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.
Here is the case I was thinking about. A federal court ruled the ban UNconstitutional.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/776783/posts
Your giving more weight to the legal contract of marriage (that's what it is for government purposes) than to the family that has stayed together for over a decade. Nice priorities.
I agree. These zoning rules are fairly common, for the purpose of keeping a neighborhood's character single-family homes.
But I am guessing that the couple did not know about this little fly in the ointment. The Township was willing to take their money for building permit fees, the real estate agents were willing to take their money to purchase the land and/or home, if a contractor was involved he was willing to take the money to build the house. But once everything as been inspected and a Certificate of Occupancy is sought they get the news that living there would violate local zoning ordinance. I doubt the couple will recoup their full costs if they have to sell. I don't agree with their living arrangement but can not see how it would degrade the quality of life in tightassville.
Did you ever read the 9th Amendment?
Rights exist without being enumerated.
The law is to prevent unrelated people from living in a residential, ie. "family neighborhood" as too often this results in multiple residents in an area where there are families. It may be too narrow to allow for some of the new definitions of "family" that have come about recently, but it does have a reason. I would think they could get married after 13 years, at least a commom-law marriage, to move into the house they want. Maybe the town should redefine the law to allow them, but still prevent a multiple occupancy by unrelated persons.
This goes to one of the basic premises of American conservatives, who as a group, according to the Pew Research group, tend to contian more religious people than does the liberal group. Religious people view mankind as basically sinful and in need of the salvation offered by God. Having this realistic view of mankind, they make laws in key areas of society to protect innocent children from parents who are not really all that committed.
One of the hallmarks of leftists is believing that people are basically good, and also that it's OK to use government to force the redistribution of income and to redefine family, religious belief, the meaning of words, and other issues that arise to suit the agenda of the ruling elites. (Elites good, people good = people behave like good little sheep for the benefit of the Firsts Among Equals.)
This formula has been in use in the United States since the 60s, during which time the rates of illegitimacy, divorce, fatherlessness, spouse and child abuse, child endangerment, child abandonment, child rape, child pornography, poor school performance, child crime, child gun murders and poor child health among all children in the U.S. have risen alarmingly to rates not even seen among poor blacks prior to the "freedom"-oriented judicial activism of the 60s with regard to marriage and sexuality.
Based on results, which group's view of humankind is more beneficial to society?
Actually, no. It was the Village of Belle Terre that tried to intrude and force unmarrieds out of housing. The owners fought it and the Supreme Court decided that it wasn't any business of the Village if the occupants were married.
Well until they do,(if they do) its still the law
Because people in a political state should get to vote on changes to marriage law, not have them handed down by the judicial elites.
Precisely. I would gladly vote in favor of same-sex marriage.
But I won't have it imposed upon my state via judicial fiat.
BTTT
Well said.
Leaps of logic abound. Insults. Assumptions about character. Why not just hang them as witches too while we're at it?
I believe that marriage is a good thing, but it's not for everyone and it's nobody's business, least of all the damn government's.
Marriage is an institution recognized by all major religions and by the laws of the land. If some far-out free-love atheists and/or leftist kooks want to change the laws, then you win the elections and put in place people who legislate the way you want. Not leftist whacko judges who legislate from the bench, but real elected lawmakers.
calex59 may hate Christians and "their morality", but it does not make him right, as shown by his use of the self-descriptive term "assh**les".
It would seem to me that they do. The mom is blood related to everyone but the dad. The dad is blood related to 3 of the kids, who are blood related to the mom and the other kid. It seems kind-of silly.
"There are minor children in the home whose welfare is clearly not the parents' primary concern."
And yet as a rule, the court would award joint coustody to both parents if they lived separate and apart.
Ah, the libertine libertarians! They really keep the tone elevated around here. (Not to mention the thoughtful way they advance the discussion by citing all the relevant studies of the issue.)
So said opponents of repeal of the Jim Crow laws.
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.