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.
Fondray is apparently willing to mount a legal challenge rather than do something like marry or, heaven forfend, acknowledge himself as a parent to the young man.
This is a pretty stupid interpretation. Loving is the father of two of the children, and Shelltrack is the mother of all three children. Therefore, she has blood ties to all three children and can thus live with all three of them. Loving has blood ties to the two younger children and can thus live with them. The fact that he is not the father of the oldest child is irrelevant. This should take about 15 seconds for the judge to rule against the city board.
he will respond "to eachother."
But of course, there is no commitment if you don't take a risk together and bundle your financial relationship/legal relationship.
I tend to agree except...
Children tend to skew the results in marriage's favor.
He's keeping his options open.
I wonder if when he's old and sick his kids, as regards taking responsibility for him, will also keep their options open.
Common law marriages are not so common... they also have specific rules:
http://www.unmarried.org/common.html
Great work by the writer and editor. *snicker*
So they don't have to pay the marriage penalty. They can each file as single with the one making the higher income itemizing deductions and claiming the children as dependents (or two of them if it is Loving); the other one can take the standard deduction and one of the dependents. One of them can even claim as single head of household. By the time they are through, one of them might be getting EIC money back. Bottom line is they will have a much lower tax liability than they would if they were married.
And remember, saveourguns is not just saying that theya re committed, but perfectly committed. There is no level of commitment higher than this, if we take him at his word.
Parenthetically, did you know that someone who is in America on a renewable work visa is perfectly committed to this country? Citizenship is completely meaningless - probably just a religious notion.
I think the pertinent question is whether the local government has the power to make a law such as this one.
After all, the Constitution protects us from even local government and I am of the opinion that a homeowner, and their children, have the right to live in their own home.
Simple solution: Get MARRIED you fools!
That is what one of them paraphrased as the government's position. It is an inaccurate assessment of the government's position. The government's position in this case is still wrong, but not for the reason one would think based on the broad's misrepresentation of the position.
"One of them is that the government shouldn't even be involved in marriage. "
It is a matter for the govt for a number of reasons and I suppose foremost for tax purposes. Other reasons can involve legal issues involving property rights if one partner dies.
Did anyone catch this in the second article posted? So they actually are engaged?! What's stopping them from just getting married so the gov't will leave them alone?
Good points - whether taxes, or losing an alimony stream, or avoiding potential child support payments on the oldest child, there is most likely a good monetary motive involved here for ol' Fondray.
Good catch! Hilarious! They were waiting for a special decade to get married and now the township is rushing them!
She said she would not get married, so they obviously really are not engaged.
Folks like this never even have a ring, much less a date.
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.