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 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-274 next last
To: Quick1

In any case, I hope it's up to the voters and not a federal appeals court's whim.


101 posted on 02/23/2006 2:34:14 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org
perfectly committed people who have not been "married"

Oxymoron alert. If they cant "commit" to a marriage "contract", then what exactly are they "committed " to? Whats your definition of "committed" And for how long is this commitment? and so on?

102 posted on 02/23/2006 2:34:18 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Great - they'd probably make my family (10 people in a 4-bedroom house) move out!

Okay- how about this: Limit residents to x per bedroom, unless all of the residents are related, in which case there is no limit?

This would keep the 35 illegals out, while not bothering the family of 10 or the unmarried couple who decide to buy a house together.

103 posted on 02/23/2006 2:34:20 PM PST by Potowmack ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

"Why the hell not? I know a couple that has been together 20 years, and they are better than most married couples. The non-marriage thing isn't for everyone, but for a few couples, it's perfect. Why should the government be deciding for this couple?"

Iti s commonly accepted that society is based on the family and families are based on marriage. That is why govts and societies provide incentives for people to marry. If folks like your hippy friends want to disregard societal custom then they should be denied the protections/benefits given to married couples.


104 posted on 02/23/2006 2:34:54 PM PST by BadAndy (The DemocRATs are the enemy's most effective weapon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

um, the oldest child is not the father's biological offspring....or, more simply, he ain't the daddy.


105 posted on 02/23/2006 2:35:24 PM PST by Hi Heels (Don't you wish there were a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BadAndy
If folks like your hippy friends want to disregard societal custom then they should be denied the protections/benefits given to married couples.

But . . . but . . . but . . . then they might FEEL BAD!!!

106 posted on 02/23/2006 2:37:07 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

This used to be the rule in most communities. Unrelated individuals could not live together in residential neighborhoods zoned for single family housing. One of the first cases to overturn this involved Timothy Leary and his coterie of LSD-taking friends in Newton, Mass. This led to the redefinition of "family" for the purposes of zoning laws.


107 posted on 02/23/2006 2:37:32 PM PST by joylyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
Besides, how is it any of yours or the government's business?

I'm a conservative on most things, but a libertarian on only a few. One of them is that the government shouldn't even be involved in marriage. (If you're wondering why that's a Libertarian view, just think of all the ways government gets involved in your personal life after you marry.)

Marriage should be a church matter or, in my case, a committment between me and the woman I choose to marry. I don't understand how having the state decide the status of the committment between two people before their god (or not) is a conservative value.

yes, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. Sort of.

108 posted on 02/23/2006 2:37:59 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (No respect for conservatives? That's free speech. No respect for liberals? That's hate speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

13 years together is not enough? Somebody needs to get a hobby, harrassing grown-ups about their living arrangements isn't a good use of time.


109 posted on 02/23/2006 2:39:40 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: wideawake

Exactly.

Quick is good at tossing out non sequitors.

I have met a wonderful girl who I am dating, and the idea that I would somehow just decide to shack up with her is unconscionable.

Like it or not, marriage is a closer union than a free relationship, even ones that last for 30 years.


111 posted on 02/23/2006 2:41:52 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jude24
The government doesn't have the right to determine who may live with whom.

True. But the government does have the right to determine how many people may reside in a particular structure. In this particular case, the government uses the familial relationship between the parties as part of that determination. As many others pointed out, that is done in order to prevent illegal boarding houses, etc.

112 posted on 02/23/2006 2:41:55 PM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org
Marriage is a religious concept.

A church witnesses a marriage. A state makes sure it is legal - licensed.

113 posted on 02/23/2006 2:42:53 PM PST by MSSC6644
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

It sounds like that would be okay. But you would have to take turns living there.


114 posted on 02/23/2006 2:42:57 PM PST by proudpapa (of three.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
Thanks for posting this. Olivia's take and the way the law is described differ.

The way the law is described, they are not limited to one child as Olivia asserts.

Since two of the three children are blood relatives of both Olivia and Fondray, two children would be allowed.

Since the oldest child is not related by blood, marriage or adoption to all the other occupants (including Fondray) but only to his mother and siblings, he's disqualified.

So, apparently Fondray would rather go through a court battle than suffer the indignity of (a) making an honest woman of Olivia or (b) acknowledging himself as a father, if only an adoptive one, to the oldest boy that he is purportedly raising.

Must be nice for the 15 year old that his mother's gigolo refuses to acknowledge any legal responsibility for him.

115 posted on 02/23/2006 2:43:33 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org
Marriage is a religious concept.

Try telling a divorce court that marriage is just a religious concept.
116 posted on 02/23/2006 2:43:46 PM PST by Deut28 (Cursed be he who perverts the justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
Yes, another glaring instance of Federal intrusion into areas that are none of the FedGov's business.

I'm pretty sure the right to own and use one's home is a Constitutional right.

117 posted on 02/23/2006 2:44:52 PM PST by Potowmack ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

Marriage is a state contract, not a religious idea.


118 posted on 02/23/2006 2:45:18 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
So, apparently Fondray would rather go through a court battle than suffer the indignity of (a) making an honest woman of Olivia or (b) acknowledging himself as a father, if only an adoptive one, to the oldest boy that he is purportedly raising.

If I am the King of Non Sequitors, you are the King of Leaps in Logic.
119 posted on 02/23/2006 2:45:34 PM PST by Quick1 (Censorship: the worst obscenity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Must be nice for the 15 year old that his mother's gigolo refuses to acknowledge any legal responsibility for him.

Doesn't matter what happens to kids. All that matters is that the "adults"--like our wonderful crew of FReeper libertarians--get to do whatever they want when it comes to sexual relationships.

120 posted on 02/23/2006 2:48:36 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-274 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