FROM 'DE FACTO' TO 'DE
JURE:'
Finding Legitimacy in
an Immoral World
Kameel Majdali
‘Marriage
should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge
the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.’ --Hebrews 13:4
DE FACTO: Existence
without legal or ecclesiastical recognition or sanction.
DE JURE:
Existence by right according to law.
The clerk
handed an overseas tourist her visa application. Immediately her eye spotted
the section called ‘Marital Status,’ from which she could choose one of five
options. These included:
[ ]
Single;
[ ]
Married;
[ ]
Divorced;
[ ]
Widowed; and...
[ ] De Facto.
Unclear on
the last option, she asked the clerk what it meant. ‘De facto is when a
couple lives together without being married,’ he replied.
‘Oh,’ she
blurted out, ‘where I come from, we call that ''living in sin.'"
Cohabitation or ‘The De
facto Factor’
One of the
disturbing, yet prevalent, trends in the western world is the practice of de
facto relationships, also known as ‘cohabitation’ (Note: these terms
will be used interchangeably). Whether you call it 'de facto,' 'living in sin,'
'live-in girlfriend,' ‘cohabitation,’ ‘common law,’ or even 'trial marriage,' a
generation ago it was the exception; it was considered unacceptable, even
wrong.
Today this
phenomena is on the rise and considered a legal status. One recent statistic in
Australia suggested that a whopping 80% of the couples that wed in a single
year have lived together in a de facto relationship prior to the wedding (2014,
cited by the Australian Bureau of Statistics).[1] A (liberal)
Christian denomination in 2001 struck premarital sex and de facto relationships
off their sin list, as part of being ‘consistent with society’s ways.’
Acceptance
of de facto-living came as a gradual process with the rise of secular humanism
and decline of Judeo-Christian moral standards. The culture wars, sexual
revolution, contraceptive pill, abortion on demand, postmodernism with its
denial of absolutes, have all contributed to this situation. No doubt Hollywood
has played a major role in the proliferation of cohabitation. Glamorous high
profile actors, usually after one or more failed marriages, move-in with
another famous movie star, father children and live a celebrated lifestyle,
egged on by gossip columnists who offer bite-size instalments for news-hungry,
celebrity-obsessed fans.
Three Types
of De facto Relationships
For
Most, A Temporary Arrangement: Motivations for cohabitation seem to follow several
streams. The first involves those who have never married and have no intention
of doing so. They want readily available sex, shared financial resources, and
companionship in the home. These living arrangements tend to be temporary; only
18% of these will be together after 5 years. This attitude can be described as
a ‘de facto spirit,’ meaning they want the privileges and pleasures of
marriage without the commitment and responsibility.
Never
married but want to: The
second type are also those who never married and are interested in eventual
marriage but have a ‘try before you buy’ mindset.
De
Facto before Remarriage: Third
are those who have undergone divorce, suffer from the ‘once bitten, twice
shy’ syndrome, and hence choose a de facto relationship as a necessary
precursor to remarriage (if there is to be a marriage). Some older couples may
choose to live together outside of marriage so as not to endanger any pension
entitlements. Others, afraid of giving up their freedom and identity, choose to
cohabitate with their boyfriend or girlfriend. If things don't work out, they
reason, all one needs to do is ‘move out’ without all the complications divorce
brings. It's that simple.
Is it?
(Short answer: No)
Just because
something is commonplace and permitted by society does not make it healthy and
right. After all, cigarette smoking is legal but it can cost your thousands of
dollars a year and have a detrimental effect on your health. Gambling also is
legal and look at the trail of trouble and sorrow it has left.
Some claim
that a de facto relationship helps prepare a couple for marriage and prevents
divorce. Does it? Research suggests otherwise: couples that live in a de facto
relationship before marriage are more likely to divorce than couples that wait
until marriage. One statistic said that of couples who were married twenty
years or more, 56% of those who lived as a de facto couple before marriage
ended up in divorce, while 29% of those who never cohabited before marriage
ended up in divorce. According to the Jubilee Report on cohabitation: ‘The
idea that first cohabitations that lead to marriage do not result in an
increased rate of divorce is not reflected by this data set: prior
cohabitation with a spouse is associated with 60 per cent higher risk of
divorce (emphasis mine).
Another
study concluded that 75% of married couples were still together when their
child turned 16; only 7% of de facto couples can make the same claim. That’s a
ten-fold increased for the married couples. In Britain, the direct annual cost
of family breakdown is GBP 41.7 billion. The Daily Mail Online, ‘Married
Parents Ten Times More Likely to Stay Together,’ Sarah Harris (February
2010).[3]
TO
BE CONTINUED:
In
Part 02, we will look at the other negatives as well as how to go from ‘de
facto to de jure,’ and how to gain legitimacy with God and people.
[1] http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3310.0Media%20Release12014?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3310.0&issue=2014&num=&view=
FACTS
ABOUT COHABITATION[2]
• Over half of all first marriages are
proceeded by cohabitation (University of Wisconsin document)
• Cohabitation doesn't reduce the
likelihood of divorce--in fact it leads to a higher divorce risk. One study
showed 46% higher risk (1992 Journal of Marriage and Family).
• No positive contribution of
cohabitation to marriage has ever been found, not even sexual compatibility, as
usually suggest (1993 Journal of Marriage and Family)
• Cohabitants tend not be as committed
as married couples, or prepared to work on their differences (1995 Journal of
Family issues)
• Particularly problematic is the area
of serial cohabitation. It generates a greater willingness to dissolve later
relationships. (1993 Journal of Family Issues)
• About 60% of cohabitation ends in
marriage (1989 National Study of Cohabitation
• In general, cohabiting relationships
tend to be less satisfactory than marriage relationship-s, with cohabiting
couples reporting lower levels of happiness, sexual exclusivity and sexual
satisfaction, as well as poorer relationships with parents (Bumpass, Sweet
& Cherlin's 1991 study)
• After five years, only 10% of
cohabiting couples are together. They do not tend to permanency (Bumpass &
Sweet's 1989 study)
• Married couples have substantial
benefits over the unmarried in terms of labour force productivity, physical and
mental health, general happiness and longevity (1994 American Journal of
Sociology)
• Annual rates of depression among cohabiting
couples is more than three times the married rate. (1990 Psychiatric Disorders
in America)
• Physical and sexual abuse of a spouse
is much higher. One study showed evidence of being twice as high (1991 Journal
of marriage and family)
• Abuse is 20 times higher for children
with cohabiting, but biological parents, but 33 times greater if the parent was
cohabiting with a non-parenting male partner (1993 Family Education trust:
London).
• The 1996 poverty rate was 6% with
married parents, but 31 % with cohabiting parents (1996 Journal of Marriage and
the Family).
--taken from Leadership NOW! January 2000, page 12.
Comments
Post a Comment