Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unmarried Couple Denied Right to Move In
WWTI (ABC) ^ | 2/23/2006 | United Press International

Posted on 02/23/2006 1:53:52 PM PST by Quick1

A Missouri couple say they were denied an occupancy permit for their new home because they're not married.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving have been together for 13 years and have three children, ages 8, 10 and 15, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The couple are appealing the occupancy permit denial from the Black Jack, Mo., board of adjustment, which requires people living together to have blood, marriage or adoption ties. Loving is not the father of Shelltrack's oldest child.

I was basically told, you can have one child living in your house if you're not married, but more than that, you can't, Shelltrack told the newspaper.

This is about the definition of family, not if they're married or not, Mayor Normal McCourt said. It's what cities do to maintain the housing and to hold down overcrowding.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: cohabitation; cohabitationlaws; cultureofbusybodies; fornicationlaws; homeowners; marriagelaws; occupancypermit; propertyrights; puritans; unmarriedcouple
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-274 last
To: madprof98
Probably they need time to think it over and decide if it's right for them.

****************

LOL! That must be it.

261 posted on 02/24/2006 8:46:09 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Thank Calex! You said it for me too. I get irked by the holier than thou comments...and there are plenty


262 posted on 02/24/2006 9:12:47 AM PST by Woodstock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
If the family were illegals, the permit would have been approved plus the family would have received a signed framed picture of GWB to hang on their wall.

And a subsidy.

263 posted on 02/24/2006 9:36:49 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
No one has to go to the press. They chose to.

How do you know they "went" to the press? They first got a lawyer and a BoA hearing. That was their first step. Then, either the press found out through the hearing, or they went to the press.

The point is, that when I say "why should the government be in their business", I mean, WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE PRESS IN THE FIRST PLACE? Of course we all know about it NOW. What I'm talking about is that they should have been able to get the permit, instead of the permit board putting their nose where it doesn't belong in the first place.
264 posted on 02/24/2006 10:02:19 AM PST by Quick1 (Censorship: the worst obscenity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
Then, either the press found out through the hearing, or they went to the press.

They are directly quoted. They did a press interview.

And this is the kind of story that is given to reporters by an interested party - journalists don't randomly pore through small-town occupancy certificate filings hoping to find a story.

What I'm talking about is that they should have been able to get the permit, instead of the permit board putting their nose where it doesn't belong in the first place.

The permit board probably asked their attorney or them (if they were doing their own closing) whether they could sign an affidavit attesting that they were in full compliance with municipal law regarding occupancy.

They most likely responded that they could not.

This probably prompted a hearing. At such a hearing the applicant usually states whether they intend to cure and in what time frame. Usually the board can grant a waiver contingent upon future compliance.

They apparently indicated at the hearing that they intended to never be in compliance, despite the fact that they had previously dishonestly represented themselves in a way which implied that they would. At which point the board determined that they could not grant a permanent waiver without violating municipal law.

Thism is not the board "sticking their nose in" - this is the board conducting due diligence on an occupancy certificate application or, in other words, doing the job the city hired them to do.

265 posted on 02/24/2006 10:16:16 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

"He just goes around imposing his will on people. He's my idol." - Eric Cartman


266 posted on 02/24/2006 10:45:13 AM PST by HairOfTheDog (Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

I admire your gumption. Knowing that you had no intelligent comment to offer, you soldiered on and inserted a non sequitur anyway, just to be involved.


267 posted on 02/24/2006 10:52:37 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

OK - here's my comment:

No conservative should praise or defend a local government who has the gumption to believe they have the RIGHT to decide on something called an "occupancy permit" based on the nature of the relationship between the people who OWN the property.

I have a lot of disdain for nanny government, no matter who the nanny is.


268 posted on 02/24/2006 11:00:16 AM PST by HairOfTheDog (Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Bravo, Well said.


269 posted on 02/24/2006 11:34:52 AM PST by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
If there is no marriage, there is no commitment.

Yes, because the truest expression of love is a binding government contract... /Marge Simpson
270 posted on 02/24/2006 12:27:19 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
Yes, because the truest expression of love is a binding government contract... /Marge Simpson

In your world, marriage may well be a government contract.

Of course, in the real world, no marriage is a government contract since the government is not a contracting party.

And marriage is first and foremost a sacrament - the contractual aspect of it is a housekeeping detail, not its essence or purpose.

271 posted on 02/24/2006 12:31:03 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Of course, in the real world, no marriage is a government contract since the government is not a contracting party.

If that's the case, then why do you care if the government gets involved in whether or not a couple is married? Since marriage is first and foremost a sacrament, and if the contractual aspect of it is a housekeeping detail, not its essence or purpose, why bother having the government involved at all?
272 posted on 02/24/2006 12:33:57 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

If I'm reading the ordinance correctly (and, of course, I'm basing it only on what the newspaper articles said), you can't have more than 3 people living together unless they are *all* related by blood, marriage or adoption. It doesn't seem to permit, for example, a guy and his wife and his wife's cousin and his wife's cousin's husband and his wife's cousin's husband's sister to all live together. And I think that even if the man and the woman got married, they couldn't all live together, since there's more than 3 of them and not all of them would be related by blood, marriage or adoption (the husband and the oldest boy wouldn't be related). I think that the couple would need to get married *and* the husband would need to adopt the oldest boy.


273 posted on 02/24/2006 12:40:21 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

"Perhaps the 15 yo's biological father refuses to give him up for addoption? I don't see why it makes a difference.
Why can't the gigolo adopt him?"

Because you can only have 1 legal mother and 1 father at a time.

If I was the biological father (and supporting my child via child support, involvment, etc), I would not agree to having my parental rights terminated so that my ex wife could live somewhere.


274 posted on 02/24/2006 3:09:35 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-274 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson