Cohabitation confounds courts

If it seems hard to come up with a definition of marriage today that fits the culture, try defining cohabitation.

The New York Court of Appeals in that state has declared that there is no fixed legal definition of cohabitation and that it really all "depends on what a couple meant in their separation and divorce agreements."

In a 1997 divorce, Lawrence Graev agreed to make $120,000 maintenance payments annually to Linda Graev for 12 years or until she died, remarried or cohabited with someone else for "60 substantially consecutive days." A midlevel court had ruled cohabitation requires "sharing of finances" and Linda Graev didn't do that with a man who stayed at her Connecticut summer home after the divorce.

The state's top court ruled 4-3 this week Tuesday that cohabitation definitions "bring to mind a variety of physical, emotional and material factors ... depending on the parties' intent." In this case, Mrs. Graev's attorney, Myrna Felder, argued that even though her client and her male friend "spent virtually every day and night together for over 60 days," because they kept their finances separate, it wasn't cohabitation, and Mr. Graev should be required to continue his alimony payments.

"I feel sorry for all of the people who have signed these agreements who believed they were relying on the case law because now every single one of them is open to a new interpretation based upon the facts of that particular case and that particular couple," Felder said. The Womens Bar Association of New York filed a brief warning of the possible fallout, she said.

Depending on the state, marriage may involve a man and woman or two men or two women, divorce may be granted for any or no reason, and cohabitation may or may not be an equivalent of marriage. The common factor in all these arrangements, as the court so aptly stated, "depends on what a couple meant in their ... agreements," and these arrangements "bring to mind a variety of physical, emotional and material factors ... depending on the parties' intent."

Federal, state and local governments for generations have protected marriage and family relationships as being beneficial to the whole of society. Now, they are increasingly leaving the decisions up to the individuals involved and to the court of public opinion.

But long before governments weighed in on the matter, God gave a very specific and narrow purpose and description of marriage: It is a lifelong union between one man and one woman growing together in oneness. The confusion enters whenever any of those components is compromised. Not growing in oneness leads couples to isolation--emotional divorce. Fudging on the lifelong part leads to physical divorce. Not recognizing marriage as a union places cohabitation on equal footing with it. Making exceptions to the one-man-one-woman definition opens the door to matchups involving any combination of sexes, numbers or species.

While courts may be content to sort out the boundaries of these limitless myriads of arrangements according to cultural dictates, couples would be wise to stay as close to God's design as possible. It's a lot less complicated, and it comes with the blessing of its Creator.