IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/uvalwp/uvalwps-1008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Marriage, Cohabitation and Collective Responsiblity for Dependency

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Scott

    (University of Virginia School of Law)

Abstract

Marriage, Cohabitation and Collective Responsibility for Dependency: Recently, the privileged legal status of marriage has become the subject of political and academic controversy. Some feminist critics argue that marriage, the source of women's subordination, is outmoded as a family form and that its privileged status should abolished in favor of the caretaker-dependant dyad. Others argue that informal cohabitation unions should be subject to the same legal treatment as marriage. Representative of this approach is a recent A.L.I. proposal that creates a domestic partnership status for cohabiting couples. On the other side of the debate, most defenders of marriage tend to be religious and social conservatives who favor traditional marriage on moral grounds. In this essay, I offer a utilitarian defense of the special status of marriage (including same-sex marriage) as family form that promotes social welfare because it functions relatively well to satisfy individual dependency needs. Legal marriage allows couples to register their commitment and choose a formal status with a package of clearly defined and enforceable legal rights, privileges, and obligations. Even today, marriage represents a relatively stable family form, because of its formal status and because it is regulated by a set of social norms that reinforce commitment. I argue that even marriages that end in divorce serve more effectively than other family forms to provide financial security for dependent family members. Informal unions, in contrast, are less reliable, because the behavioral expectations and financial obligations between the parties are uncertain and legal enforcement is difficult. Government privileging of marriage and neutrality toward informal unions does not mean that financial understandings between parties in cohabitation relationships should be unenforceable. I argue that contract theory supports a default rule framework that presumes that property acquired during long term unions is shared and that support is available to dependent partners. Such default rules will mitigate the harsh inequity that results today when courts decide that parties' understandings are too ambiguous for contractual enforcement. This autonomy-based framework is superior to the approach of the A.L.I. Principles, under which an unchosen status is imposed on unmarried couples.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Scott, "undated". "Marriage, Cohabitation and Collective Responsiblity for Dependency," University of Virginia John M. Olin Program for Law & Economics Working Paper Series uvalwps-1008, University of Virginia School of Law.
  • Handle: RePEc:bep:uvalwp:uvalwps-1008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=uvalwps
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bep:uvalwp:uvalwps-1008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/html/index.htm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.