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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-274 next last
To: Quick1

These are crazy rules designed to avoid thrity five illegal immigrants from setting up shop in a neighborhood house.


61 posted on 02/23/2006 2:20:21 PM PST by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crucis Country
They certainly had to go far to shop this story---Watertown, New York!

The article mentions the St. Louis Post Dispatch. My guess is the Watertown TV station picked up the UPI story as a "get-a-load-o'-those-crazy-red-staters" piece.

Lone Jack is a very small town about 40 miles east of Kansas City.

Black Jack is an upper-middle class (if memory serves) town about 12 miles north of St. Louis.

62 posted on 02/23/2006 2:20:36 PM PST by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jude24

There is no "right to privacy" in the XIVth Amendment. Skip the Warren Court Mickey Mouse jurisprudence.


63 posted on 02/23/2006 2:20:40 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
Olivia and Fondray are men's names now?

No, "Fondray" is a man, since the article says he's not the *father* of one of Olivia's children. And I'm assuming that the Mayor of Black Jack, "Normal," is also a man.

64 posted on 02/23/2006 2:21:21 PM PST by Tax-chick (My remark was stupid, and I'm a slave of the patriarchy. So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Why does that matter? You keep talking about whether or not a couple that isn't married can be committed. Some couples don't want to get married, some don't want children, some don't want either. Why is it your business to decide whether or not they can buy a house together?


65 posted on 02/23/2006 2:21:23 PM PST by Quick1 (Censorship: the worst obscenity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
You may choose to rebel against societal norms, but don't lecture those of us who stand up for the historic institution of marriage.

Sorry bud, but there is no real commitment without a legal relationship together.
66 posted on 02/23/2006 2:21:43 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Galveston Grl

4 people is considerably lower than 35.


67 posted on 02/23/2006 2:22:18 PM PST by Quick1 (Censorship: the worst obscenity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Galveston Grl
These are crazy rules designed to avoid thrity five illegal immigrants from setting up shop in a neighborhood house.

You can draft a much more tight ordinance to deal with such a situation. Limit occupancy to x number of people per bedroom or some such.

68 posted on 02/23/2006 2:22:34 PM PST by Potowmack ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: wideawake
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.

70 posted on 02/23/2006 2:22:57 PM PST by jude24 ("Thy law is written on the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
And why aren't they married?

Probably they need time to think it over and decide if it's right for them.

LOL!

Brutally hilarious

71 posted on 02/23/2006 2:23:20 PM PST by daivid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

That's another possibility. One of my Mom's friends (now in her 70's) hasn't married the man she's been "with" (they don't live together) for at least 10 years, because she wants her ex to keep paying. She hates his guts, with some justification.


72 posted on 02/23/2006 2:23:26 PM PST by Tax-chick (My remark was stupid, and I'm a slave of the patriarchy. So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

This must be public housing.


73 posted on 02/23/2006 2:23:40 PM PST by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

I don't see how any town can have laws against "toys" after the activist supreme court ruling (which eliminated all sodomy laws, not just those that "discriminated" against same sex pairings).

They claim obscenity but even when same sex sodomy was illegal in Texas (and defined as deviant in the law), same sex porn was not obscene in the state.


74 posted on 02/23/2006 2:24:06 PM PST by weegee ("Remember Chappaquiddick!"-Paul Trost (during speech by Ted Kennedy at Massasoit Community College))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

The govt. is not deciding anything.

It is their choice whether or not to get married.

But, they should know that the govt. will consider their choice to be less than desirable.

Theologically, they are also living in sin.


75 posted on 02/23/2006 2:24:50 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

"Why is it your business to decide whether or not they can buy a house together?"

If it was MY house it would be my business. Why is it anyones business who I can sell or rent to?


76 posted on 02/23/2006 2:24:53 PM PST by BadAndy (The DemocRATs are the enemy's most effective weapon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
You may choose to rebel against societal norms, but don't lecture those of us who stand up for the historic institution of marriage.

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!
77 posted on 02/23/2006 2:24:56 PM PST by Quick1 (Censorship: the worst obscenity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
Why does that matter?

In other words, there are none.

Not much of an adult relationship - sounds like a first year out of college that's lasting two decades and counting.

Why is it your business to decide whether or not they can buy a house together?

I personally wouldn't care if Olivia and Fondray lived next to me as long as they behaved. But I sure would feel sorry for the kids.

78 posted on 02/23/2006 2:25:23 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BadAndy

It's not YOUR house, or anyone else's house. It's their house, adn they legally bought it.


79 posted on 02/23/2006 2:25:24 PM PST by Quick1 (Censorship: the worst obscenity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Potowmack
Limit occupancy to x number of people per bedroom or some such.

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

80 posted on 02/23/2006 2:25:26 PM PST by Tax-chick (My remark was stupid, and I'm a slave of the patriarchy. So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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