The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Wages of Sin

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening from Los Angeles. I`m Robert MacNeil.

JIM LEHRER: And I`m Jim Lehrer.

MacNEIL:" Living in sin" isn`t an expression it`s popular to use much any more except in jokes, and here in California, the weather vane of much that is changing in American lifestyles, living in sin is a concept that even the courts appear to have relegated to the attic of discarded morality. Last December the California Supreme Court ruled that a woman who has lived with a man without getting married was entitled to share his property if they separated. The court said that singer Michelle Triolla, who lived with actor Lee Marvin for six years, was entitled to the same property rights when they broke up as if they`d been married. Tonight, the fallout from that decision. Jim?

LEHRER: The major fallout thus far has been dropping on and within the show biz community out here, particularly among rock music stars. They apparently have the moneyed assets and the cohabitation proclivity to make the decision a particular cause for alarm. There have already been a couple of concrete developments along that line. Monday a California state court will hold a hearing on a $15-million lawsuit actress Britt Eklund has filed against her former cohabitator of two and a half years, rock singer Rod Stewart. Another rock star, British performer Alice Cooper, has also been hit with a multi-million-dollar suit by his ex, model Cynthia Lange, who lived with Cooper for seven years. And that`s only the most visible part of the reaction, say show biz people and their lawyers.

MacNEIL: The decision has implications far beyond the exotic lifestyles of Hollywood. A recent report by the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 1.3 million Americans are living together as unmarried couples. And because sex outside marriage is still technically illegal in thirty-six states, that estimate may be very low. In other words, if other states followed the California example, millions of people could be affected. The lawyer who won the case for Michelle Triolla against Lee Marvin is Marvin Mitchelson of Los Angeles. Mr. Mitchelson, what new principle did the Marvin decision establish, put simply?

MARVIN MITCHELSON: Well, put simply, several new principles. I think the most important one was that they eliminated the "sin" concept in living- together relationships. They expressly said it is no longer illegal to live together, there`s nothing sinful about it; and they recognized the relationship, they gave it some sanctity, they let you come to the front door of the courthouse now instead of going to the back door or not going there at all. They also decreed that they would uphold express oral agreements between people -- in other words, they did not have to be in writing between unmarried people. They also laid down other criteria for relief in the courts, such as an implied contract. In other words, if by your conduct -- you don`t have to have an express agreement -- if by your conduct you live together as a man and wife would and cohabit together, the court can write in for you a contract and divide property rights.

MacNEIL: Even though a man and woman never said to each other, "We`re going to share our property," or anything.

MITCHELSON: That`s right. They seldom say anything to one another when they get together; love being an imperceptible relationship, it`s based upon love and trust and honor and good faith. And the Supreme Court in California simply said, "We expect the parties to deal fairly with one another, to divide the fruits of their labor in some way." Now, of course, they can have an agreement not to divide anything, but the court will want to have that express. It can either be in writing or it can be oral.

MacNEIL: Let`s look at the consequences of that. By appearing to make cohabitation more respectable in the eyes of the law and society, do you personally believe that this will further erode the institution of marriage?

MITCHELSON: No, I think it strengthens the institution of marriage. I think it puts responsibility back into relationships between people. I speak of the man now. Of course it can work both ways, but it`s usually the man who has the love nest on the side or has the extramarital relationship and makes the promises and involves someone else`s life; and then perhaps he has multiple relationships. I think people will have to think about the relationships now and realize that there may be a responsibility occurring as a result of cohabitating with another person. I think the married people actually, when they analyze the decision, realize that -- the women particularly realize -- their husbands may not be so apt to make these promises, to go out and take up these relationships without having some responsibility. I think it strengthens the institution of marriage.

MacNEIL: Are you suggesting it is going to reduce what`s commonly referred to as "playing around"?

