Celebrities Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins split after living together for twenty-three years. They never married, even though they had two sons together. And, Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell have lived together for over twenty-five years, raised two children and appear to have maintained a very successful relationship.

However, a few questions do come to mind:

• If couples like these can live together successfully for many years, what’s the point of getting married?
• Is the commitment to one another as strong without the so-called “piece of paper?”
• What happens when such couples do decide to split – to the man, the woman, the children?

For one thing, presumably, celebrity couples are financially independent and, generally speaking, can end their relationships anytime without either of them having to be concerned about earning a living.

But, when Joe Six Pack and his “girlfriend” decide to break-up after living together for many years, what happens? Who owns the home and furnishings, bank accounts, cars, retirement accounts and other assets? Who is responsible for their debts? How about child support if there are young children involved?

Without the resources and the financial independence of the rich and famous, the result is often a disaster, especially when children are involved.

We sometimes hear the argument, “My parents got a divorce, and it was so devastating that I just don’t want to risk it.” However, I don’t see how living together avoids the risks of a failed marriage. As a matter of fact, dissolving a live-in relationship can be more difficult and costly to resolve than getting a divorce.

Writing in the Jewish World Review (October 3, 2006), Dennis Prager offered the following reasons why people should get married rather than just live together:

“First, no matter what you think when living together, your relationship with your significant other changes the moment you marry. You have now made a commitment to each other as husband and wife in front of almost everyone significant in your life. You now see each other in a different and more serious light.”

“Second, words matter. They deeply affect us and others. Living with your “boyfriend” is not the same as living with your ‘husband.’ And living with your “girlfriend” or any other title you give her is not the same as making a home with your ‘wife.’ Likewise when you introduce that person as your wife or husband to people, you are making a far more important statement of that person’s role in your life than you are with any other title.”

“Third, legality matters. Being legally bound to and responsible for another person matters. It is an announcement to him/her and to yourself that you take this relationship with the utmost seriousness. No words of affection or promises of commitment, no matter how sincere, can match the seriousness of legal commitment.”

“Fourth, to better appreciate just how important marriage is to the vast majority of people in your life, consider this: There is no event, no occasion, no moment in your life when so many of the people who matter to you will convene in one place as they will at your wedding. Not the birth of any of your children, not any milestone birthday you may celebrate, not your child’s bar-mitzvah or confirmation…”

“Fifth, only with marriage will your man’s or your woman’s family ever become your family. The two weddings transformed the woman in my son’s life into my daughter-in-law and transformed the man in my daughter’s life into my son-in-law. And I was instantly transformed from the father of their boyfriend or girlfriend into their father-in-law…I was now related to my children’s partners. Their siblings and parents became family. Nothing comparable happens when two people live together without getting married.”

“Many women callers to my radio show have told me that the man in their life sees no reason to marry. ‘It’s only a piece of paper,’ these men (and now some women) argue.”

“There are two answers to this argument…One is that if in fact ‘it is only a piece of paper,’ what exactly is he so afraid of? Why does he fear a mere piece of paper? Either he is lying to himself and to his woman or lying only to her because he knows this piece of paper is far more than ‘only a piece of paper.’”

“The other response is all that is written above. Getting married means I am now your wife, not your live-in; I am now your husband, not your significant other…It means we have legal obligations to one another. It means my family becomes yours and yours becomes mine.”

“When you realize all that is attainable by marrying and unattainable by living together without marrying, you have to wonder why anyone would voluntarily choose not to marry the person he or she wishes to live with forever…Unless, of course, one of you really isn’t planning on forever.”

In the final analysis, the question is: Who really benefits from living together?

© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

One of the most valuable lessons about negotiating that I learned in over 50 years as an accounting professional and businessman was to always leave something for the other side. Successful negotiating is not about winning everything and leaving nothing for the other party. That’s one of the biggest mistaken assumptions made by many people and can sometimes lead to undesirable and unintended consequences.

Negotiating is not dictating. It’s a give and take process that, hopefully, can be a win-win for both parties. Otherwise, it becomes an exercise in power, where one side simply dictates to the other.

That said, the example of the day is the unions that represent government employees vs the government entities that employ them and indirectly the taxpayers who ultimately pay the bill. Think about it. What is the long-term outcome likely to be when unions obtain wages and benefits from the government that cannot be sustained over time?

Pogo’s well known quote comes to mind: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” That seems to be the case with government employee unions, which have negotiated wage and benefit packages that are generally better than those of most the taxpayers who are forced to pay the bill.

The argument is sometimes made that government employees are also taxpayers. True enough. However, that would only be appropriate if they were paying the major share of the bill for their own compensation.

The problem has been a combination of government revenue streams that grew steadily for many years, coupled with compliant politicians who responded to the political muscle of the unions that have actively supported their campaigns for election. A particularly egregious example of this was the Santa Barbara City Council election a few years ago, in which the employees’ union asked candidates for City Council a series of questions but would not release their responses to the public.

Not only do the government employee unions have the power to strike but they also vote and, given the percentage of the workforce that now work for government, they represent a major portion of the voting population.

We, that is, our political leaders can resist, but they don’t. Ronald Reagan demonstrated the value of pushing back against the excessive demands of government employees when he fired 11,345 air traffic controllers in 1981, when they attempted what was then an illegal strike.

The result has been the steady growth of government employee costs, to the point that they can no longer be sustained. This is clearly demonstrated by the current plight of Santa Barbara County, which is currently grappling with a projected budget deficit of some $39 million.

The percentage of government budgets that is allocated to employee retirement has been steadily increasing. At some point, those government entities that fail to stop approving expenditures they do not have the money to pay them will eventually go broke. When that happens, whatever retirement benefits they may be contractually bound to pay to their employees will be drastically reduced, of necessity, possibly by a bankruptcy court, if no other way.

But, both the unions and the various government entities seem to keep trying to “soldier on” as if there’s no tomorrow. One gets the impression that if no one looks, the problem will just go away. But, it won’t. There will be a day of reckoning, which appears to be approaching fast.

Writing in the Santa Maria Times, Julian J. Ramos noted (March 3, 2010): “Faced with the unenviable task of closing an overall $40 million budget gap, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors agreed Tuesday to hold off giving direction to county staff on how to narrow that deficit… Most of the budget gap is linked to skyrocketing county employee retirement costs and shrinking property tax revenues, which makes up the majority of the board’s discretionary funding and supports most public-safety programs.”

Fifth District Supervisor Joe Centeno of Santa Maria said he would rather see cuts to non-essential services than see reductions in services to children and adults who need mental-health care. “We have to find a way to accommodate their needs,” he said.

It all sounds good, but no one seems to have any idea how to stretch the available funds to accomplish that without going broke in the process.

It’s time for people in government (at every level) to get real.

© 2010 Harris R. Sherljne, All Rights Reserved

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com