Very quickly, since I have to work later this morning... I would NOT support such laws/policies as they are as much a violation of rights as outlawing cohabitation itself is. A property owner has every right to do with HIS OWN property as he wills, period. It may be short sighted and foolish in the long run, but that is the owner's choice.
ALSO... every individual has exactly the same rights as everyone else, no more and no less. Your previous comments on rights and the Ninth Amendment are as wrong and bogus as two left shoes. See also my comment and definition of what a RIGHT really is. Rights cannot conflict. I have a right to cohabit (if my wife would allow it) or smoke wacky-tobacky (ditto on the allow part). You have a right not to associate with me in any way, if you choose, which includes not renting me an apartment or admitting me to your group. Is that clear enough for you? (if not, there's tomorrow, 'cause I'm outta here for the rest of the night.)
I appreciate your comments. You're a true libertarian. As i'm sure you know, I'm not one, but I do respect true libertarians for their consistency.
You stated that you would oppose a law to force a landlord to rent to a cohabiting couple, and would also oppose forcing a private organization to accept cohabitation against their will, But now that cohabitation has been declared to be a right, isn't the door wide open for laws which force people to accept it?
Once something is defined as a right, a hue and cry soon goes up to prohibit "discrimination" against its practitioners. Why should people be "discriminated" against for exercising their rights? Or so the argument goes.
The classic example of this is homosexuality. Libertarians joined liberals in taking homosexuality out of the closet. They thought they were promoting "freedom" and "rights" by doing so. They thought they were limiting the size of government. The original demand of the gay agenda crowd was to "get government out of our bedrooms". And so, sodomy laws were repealed. Local ordinances restricting gay bathhouses and clubs were removed. A decrease in the size of government, right?
Well, not quite. In many of those cases, the feds came in and violated local autonomy to accomplish these goals. Then, AIDS spread like wildfire in the bathhouse & club subcultures, which has cost the taxpayers an awful lot of money.
But that's just the beginning. Once homosexuality was out of the closet, it didn't practice the "live and let live" philosophy of the libertarians. Quite the opposite. The now liberated gay movement has pushed for more and more and more government at all levels. They've succeeded in passing anti-discrimination laws, forcing people to hire them and rent to them, even Christians whose property rights and religious liberty (actual rights from the actual Constitution, not one of these unenumerated fantasies) have to be restricted to accommodate the gays. Next, gays demanded that kids be taught homosexuality in school, and that any negative opinions about it be censored. They've pretty much got that one won. They came within a single vote on the Supreme Court of forcing the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters. A Democrat president or two will overturn that ruling and that will be the end of freedom of association as far as homosexuality is concerned.
Let's see. We're having to amend all our state constitutions to limit marriage to one man and one woman as direct fallout of all this. We'll either have to amend the federal constitution as well, or have to sit limply and watch as federal judges order us to sanction gay "marriage" nationwide. And we haven't even got started yet. After all, we're still late bloomers on all this gay stuff. Look at Canada, and Sweden, and Britain, and other nations where they "liberated" homosexuals a few years before we did. In Sweden, they secretly tape church sermons to monitor for violations of the law against speaking negatively about homosexuality. In Canada, a school teacher who wrote a letter to the editor opposing gay "marriage" is in danger of being fired. In Britain, they just passed a law forcing pub owners to permit gay kissing in their establishments. And we can't throw up any legal barriers to stop any of this. In Romer, the court barred us from doing that.
All this is coming soon to an America near you. Oh, it'll take a little longer because we have that pesky 1st Amendment, but that didn't stop the IRS from stripping churches of their tax exemption if they don't perform interracial marriages, and the same will eventually happen to churches that don't "marry" gay couples.
So, we repealed the laws against sodomy and celebrated the "decrease" in the size of government. But look at the exponential growth of government that sprang out of it. And a decade from now it'll be even worse. Imagine being a business owner and hosting a Valentine's Day special for couples, and failing to include gays. See you in court! Imagine running a dating service that doesn't accommodate gays. See you in court again! The growth in government that has come (and will come, because we're still early into this) from repealing those little state laws that banned sodomy has been enormous.
Wait'll the FCC rules that a certain percentage of TV commercials must feature gay couples, or that TV and radio stations which "offend" gays lose their licenses.
So, this little decrease in the size of government in North Carolina stemming from repeal of that 201 year old anti-cohabitation law, could easily blossom in another direction. And if history is judge, it probably will.