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

Skip to comments.

Woman sues over N.C. anti-cohabitation law
AP ^ | 3/29/5

Posted on 03/29/2005 6:26:35 PM PST by SmithL

WILMINGTON, N.C. - A former sheriff's dispatcher who quit her job after her boss found out she lived with her boyfriend is challenging North Carolina's law against cohabitation.

Debora Hobbs said she was told to get married, move out, or find another job after her boss found out about her living situation. The legal arm of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina filed the lawsuit Monday on her behalf.

The lawsuit seeks to abolish the nearly 200-year-old - and rarely enforced - law that prohibits unmarried, unrelated adults of the opposite sex from living together. North Carolina is one of seven states with such a law.

Convicted offenders face a fine and up to 60 days in jail.

"The government has no business meddling in the private relationships of consenting adults," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU-NC Legal Foundation.

Hobbs had been living with her boyfriend for about three years when she was hired as a Pender County 911 dispatcher in February 2004. The couple decided they didn't want to marry; Hobbs quit last May rather than be fired.

Sheriff Carson Smith said last year that Hobbs' employment was a moral issue as well as a legal question. He said he tries to avoid hiring people who openly live together, but that he doesn't send out deputies to enforce the law.

Hobbs declined to comment Monday. Rudinger said she is employed and still lives with her boyfriend.

Neither the sheriff nor Pender County Attorney Trey Thurman would comment.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: aclu; employmentatwill; govwatch; lawsuit; privacy; shackup
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: ALPAPilot

This is all proof-positive that the government should get entirely out of the marriage business.


21 posted on 03/29/2005 8:07:37 PM PST by km6xu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina
Oh, God. I'm on the ACLU's side on this one. Does that make me a liberal?

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Conservative mindset = Petition the legislators in order to get a law changed or rescinded.

22 posted on 03/29/2005 8:45:14 PM PST by Between the Lines (True Christianity is the best kept secret around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lafroste

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...


23 posted on 03/29/2005 10:10:10 PM PST by jiggyboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day; TaxRelief; 100%FEDUP; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; ~Vor~; A2J; a4drvr; Adder; ...

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail Constitution Day OR TaxRelief OR Alia if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.
24 posted on 03/30/2005 5:04:54 AM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lafroste

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.


25 posted on 03/30/2005 5:16:54 AM PST by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


26 posted on 03/30/2005 5:18:47 AM PST by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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'!


27 posted on 03/30/2005 5:25:19 AM PST by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
but should be a state's rights issue.

States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. States have such powers as are not prohibited to them by the constitution.

28 posted on 03/30/2005 5:33:12 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: km6xu

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.


29 posted on 03/30/2005 5:45:40 AM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


30 posted on 03/30/2005 5:49:39 AM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
There's good reason for the government to be in the marriage business.

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.

31 posted on 03/30/2005 5:54:20 AM PST by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


32 posted on 03/30/2005 6:02:04 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina
Perhaps we should bring back .... prosecution of women for being scolds.

HEAR, HEAR!


33 posted on 03/30/2005 7:50:51 AM PST by JohnnyZ (“When you’re hungry, you eat; when you’re a frog, you leap; if you’re scared, get a dog.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina
Oh, God. I'm on the ACLU's side on this one. Does that make me a liberal?

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.

34 posted on 03/30/2005 7:56:04 AM PST by JohnnyZ (“When you’re hungry, you eat; when you’re a frog, you leap; if you’re scared, get a dog.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03
The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of association last time I checked. This law is unconsitutional.

Acutally it mentions freedom of assembly, not association. And it's a bit of a stretch to say that "assembly" means living together.

35 posted on 03/30/2005 7:57:27 AM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan

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!


36 posted on 03/30/2005 8:06:18 AM PST by SZonian (Tagline???? I don't need no stinkin' tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

"shackup-attack"


37 posted on 03/30/2005 8:09:48 AM PST by wattsmag2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

A government cannot legally tell you whom you can and cannot cohabitate. This is a slamdunk.


38 posted on 03/30/2005 11:48:01 AM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03
A government cannot legally tell you whom you can and cannot cohabitate.

Is that so? Quote this "law".

If what you say is true, state governments have been "living in sin" since the founding and before.

39 posted on 03/30/2005 12:14:15 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

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.


40 posted on 03/30/2005 12:19:43 PM PST by dfwgator (It's sad that the news media treats Michael Jackson better than our military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next 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