Posted on 03/29/2005 6:26:35 PM PST by SmithL
This is all proof-positive that the government should get entirely out of the marriage business.
In my opinion, yes.
Liberal mindset = If you don't like the law take it to the courts in order to get it changed or struck down.
Conservative mindset = Petition the legislators in order to get a law changed or rescinded.
I think it's more than just living in the same house. I think you pass the test if you have a joint checking account, maybe have both your names on an apartment lease or on a mortgage, etc...
NC has no common-law marriage. Obviously, such a law would be in contravention of this law. I wouldn't dare suggest NC doesn't have conflicting laws, but none that are this old.
This was a stupid law when it was passed, it is still a stupid law.
Once and for all, I wish government, state, federal, and local, would get out of the marriage business altogether.
Well, okay.... maybe they can share the same house.... But, I better not catch them riding their camel downtown before 6pm on Sundays or dancing backwards after 9:00pm on Saturday night!
Trouble, trouble, trouble...
With a capital 'T'
That rhymes with 'B'
That stands for 'B-I-itch'!
States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. States have such powers as are not prohibited to them by the constitution.
There's good reason for the government to be in the marriage business. The civil marriage contract provides for the care and feeding of children. Unless you would prefer the courts to decide individual responsibilities for each parent on a case by case basis. Marriage also protects the rest of the citizenry from having to financialy provide for children not of their own making. Unfortunately the no-fault divorce laws that started in California in 1969 has caused a huge increase in single parent homes, deadbeat dads, and increased tax bills to take care of their children. Ditching marriage would only take more money out of my pocket to care for someone else's kids.
The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of association last time I checked. This law is unconsitutional. When someone has the guts to challenge it, it will go down in flames.
You've given good reasons for the institution of marriage, but you haven't given any good reasons for government to be involved in it. You have, however, given some dandy arguments in support of civil unions. Coming full circle to this discussion, civil unions have nothing whatever to do with whom you care to share your bed.
Whether you agree with this law or not, its still the law.
It would be highly inappropriate for an employee of the Sherriff to be breaking the law. I agree with the Sherriff on this.
Yes and you should take your liberal friends out of Mecklenburg too!
the law needs to reflect, at least to some extent, contemporary attitudes.
Stupid laws reflect contemporary attitudes. Good laws reflect unchanging Truth.
Acutally it mentions freedom of assembly, not association. And it's a bit of a stretch to say that "assembly" means living together.
http://www.dumblaws.com
There are lots of dumb laws by todays standards. But keep in mind, most if not all were made during more prudish times.
Some good ones at the above website.
Cheers!
"shackup-attack"
A government cannot legally tell you whom you can and cannot cohabitate. This is a slamdunk.
Is that so? Quote this "law".
If what you say is true, state governments have been "living in sin" since the founding and before.
I used to work for a company that checked to see if employees lived together. They would run a report to link employees who had the same address, but were not listed as married. As a matter of fact, the advice was, if you do live together with another employee, make sure you used a PO Box for your mailing address.
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.