MITCHELSON: I think it will do that indeed. You see, we have to understand one thing; let`s talk about common law marriage. Although the California Supreme Court did not label it as common law marriage, it really is. Two hundred years ago in England all marriage was common law except Church weddings. But on Fleet Street, which used to not be the great journalism street, the marriage license vendors would stay there at night and they would sell and hawk their licenses to young inebriated couples coming down the street. They`d wake up the next morning and find themselves married. In order to eliminate this abuse the London City Hall made them register under Lord Hardwicke`s Act and obtain licenses. Thus common law marriage became uncommon, and the need to license people as though they were pets. But people who live together have a relationship, and it`s the quality of the relationship that the California Supreme Court says they`re going to recognize, not just the licensing; that`s not the important thing.

MacNEIL: Do you as a lawyer see signs of this decision -- and I know your advice has been sought elsewhere as a result of this famous victory of yours -- do you see signs of this trend being adopted in any other states?

MITCHELSON:I not only see it but I predict it will be adopted in every state in the Union within five years. The Minnesota Supreme Court two months ago in Carlson v. Olsen, a relationship of some twenty-one years, decreed that the Carlson and Olsen -- Mr. and Ms., I guess -- had to split their property equally, and they filed the Marvin ruling. Before the Nevada Supreme Court is another case that will be decided, I think, in the next week or two; the very principle is up. And many legislatures are considering instituting this type of recognition of non-marital relationships. It`s being talked about all over the country. My mail is such that I hear from practically every state in the Union, from lawyers, from some legislators and all the law schools, of course, particularly are looking into it.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Despite its growth as a practice and an acceptability, many of those who live together are still reluctant to talk about it publicly. One person who isn`t, however, is actress Julie Gregg. She has appeared in many movies, including "The Godfather" and "Man of La Mancha." She was divorced four years ago and has lived with her current partner, unmarried, for three years. Mr. Gregg, from your perspective, does the Marvin decision change anything?

JULIE GREGG: Change anything for me? No, not at all. In what way to you mean "change"?

LEHRER: Do you feel more protected now as a result of what the court has said?

GREGG:I suppose ... let me go back a little bit. When I was married -- when I got divorced, we split everything down the middle and neither one oœ us asked for alimony. I had always made a living, and so did my ex-husband. So it`s not really related to the way I think or feel. I feel that if I can make a living that I`m not going to ask anybody to support me. So it really doesn`t change anything for me as long as I work. Now, if I devoted myself fully to a home and taking care of my partner, to all the trivial things -- the shopping, the cooking, the entertaining -- and neglected my own career, then I feel that yes, I should be compensated in some way and I think that yes, it`s good that I would be protected in that instance.

LEHRER: What are the basic economics of your arrangement now? I mean, how do you decide whose money is spent for what, and what would happen if you were to eventually split? Have you talked about that, have you worked out an agreement?

GREGG: No. We split everything down the middle: the food and the household things and the rent and the utilities. It`s just fifty/fifty.

LEHRER: You`ve had experience both ways now, four years one way, three years now the second. Where does your vote come down? Do you feel better under the living-together arrangement versus marriage?

GREGG: At this point in time for me, yes. There were things about being married that I didn`t like: certain freedoms ...I felt that I was being told what to do, when I should do it, how much money I should spend; I had to ask if I could buy a new dress or whatever, and I thought, Well, that`s really ridiculous, because as a matter of fact, most of the time I think I earned a little bit more than my husband did. Anyway, I could have supported myself, and I thought I don`t really like that. And it built up resentments, and I was so afraid to get into something like that again. I thought, I want to keep my own identity and make my own choices, and if I do something I want to do it because I feel like doing it, because I feel like cooking a meal or cleaning the house, not because I`m playing a role.

LEHRER: Don`t you have this similar kind of arrangement now, though? You talked about how everything is split down the middle. What I`m trying to get at is, what is the real basic difference between the relationship you had when you were married and the relationship you have now?

