Posted on 07/20/2006 10:13:56 AM PDT by SmithL
Raleigh, N.C. -- A state judge has ruled that North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued last year to overturn the rarely enforced law on behalf of a former sheriff's dispatcher who says she had to quit her job because she wouldn't marry her live-in boyfriend.
Deborah Hobbs, 40, says her boss, Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, near Wilmington, told her to get married, move out or find another job after he found out she and her boyfriend had been living together for three years. The couple did not want to get married, so Hobbs quit in 2004.
State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling late Wednesday, saying the law violated Hobbs' constitutional right to liberty. He cited the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case titled Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law.
"The Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas stands for the proposition that the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home," Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
"You evidently failed to read my post: "Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto.""
There are too many variables in that situation to draw any conclusions as to the cause for the problems of the ghetto.
Again, there are many unmarried people who live together in this society. Not all live in ghettos. So, show me the harm of that one, single factor.
And, in case you wonder, I'm a married man.
The wisest response is often not the most appreciated. Obviously, some folks have the convenience of their desires and priorities ahead of the stability of their children, grandchildren and absolutely forget the society in general. You´re right.
Right, but how do you base a coherent jurisprudence on unwritten laws without just making things up as you go along?
I also doubt the right to fornicate is existent, let alone fundamental.
You are right.
The radical libertarians have come crawling out of their holes to attack you on this one.
ANY sociaety has a RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITy to establish standards of acceptable behavior.
The fact that this law was on the books for 200 years AS WELL AS SIMILAR laws all over the nation, indicates that the Founding Fathers who WROTE our Constitution had no problem with them.
But our radical liberal courts, with some help from the anti-western ACLU, suddenly "discvovered" a new right - the right to live like swine.
As you so well point out, SO MANY of our societal problems today spring from illegitimate births - violence, welfare costs, lack of moral standards, no sense of community or patriotism, lack of the concept of honor, etc. etc. All of these have roots, in whole or in part, in the disintegration of the nuclear family, the basic building block of any civilized society.
Idiotic decisions by Federal Courts like this one are indeed contributing to the collapse of western civilization.
You're correct. Rulings such as this transfer power from the people to the judges. This is the effect of the "unenumerated right to privacy" created by the Supreme Court in Griswold. Does it mean we have a right to do ANYTHING we want in private? No, but it transfers the power of determination from the voters to the judges. All the "unenumerated right to privacy" means is that we can do anything in private that judges approve of. If we're doing something in private they don't approve of, then suddenly the right to privacy vanishes.
Watch how fast liberal judges uphold bans on smoking in the privacy of one's home when they start to come down. Ditto for when liberals start to regulate what we eat, and someday they will, believe me.
Cohabitation isn't "taking the place" of anything here. This is a 40-year-old woman with no plans for marriage. The article doesn't mention any kids. Rent everywhere is expensive. The only thing cohabitation may be "taking the place" of in this instance is a 40-something couple still living with their parents. Not the end of civilization.
But...Its for the chiiiiiildren!
This thread looks like trouble!
You think maybe it might be part of "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness"?
So an unmarried coupel who live together are jewish? I don't get it. A ghetto is a jewish slum.
there is still a law in Las Vegas that prohibits cohabitation with a prostitute. Charles Bush strangled himself in 1992 when he found out and was busted by the Bad Boys...
go check a ghetto. tell me how many co-habitaing couples there are.
you're not gonna find many, you will, however, find single moms by the score. you wanna find cohabitation, look at middle class white people in the suburbs. most of the ones who have and raise kids are just fine.
what you're pointing at is the breakdown of family values due to indiscriminate sex. people out "having fun" who end up as single parents.
coupel should have read couple. I swear, I really do know how to spell, just can't type.
Single folks raising kids alone is bad.
Two adults raising kids together is good.
We agree.
Whether they are 'married' is nobody's business.
BUT!!! Sometimes single parents raisingkids alone is better than married couples raising kids if either of the married parents is abusive or otherwise sucks as a parent. I know a lot of really good, hardworking single parents, and some excellent unmarried couples raising kids together, and some really crappy married coupels raising kids.
To say that married couples raising kids is always better, I'd have to disagree. OK, yeah, 60+ of the time or so, yeah, it's better.
My life would have been different (and better) if I'd been raised in a single parent house.
You evidently failed to read my post: "Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto."
---
I personally know many couples who live together. None of them are from a ghetto.
Judges updating constitutions as they see fit is not "getting it right". "Everybody does it" is not an excuse for judicial legislation.
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.