From Wedding Bells to Working Women: Unmasking the Sexism Resulting from 'Illicit Concubinage' in Louisiana's Jurisprudence

• Author: Brittanie Wagnon
• Position: J.D./D.C.L., 2016, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.
• Pages: 1383-1419

From Wedding Bells to Working Women: Unmasking the Sexism Resulting from “Illicit Concubinage” in Louisiana’s Jurisprudence TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................ 1384 I. First Comes Love, Then Comes Marriage? ................................ 1386 A. The Explosive Growth of Cohabitation and Its Clouded Origins ................................................................... 1386 B. Women’s Push for Cohabitation .......................................... 1389 II. Other Jurisdictions’ Responses to Cohabitation ......................... 1390 A. The American View of Cohabitation: Before and After ...... 1391 1. The Traditional Negative Status .................................... 1391 2. Inequity Caused by the Traditional View in America Transformed the Law ...................................... 1393 B. Approaches Used by Multiple Jurisdictions......................... 1394 1. The Imposition of a Legal Status ................................... 1394 a. The “Not-So-Common” Law Marriage Approach ................................................................. 1394 b. The ALI’s 2001 Chapter 6 Principles: A Revival of Common Law Marriage?....................... 1395 c. Washington’s Unique “Committed Intimate Relationship” Status ................................................ 1396 d. New Zealand’s Domestic Partnership Laws ........... 1397 2. The Marvin Contractual Approach ................................ 1398 3. France’s Blending of the Intermediate Status and Contract Approach .................................................. 1399 III. Paramours, Concubines, and “Illicit Concubinage” in Louisiana .................................................................................... 1400 A. Louisiana’s Harsh Treatment of Cohabitation ..................... 1401 B. The Eroded Rationale of Louisiana’s Negative Status Approach ................................................................... 1404 1. Public Policy: The Alleged Immorality of Concubinage .................................................................. 1405 2. Guardians of the Sanctity of Marriage........................... 1407 IV. Unmasking the Sexist Effects of Louisiana’s Laws Regarding Concubinage ............................................................. 1409 A. The Effects of Louisiana’s Laws Regarding Concubinage .. 1409 1384 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 76 B. Lack of Legal Grounds for the State’s Purported “Public Policy” Condemning Cohabitation ...................................... 1413 C. Previous Failed Solutions to the Inequity in Louisiana’s Law ................................................................... 1414 1. Rejection of Marvin ....................................................... 1415 2. The Rejection of Proposed Article 101 in the Wake of the Repeal of Article 1481 .............................. 1415 3. Commentary Calling for Change ................................... 1417 4. Louisiana’s 2004 Defense of Marriage Amendment ..... 1417 D. The Solution: A Presumption of Equality ............................ 1418 Conclusion .................................................................................. 1419 INTRODUCTION Cohabitation is the new normal. 1 Today’s normal, however, can be confusing to a generation that grew up with marriage as the only option for romantic couples. But to today’s couples, cohabitation is either an alternative to marriage or a stepping-stone to marriage. Contemporary studies have shown that the majority of those who get married today are wealthy white couples. 2 Meanwhile, women of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to get married. 3 Instead, these women push for cohabitation to protect their assets, and they have become the driving force behind the shift from marriage to cohabitation. 4 Historically, Louisiana stigmatized women who chose cohabitation, referring to them as concubines and denying them legal rights. 5 Beginning in the 1970s, most states began to recognize and respond to the injustices that the stigmatization of cohabitation created. 6 For example, dissolution Copyright 2016, by BRITTANIE WAGNON. 1. Pamela J. Smock, Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications , 26 ANN. REV. SOC. 1, 4–5 (2000); see infra Part I. 2. See Smock, supra note 1, at 4–5; Marin Clarkberg, The Price of Partnering: The Role of Economic Well-Being in Young Adults’ First Union Experiences , 77 SOC. FORCES 945, 947 (1999). 3. Clarkberg, supra note 2, at 947; Smock, supra note 1, at 4. 4. See infra Part I.B. 5. For an explanation of Louisiana’s historical view of concubinage, see Succession of Bacot, 502 So. 2d 1118, 1129 (La. Ct. App. 1987) (citing Succession of Filhiol, 44 So. 843 (La. 1907)). 