Cohabitation among unmarried older couples on the rise
By Anita Creamer, Sacramento Bee
The ceremony in February seemed like a traditional celebration. One of Charlotte Benedict’s sons walked her down the aisle in the Eskaton Village Carmichael auditorium, while two of Jim Jordan’s sons stood up with him. A minister blessed their union.
“We had 150 people there,” said Jordan, 85, a retired architect and engineer. “But we didn’t have a wedding license.”
It’s a quiet little fact of senior residences across the country: Grandpa is living with someone else’s Grandma.
In their 70s, 80s and beyond, older couples meet in seniors-only housing and live together unencumbered by marriage vows. Their relationships are committed and bonded, meant to last the rest of their lives, sometimes even informally blessed by clergy.
According to U.S. census figures, co-habitation numbers for people 65 and older have tripled in the past decade, jumping from 193,000 in 2000 to 575,000 in 2010.
A generation or two ago, the idea of older adults living together might have been shameful, even scandalous. That’s changed, in part because societal attitudes toward marriage have changed.
Only 52 percent of all American adults identified themselves as married in the 2010 census – and almost 60 percent of people age 50 and younger have lived with a partner without being married, the Pew Research Center says.
Does not say much for marriage.
Says a lot about the crazy tax laws.
I can see it if you have a minister bless the union. Who gives a rat’s patootie if the State recognizes your union. The governmental legalities encourage fraud. Which is kinda what these folks are doing. . .
Mixed feelings about it.
So if a minister blesses it, it isn’t fraud…. which assumes that religion is not fraud… interesting.
*sigh* Don’t you ever get tired of searching for ways to twist my words?
I said it is fraud. It is. But there is separation of church from state, so it’s “legal”.
Go do something more important. Like maybe respond to the links I sent you on the study on global warming.
You are unclear. It is fraud, but the separation of church and state makes is legal…. But if the church was part of the state it would be…
Sure send along those links, I promise to laugh out loud. I am sure they discuss some peer reviewed scientific research that goes against the consensus… (this statement is ironic because no such research exists).
I really want to read the sources that you read, get a front row seat to all the ignorance.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
That’s the link. I’ve added it to a couple of other responses to you, but I thought you were ignoring it.
With regards to my being “unclear”? No, I’m very clear. You seem to be the one having trouble understanding. But it’s so much more fun, I guess, accusing others of “ignorance”.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/
Another.
You are kidding me right… The first ‘article’ (blog) references the second, which is an opinion piece from a person who is so clearly biased that he filled his writing with loaded phrases and preambles to what other people said.
It is rubbish, completely unscientific, propaganda. And people fall for it.
No citation, no references to research, no data, no statistics. And that to you is a great source of information?
The author completely misrepresents the research paper.
The research paper does not make an attempt to deny anthropogenic climate change. The results of the study do not refute climate change. One would have to go out on a limb (to say the least) that this is evidence against it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/#more-8614
People are telling you lies…
Getting married without state approval makes a prenup unnecessary.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2011/36/News%20Articles/1376659?ln=en
This is directly from CERN.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
The indicated article.
And it does not (nor attempt to) refute the current consensus on climate change…. Anyone who says it does is lying.
Also, I read the paper.
Getting married (under the blessings of a church) without a legal marriage license just means they’re not legally married according to the state, and therefore not subject to state laws (i.e. taxes). I think what Dogwoman was trying to say is that their are people out there who get married only for the financial benefits (regardless of current tax laws), or worse – citizenship. These could be regarded as acts of fraud.
Thank you Huskies.