New dilemma for Black professionals: 'living together' or marriage?

Ebony, Dec, 1989 by Roxanne Brown

NEW DILEMMA FOR BLACK PROFESSIONALS:

COHABITATION, the updated euphemism for "living together," may be as old as original sin, but for younger professional Blacks it poses a whole new dilemma -- one that is resolved more and more by following the adage: "Two can live cheaper than one."

Obviously, Blacks are not the only group doing it. more than two million Americans combine their record collections and kitchen appliances with having repeated wedding vows before a minister or justice of the peace. For those bent on acquiring food processors, health-club memberships, and luxury cars, the need for a two-income household may supersede the desire for wedding bands. Others merely want to test the waters before marriage, while still others are ready for a step up from dating, but aren't looking to marry.

For Audrey and Garcia Jackson of Washington, D.C., "living together" offered a comfortable lifestyle for nearly 10 years before theeir changing values took them to the altar in June of 1988. The Jacksons' live-in arrangement lasted far longer than the two to three years most studies indicate couples usually stay together before splitting up or marrying. "We had no reason to go out looking or hunting, we both like each other very much," explains Jackson, 32, a computer systems programmer at Howard University." When you live together there is a pseudo-commitment even though you don't have it on paper, and thee is no ring." His wife, Mrs. Jackson, 34, a legal secretary, adds: "I'm not the type who feels like you have to be married to have a valid relationship."

The couple met while they were students at Howard, began dating, and moved in together right after Mrs. Jacson decided not to leave twon to pursue a Ph.D. in psychology. Just beginning their careers, they admit that the chance to pool their resources was considered as much of an advantage as being able to see each other every day. As time passed, Jackson says their relationship was strengthened by challenges, but that these, as well as financial goals he had set for himself, postponed any decision to marry. "We had our rough times," he says, recalling his adjustment to diabetes, and hers to the fact that he was away from home a lot, having worked two jobs since he graduated from college. "It was a case of 'If you're willing to work at your problems, I love you so much, I'm willing to work at mine.' We're basically a very compromising couple," he says.

By 1986, the Jacksons had purchased a home together and were filing joint income tax returns (D.C. law recognizes common-law marriages after a man and woman have lived together for six months). They soon discovered that their lifestyle was no longer offering the security they desired. He made the discovery when he applied for a bank loan and was turned down. "When a bank sees a loan application and both parties have the same last name, a married couple, they're treated differently than two people who are considered common-law," he says.

Exposed to legal cases at the law firm she works for, Mrs. Jackson learned that whenever a common-law situation has to be tested from a legal stand-point, it can be very expensive. "Knowing what I know, I just wouldn't want to get caught up in it because it can cost plenty of money," she says. "If I'm going to have a family, if we're going to have a home, we want to be sure where we stand." Mrs. Jackson, who has always viewed herself as a "radical," was surprised to find that social pressure eventually began to turn the tide on her viewpoint concerning marriage. "I wasnht ashamed of our relationship, but sometimes when we would tell people, they would say, 'Hmm, shacking up!' That carried a heavy connotation." Moreover, her father, a minister, never really approved of her living arrangement. The thought of having children was also surfacing, so, when Jackson popped the question in 1988, she agreed to marriage.

For Candy and Don Daniels of Antioch, Tenn., the only choice was marriage. They've been married four years and did not cohabitate efore marriage. "I guess it's how I was brought up," says Daniels, 28, an accountant. "I was brought up in the South and it's pretty strict. All the while I was single, I just never entertained the idea of living with someone. I wanted to have my own freedom until it was time to get married." He knew it was time when he met his wife, 30, at a friend's wedding. She caught the bouquet and a year later they were married.

"It [cohabitation] just wouldnht have been right for me because I was raised in a family where you valued what people thought about you," explains Mrs. Daniels, a psychiatric nurse. When the Daniels met, she lived in Michigan and he lived in Tennessee. Aside from viewing cohabitating as inappropriate for them, the Daniels agreed that it would have been unfair to ask the other to move hundreds of miles just to live together. Mrs. Daniels jokingly says that had she lived with her husband first, she probably wouldn't have married hime because she would have found out too many of his unnerving little habits. "He likes things a lot cleaner than I do," she says, while bouncing the couple's one-year-old son, Don Jr., on her hip. "I like it clean too, but he likes it done right now. I'm kind of laid back; I'll get to it after a while."