GREGG: I don`t feel obligated to ask my partner if I want to make a decision on a purchase that`s personal to me. Of course if it`s some thing that involves both of us ... it`s like being married, I mean, it`s very much. We care about each other and we ask each other`s advice. It`s an attitude.

LEHRER: It`s an attitude that, in your opinion at this point at least, does not require a piece of paper, either a marriage license or a contract.

GREGG: I really don`t feel that I have to have anybody sanction the way I live.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: The Marvin decision sent something of a shock wave through organized religion across the country. Some leaders of the Catholic Church here in Los Angeles applauded it, or accepted it as fair and just. But other religious leaders deplored it. Dr. Harold Lindsell is editor of the Illinois-based magazine Christianity Today. He is a Baptist who calls himself a "charismatic Christian Dr. Lindsell, why do you oppose the Marvin decision?

Dr. HAROLD LINDSELL: I don`t know that I really do oppose it. I think it must be considered within the background of the American tradition. In the United States we come up through the Judeo-Christian tradition, and in that tradition marriage has always been regarded as an estate which has in it not only sexual rights but also other rights, economic and social. And it seems to me that this decision may in effect be demonstrating the truthfulness of the Judeo Christian inheritance. Now, if I understand the decision correctly, they are saying that marriage is an estate which has certain rights and privileges and also obligations and that the reason why you can consider it marriage, whether it`s legal or whether it is without the use of clergy or of civil ceremony, is the fulfillment of the sexual desire -- going to bed. And no marriage is ever consummated unless you go to bed. So that they are saying that if a man and a woman come together without the benefit of matrimony through the church or through a civil agency and go to bed that they are consummating a relationship. And along with the privileges there go certain responsibilities.

What I don`t like about the decision is the fact that the court is saying that it isn`t sin. And my lawyer friend next to me here and I would disagree very completely, because I don`t think the state is in any position at any time to say whether something is sinful or not sinful. It can be legal or illegal as it related to the statutes in the books of the law. But sin has to do with a relationship of the individual to his Creator. And when you speak of living together without benefit of wedlock, you`re speaking about a relationship that brings in a third party; and the third party is God the Creator.

MacNEIL: I see. Do you believe that this decision, especially if it is followed elsewhere, will further erode the institution of marriage in this country or not?

LINDSELL:I think the institution of marriage in America has been eroded considerably right now. I don`t know that this is going to make any vital difference in it. You already have premarital sex, you already have extramarital sex, you already have homosexuality and lesbianism, and these things have become a dominant motif in American culture, and I`m not sure that this decision will affect materially the idea of marriage. It may improve it, as my friend next door suggested, because in effect the court is saying that even if you don`t get married there are consequences that you must take into account. In other words, I think the court is saying that he who performs the deed, you see, must pay for the consequences. And therefore if you are engaged in an extramarital relationship, so far as finances are concerned, why then you pay the piper and you eat the fruit of the deed.

MacNEIL: Do you feel, as a religious man, that it will have a bad effect on the morality of the nation generally -- a corrupting effect?

LINDSELL: I think as a clergyman that I would be very unhappy for Americans generally to suppose that it`s all right to live together without the benefit of a civil ceremony or a clerical ceremony. Now, understand that if I perform a wedding ceremony I`m acting in two relationships: one, as an agent-of God, and the other, as the agent of the state because I must file with the state the paper showing the marriage has been performed. And I think that we must ask ourselves the question, what is the foundation of family life? And from the Christian-Judeo tradition, which comes out of the Old Testament and the New Testament, marriage and family and the home lie at the foundation of life. And virtually every culture which has abdicated this kind of understanding has fallen. You take, for example, Gibbon`s Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire. He mentioned some of the reasons why Rome decayed, an one other reasons had to do with family life and living. So that I would say, living in a kind of relationship in which there is not the effect of law and of religion, if you happen to be religious -- and I don`t care whether a person is or it not religious; you still have the effect of the sanction of the state -- I think it does undermine the family and I think it undermines the whole social situation and cuts into the fabric of society.

