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.
These are crazy rules designed to avoid thrity five illegal immigrants from setting up shop in a neighborhood house.
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.
There is no "right to privacy" in the XIVth Amendment. Skip the Warren Court Mickey Mouse jurisprudence.
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.
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?
4 people is considerably lower than 35.
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.
Says an anonymous poster on a chat board. Until the Supreme Court says differently, there is.
Probably they need time to think it over and decide if it's right for them.
LOL!
Brutally hilarious
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.
This must be public housing.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
It's not YOUR house, or anyone else's house. It's their house, adn they legally bought it.
Great - they'd probably make my family (10 people in a 4-bedroom house) move out!
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.