Common-law relationships have become a growing phenomenon. In today’s society, it is the preferred choice by many—a comfortable existence before getting married. In T&T, it is by far the norm, but it has implications for family life, according to some of our religious leaders. “Common-law relationships have become the trend in T&T,” said Pastor Clive Dottin, during an interview. Dottin said he observed this through his community programmes, as many couples opted for this type of union. As a result, Dottin said, the traditional family unit was being destroyed. “This was a dangerous trend for the society,” he added.

A concerned Dottin also noted that young people were “shacking up” and “only when a child comes into the picture, then the topic of marriage was discussed.” He said in a situation like this, one party, in most cases the man, feels pressured or forced into marriage. Dottin said this was a serious matter because the couple might not be ready for that kind of commitment. “I think we have a crisis on our hands and it should not be taken lightly,” he said. “If the family was viewed as the solution to the social ills that were plaguing the society, then there should be a cause for an alarm,” said Dottin. He said the family was the fundamental pillar of the society and urged parents to make more time for family life.

A trial period
However, Archdeacon Steve West said: “Couples use common-law unions as a trial period for marriage, but this was not a safe practice.” “Some people mistakenly believe that they must have a trial period through common-law unions,” he said. He said in addition to legal implications, marriage required a greater commitment. “The dynamics change when couples get married and couples must be prepared to deal with the new dynamics of that relationship,” West said. He said some couples got married after “shacking up” and some did not. West said there was a decline in weddings over the years at his church. But, he said, for this year so far he officiated over 27 weddings.

However, after speaking with some couples, they expressed different views. Ria, not her real name, said despite what the “old folks” believed she felt it had become important to have that trial period. She said even though two people might “court” each other for a period of time, they still may not know each other faults or bad habits. In Natasha’s case (not her real name), she married her husband after courting him for eight years and has just realised the type of person he was. Natasha said probably if they had a trial period her husband’s real personality would have been revealed earlier.