MacNEIL: And to the extent that this decision furthered that practice that would contribute to undermining the fabric of society.

LINDSELL:I think it will, because there will be many people who will not want to enter into the marriage relationship in the way I`m speaking about it, and the easy way out for them, for anyone, is simply to arrange some kind of a contract before they live together. And that contract can enable them to abdicate any financial responsibility so they can have their fun and their pleasure without responsibility. I would say, however, if I were a poor girl going to live with a rich man and he suggested I sign this kind of a contract I would be very suspicious of his motivations. And I would say if he wanted that kind of a contract I would tell him, "Go jump in the lake. Look for somebody else." I wouldn`t have any part of it. For if he really loved me he would then take on a responsibility for me, and his unwillingness to do this shows that all he wants is the carnal satisfaction of the fleshly desires but not the other things that go into marriage.

MacNEIL: Dr. Lindsell, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Lawyers and theologians aren`t the only ones keeping an eye on what`s happening in this area of living-together arrangements. So are the social scientists, like Professor James Ramey of the Bow man Gray Medical School at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Dr. Ramey, there is no question that there is a growing trend toward this kind of arrangement. Why do you think that is?

Dr. JAMES RAMEY: I think it`s for several reasons, and they come from very different points on the spectrum. One has to do with what has been termed the sexual revolution, which we have seen progress from premarital sex to living-together arrangements in colleges and universities. And those arrangements I think have had two bases: one is that it`s very safe if you and I meet on the college campus and we`re both sort of insecure and if we set up some kind of arrangement together that protects both of us. A lot of those arrangements don`t involved any sex at all, by the way. And the other reason for those kinds of arrangements of course is that young people want to find out what`s involved in living with someone before they take the step of marriage.

LEHRER: In other words, do you think then that it`s more of a positive feeling toward a living-together arrangement rather than a turnoff to marriage -- is that what you`re saying?

RAMEY: It isn`t necessarily that. It may be that in some instances. There are some people that are very turned off to marriage, who have looked around them and said, "Look at the divorce rate, look at this, look at that. If it`s that unstable a situation, can`t we test it out in some way, test the water before we take this kind of a step? We don`t want to be a statistic."

Now there`s another group that has to be looked at that comes from the other end of the spectrum, and that`s the elderly group, those people who are pensioners who want to live together for companionship, affection, for economic reasons, who if they get married of course will be penalized by the federal government because it will take away the widow`s pension or reduce it. And so they live together instead. And many of them live together not really wanting to do that but they do it anyhow. Now those two groups are the smallest groups of cohabitors. The largest group of cohabits, I feel, and many of the other people that have done research in this area feel, are people in the in-between years. They`re the people that are most likely to be affected by these decisions more directly.

LEHRER: Affected adversely or positively?

RAMEY: The women, very positively, because they`ve been living without any protection, they`ve assumed all the responsibilities of marriage but none of the protections of marriage. And why shouldn`t they have that protection? They have every right to have it.

LEHRER: What`s your view of the effect of the Marvin decision and all of its fallout? What effect do you think it`s going to have on marriage as such?

RAMEY: I think it`s going to have quite an interesting effect. You know in Sweden after they had the marriage rate fall fifty percent in a matter of five years, they did away with the difference between marriage and cohabitation. What they did in effect was to co-opt cohabitation.

LEHRER: The Sweden procedure was similar to what`s happened in the Marvin case, right?