6. See, e.g. , Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106 (Cal. 1976) (en banc) (allowing a cohabiting woman to recover under contract theory to prevent inequity). 2016] COMMENT 1385 of a relationship by death or separation often left a woman destitute. 7 To correct this inequity, every other community property state in the United States now provides a remedy for cohabitants to claim property rights upon dissolution of the relationship. 8 Overall, 46 states have created some sort of contractual or status-based remedy for this inequity. 9 In the midst of the United States’ movement to accept cohabiting couples that has gained traction and entrenched itself over the past 40 years, Louisiana’s stubborn refusal to follow the rest of the country’s example is puzzling. This Comment offers a solution to that puzzle, arguing that Louisiana’s refusal to provide property rights for unmarried cohabitants is the result of discrimination against some of the state’s neediest citizens. 10 Louisiana’s jurisprudence often provides unfair results to women, and when accompanied by statistics showing that women are the main advocates of cohabitation, 11 Louisiana’s refusal to act appears motivated by a desire to discriminate. This failure to change the law is a thinly veiled attempt to retain the status quo of the past where marriage was the only path for women to be successful. To correct the situation, this Comment proposes a solution that is best aligned with Louisiana’s needs—a presumption of an equal-sharing agreement between romantic partners upon dissolution. Part I demonstrates that the significant number of cohabiting couples creates a need for the legislature to act, and also explores who engages in cohabitation and why the practice has become so popular. Part II describes the evolution of cohabitants’ rights in the American courts and legislatures. This Part also surveys the various approaches in the United States, New Zealand, and France to afford rights to cohabitants. Part III explains Louisiana’s archaic views regarding unmarried cohabitation and why the State chooses to cling to this reasoning. Part IV scrutinizes the sexist biases in Louisiana’s jurisprudence and argues that Louisiana can no longer justify discriminating against cohabitants. This Part also proposes a solution that 7. See id. at 109 (noting that the plaintiff agreed to stop working and be the defendant’s housekeeper in return for his financial support). 8. Erez Aloni, Registering Relationships , 87 TUL. L. REV. 573, 587 (2013). 9. Id . 10. Even though marriage as an institution offers concrete benefits and protections for many, the Louisiana Civil Code currently excludes from this category not only unmarried heterosexual cohabitants, but also homosexuals. LA. CIV. CODE art. 89 (2014). See generally Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14–556 (U.S. 2015) (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed in another state). 11. See infra Part I.B. 1386 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 76 will fix the frequent inequity in Louisiana and calls for the change women deserve—the ability to decide for themselves whether marriage is indeed the best option by which to transfer property rights. I. FIRST COMES LOVE, THEN COMES MARRIAGE? The number of couples choosing cohabitation instead of marriage has grown exponentially over the years and it continues to rise. 12 Cohabitation is popular because of society’s need for individualism, its changing values, and economic factors unique to modern culture. 13 Women of lower socioeconomic status 14 and working women have been the main proponents behind cohabitation’s popularity. 15 Many women choose not to marry to protect their economic freedom. Cohabitation is more popular among poor women because marriage seems to represent a wealthy status symbol, and the housewife stigma associated with marriage troubles some career women. 16 Because of this desire, cohabitation has become an important family status in America. A. The Explosive Growth of Cohabitation and Its Clouded Origins Chabitation is the most common path to initiating family life. 17 In 1960, approximately 440,000 unmarried American couples were living together. 18 By 1990, the number had climbed to 2.85 million and continued climbing to 4.9 million in early 2000. 19 In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau 12. Clarkberg, supra note 2, at 946; see also Margaret M. Mahoney, Forces Shaping the Law of Cohabitation for Opposite Sex Couples , 7 J.L. & FAM. STUD. 135, 159–60 (2005). 13. Clarkberg, supra note 2, at 946. 14. Smock, supra note 1, at 4. 15. Id. at 5. 16. Clarkberg, supra note 2, at 957–58. 17. See id. at 945. This Comment considers the term “family life” to mean “the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children” and “any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family.” Full Definition of Family , MERRIAMWEBSTER DICTIONARY...