legal paperwork - but we take it just as seriously.
32
I think the commitment ceremony is a great idea. Never married, no children, here. We have different needs in a relationship over the course of our lives. Raising children, in particular, makes one want permanence from a partner.
In my late 40s, I would like to find a partner to go forth into the future with: for shared adventures, companionship, growth, stability, etc. But as noted by many here, the idea of mixing finances doesn't hold much appeal. Two are more stable than one, so there's that. But I can't afford to lose anything in a divorce, and most divorced men feel the same. Yet commitment still matters.
In my late 40s, I would like to find a partner to go forth into the future with: for shared adventures, companionship, growth, stability, etc. But as noted by many here, the idea of mixing finances doesn't hold much appeal. Two are more stable than one, so there's that. But I can't afford to lose anything in a divorce, and most divorced men feel the same. Yet commitment still matters.
14
At the end of the day marriage is a legal arrangement. Matters of the heart are something else entirely. The good news here is that is appears we have begun to understand this.
55
The story misses an important factor that led friends who had cohabited for many years to marry -- the cost medical insurance when one is still working but the other isn't. It can be a serious issue for people in their 50s and early 60s -- does that change after Medicare age?
9
What qualifies one to be an "older person?" Never married, no children and happy to be so, I met the love of my life at age 48; he also was 48, never married and no children. We had an incredible life together. We briefly talked of marriage near the beginning of our relationship, but we knew there was no possibility of children and thus the twinges of "moral imperative" that we rather more "traditionally" raised Catholics infrequently felt at the beginning (no children outside of marriage, as if that would be a guarantee of some sort in this day and age - ha!), were never strong, and quickly faded. We stayed happily unmarried together until his unexpected death at age 61, so we never got to experience retirement together, living six months a year in a warm climate during the winter, or sitting on the patio in side by side rocking chairs, talking through the night, whenever we felt like it, not only on the weekends. We took care of each other in sickness, and enjoyed each other in health, sharing resources and household chores but maintaining financial independence. Our relationship was so much more than "shacking up," a true partnership, neither of us subjugated by law or tradition to the other or relegated to a "role." It was wonderful, magical, and the memories we accumulated over shared experiences, joys and sorrows will last the rest of my lifetime, sustaining me.
165
Thank you for sharing, a bit of your lovely story.
8
Very different, I am sure than in the case of those like my wife and me, who met in our late teen years and married right after college in our early 20s. We married with the thought in mind of creating a loving family in which we would have and rear cherished children. Two is what we thought we could manage and afford, and two is what we arranged to have.
The thought that any major possessions are mine or hers never has entered the picture. They are ours, and both memories and symbols of a lifetime partnership. We both have agreed that when one of us dies, the other could not marry again. Some precious states of being cannot be replaced.
The thought that any major possessions are mine or hers never has entered the picture. They are ours, and both memories and symbols of a lifetime partnership. We both have agreed that when one of us dies, the other could not marry again. Some precious states of being cannot be replaced.
5
Wonderful story, thanks for sharing. Tomorrow is not promised, is it?
2
Just because you share a residence with others doesn't mean you want to marry them.
Just because you're not married to others doesn't mean you don't show them affection.
It makes sense for older folks to live communally. And our current cohort is the one to do it, given our roots in the 1960s.
Just because you're not married to others doesn't mean you don't show them affection.
It makes sense for older folks to live communally. And our current cohort is the one to do it, given our roots in the 1960s.
17
I remarried after the death of my wife. To a much younger woman. Eleven years younger. What a good deal for both of us. The only down side is the age difference and geographical separation of our children has prevented the social bonding between the two families. The up side is that now we have 6 members in our team to call on when difficult times come.
4
Perhaps it is not that views on marriage are changing amongst old people, but that formerly young generations are now growing old. It always has seemed to me that the abrupt change in attitudes toward marriage came about between those of us born prior to WWII and those generations born after -- those, in other words, who came of age in the 1960s and later. That is merely an observation made by one born in 1930, not a statement of preference.
13
Marriage as a legal institution is meant to protect the kids or the non-working spouse from abandonment. When two self-sufficient adults form a relationship, the legal institution of marriage it loses much of its purpose. And when older adults have other family who depend on them - children and grandchildren from previous relationships - they don't necessarily want their new significant other to use marriage to skip ahead of the the rest of the family in legal importance, access to money, inheritance, or medical decisions.
55
To me, marriage still is the gold standard for young people who want to work toward the good life. It's one of the best ways for helping one another mature emotionally, for rearing children, for building a self-sufficient financial future together, for being in a position to contribute to society. However, in the decade since my husband of 40 years died, I have come to realize that repeating vows at this point will not necessarily bring back all those good outcomes and advantages. After working like a mule, quite frankly, all those years to generate the necessary full-time paycheck and create a home -- not just a house but a home -- today I relish and cherish the minute-by-minute freedom of the single life. For me now, it's the best scenario, and I say that without throwing rocks at later-life marriage, or marriage in general. I just don't think the risks and negatives outweigh the positives.
73
Interesting article , unusual topic but very actual. Especially now with people living longer and with the risk and fear of high medical bills . Being " cohabitants " decreases the possibility of being left destitute if one of the partners should have a long term illness .
14
Marriage as an ideal started to fade when you see so many divorces, or experience them yourself. A someone who had a
decades long relationship- unmarried - it dawned on me that this commitment would have been easier in many ways if we had married. But as someone who's - hit 70, I wouldn't want a new legally binding contract with the government setting many of the rules as Karen Kanter said, too much to untangle not only in the event of divorce, but death.
decades long relationship- unmarried - it dawned on me that this commitment would have been easier in many ways if we had married. But as someone who's - hit 70, I wouldn't want a new legally binding contract with the government setting many of the rules as Karen Kanter said, too much to untangle not only in the event of divorce, but death.
28
Untangling things after death is much, much easier when you are married. If you are not married, you better have documents in place to protect your rights and assets!
33