RAMEY: No, because it was dede jure, and these are case decisions. You see, that was statutory law. But it has the same impact ultimately. Because I agree with you: I think that in five years or so this is going to sweep the country. Now, it raises some interesting issues if it does that. For example, it fits into a pattern that I`ve been seeing and predicting in talking about the future of marriage and writing about the future of marriage for some time. You see, we live in a society which for the first time in the history of man is a society in which the family is not the basic unit of the society; the individual is. We`re the only society in which the individual can perform all the functions that the family has performed down through history. That is procreation, meeting sexual needs, maintaining a household, maintaining themselves economically and so on and so forth. It seems to me and to some other social scientists that what is likely to occur ultimately -- and this has been predicted since the 1850`s -- is that we may wind up with a sort of a two-step relationship. That is, we may make it much easier for people to live together under whatever arrangement they want but put the weight of the state at the point at which they want to parent, because in all marriage relationships it`s the children, the issue, that the state is most concerned about. It`s secondarily concerned, of course, about a woman coming on the public dole, but basically we want to protect children.

And I think what may happen is that while many people will continue to get legally married, there will be a lot of other people who will opt not to set up contract relationships because they now don`t have to, because they will have the same protections. But we know now that people that cohabit almost invariably, if they decide to parent or if they suddenly find themselves pregnant, they get married so the child will have a name.

LEHRER: Ms. Gregg, you`re nodding. Does that make sense to you?

GREGG: Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me.

LEHRER: What about you, Mr. Mitchelson?

MITCHELSON: Yes, I think the professor there has hit it right on. You see, what the Marvin decision really does is this: to be realistic the status of women -- it`s very feminist in this regard and unfeminist in another way -- women who live with men traditionally get the very short end of the stick, to colloquially phrase it. They have no protection at all; when a man`s finished he gets up and leaves. The relationship, as I say, imperceptible, can go on for years or months or weeks. We`re talking about people who actually do live together, though. Now all the court says in Marvin is this: this is a lifestyle. We now recognize it. There`s been a 200-percent increase in living together in the last ten, fifteen years. This is a way of life with a lot of people. We are not going to allow the cumulations, the fruits of that combination of services rendered on the one hand and the labor that the man gives, we`re not going to allow that to all go to one person unless these people understand they are doing that at an arm`s length understanding and want to waive those rights. We`re going to fairly apportion what they accumulate. We`re talking about the accumulation of property. They for the first time recognize the services that women contribute, the traditional household services. They`re either worth something or they`re worth nothing. They happen to be worth a lot, in my opinion, and in the Supreme Court of California`s opinion. And if people combine their services, women and men combine their labor and if they both want to go out in the labor market, that`s fine. Women are hoping for that kind if equality and the true feminists are hoping that the day comes where they won`t have to depend on a man. But it`s not just dependency, it`s the accumulation of property together by each of them contributing something, which is no less in most of these relationships than in a traditional marriage.

MacNEIL: We just have a minute or so left. I wanted to ask Dr. Lindsell, first of all, do you agree with these predictions that it`s going to become very widespread in the next few years, or do you believe that the mores in different regions of the country are different and there will be resistance?

LINDSELL: No, I think there are regional mores that would differ -- some parts of the country are far more conservative. Hollywood has never been known for its conservatism with respect to sex. I would say this, that I think the decision makes it quite clear that the court is saying that if you live together you are married, whether you have a legal marriage by way of civil ceremony or a religious ceremony or whether you don`t. So they`re saying that when you do live together you`ve got a marriage and the responsibilities that flow out of it.

Now, remember that the state is in no position to say whether that kind of a relationship which hasn`t been consummated by civil or religious ceremony is good, bad, or indifferent. But I do say, from the Judeo-Christian perspective, there is this difference, that from a Christian-Jewish viewpoint if you`re living in that relationship you`re living in sin. And it`s not legitimate, and it has psychological and ethical as well as moral overtones as a consequence.

MacNEIL: But they might disappear as the society began to tolerate it more as a result of decisions like this, those overtones.

LINDSELL: Well, you`re asking another question, and that is, what is...

MacNEIL: I`m asking another question, and regrettably, we haven`t time to hear the answer.

(General laughter.)

MacNEIL: Obviously one could go on with this for a long time. Well, thank you all very much indeed; that was very interesting. That`s all for tonight. Jim Lehrer and I will be back on Monday night, and other news permitting our story will be the financial state of the arts in this country. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.