Unmarried Couple Denied Right to Move In

WWTI (ABC) ^ | 2/23/2006 | United Press International

[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.

[Dave Elias]

"Marriage is a state contract, not a religious idea."

So why do people have such a problem with gay marraige?

[Kaylee Frye]

Good catch! Hilarious! They were waiting for a special decade to get married and now the township is rushing them!

I guess so!! :)

[null and void]

Ooooooo! Let me try!

They only had the kids because the Bush Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade...

[null and void]

They aren't parents. Parents are married.

*ahem* Some of us are divorced.

[null and void]

Don't they have blood ties through their children?

Yes.

Please don't try to bring facts to the argument...

[Hi Heels]

"Obviously I didn't mean this post for everyone but if this shoe fits feel free to get pissed, for I know you won't change your selfrighteous ways and will continue to rant and rave about people who don't follow your strict moral codes."

or agree with YOUR opinion?

[Elpasser]

Geez. They'd rather get into a legal battle than get married?

[null and void]

Apparently the oldest child is not the father's biological parent.

Uhhhh. OK. I'll assume you meant biological child. (Not that I've ever done that in the heat of the moment on a hot thread, nope, not me...) Kid's still the MOM's biological child, though.

[Albion Wilde]

"Marriage has ruined a lot of perfectly good relationships..." A better description might be that marriage has exposed many, many superficial, shallow relationships for the sordid reality of what they actually were in the first place.

Nice one! Too true!

[null and void]

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

You assume much. Perhaps the 15 yo's biological father refuses to give him up for addoption?

[Albion Wilde]

The government doesn't have the right to determine who may live with whom. That, under modern jurisdprudence, is contained within the fundamental right to privacy rooted in the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Like it or not, this is the law.)

In view that this is the law that has given us "penumbras", judicial activism, the legalization of homosexual behavior and now, clamour for gay marriage, most of us don't like it.

We are praying that W will get one or two more Supreme Court nominations before departing.

[Quick1]

Hah! good catch, I must have had a brain fart or something there. :)

[Hi Heels]

*shrug* I quit tryin' to figure stuff out a long time ago. It's possible that since the oldest child is from another Daddy that some of the family's income would be directly affected should the couple marry. I'm just sayin...... Can't think of any other reason two people with three kids and 13+ years between them wouldn't just make it legal. The comments don't bear fruit that they don't believe in marriage as an institution or because they don't believe in God or any other "established" excuse/reason for refusing legal committment. So, I can only guess it's the big buckaroos.

A friend of mine says that the next time she's thinking of getting married, she's going to save time and write the bozo a check for 1/2 of everything she owns up front and hit herself over the head with a cement brick after opening a vein. But, she's a bit cynical.

[Albion Wilde]

"There is no 'right to privacy' in the XIVth Amendment. Skip the Warren Court Mickey Mouse jurisprudence..." Says an anonymous poster on a chat board. Until the Supreme Court says differently, there is.

No, that would be the Griswold decision regarding birth control that you are thinking of, not a Constitutional amendment. It's a decision that, like Dred Scott, may see its day in court overturned.

[null and void]

Yeah, well, having been married can sour one on the institution.

[Quick1]

That's a good point. From my reading, I would guess that the city found out about it on their application for the permit. Also, a Board of Adjustments hearing is the first step towards taking it to court.

Personally, I hope they take the city for all they can get. Discriminatory practices put in place by a few church ladies who want to use building codes to stick their noses into other people's business isn't how any government should be running things.

[Albion Wilde]

Ah, so the couple that drunkenly decided to get married while they were in Vegas is much more committed to each other than this couple is. I mean, they are LEGALLY binded together!

One of the canards often trotted out in discussions such as these is the demand for perfection. Unless one side can show absolute perfection -- all marriages are perfect all the time -- the other side says that marriage isn't necessary, important, valid, et cetera.

Until the Supreme Court started messing with marriage big time in the 60s, marriage in American was virtually ubiquitous, with around 95% of the adult population married, and a divorce rate in the single digits.

Today's proponents of "free" love don't know what they're missing from when the entire culture supported marriage and people's homes and houses of worship were the center of the universe. It was wonderful. Many of us miss this very much, and mourn that our children and grandchildren are losing out. It wasn't just a culture of "me-me-me" all the time, but one of the community and the group and the nation, and what would be good for most people most of the time.

[lastchance]

You are right. The true purpose is to prevent homeowners from turning their properties into high occupancy rentals.
It would seem a special exception use should be applied for since the house will be owner occupied.

[Albion Wilde]

If, as your post says, the town officials questioned them about their relationship for an hour and then denied the permit, there must have been something off-kilter, such as the woman wanting to depend on child support payments for the oldest child that would cease if they got married to legitimize the two other children. Perhaps they need a course in financial management and birth control, so that they can get their "dream home" in line with their ability to pay for the number of children they claim to be the parents of.

[ahayes]

Apparently the oldest child is not the father's biological parent.

I think my brain just exploded. ROFL!