Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State Can't Ban Living Together, Judge Rules
ClickonDetroit ^ | July 20, 2006 | AP

Posted on 07/23/2006 4:57:08 AM PDT by ShadowDancer

State Can't Ban Living Together, Judge Rules

POSTED: 1:51 pm EDT July 20, 2006

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A judge says North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional.

The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union brought a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of former Pender County sheriff's dispatcher Deborah Hobbs.

Hobbs lived with her boyfriend and quit her job in 2004 after Sheriff Carson Smith demanded she marry her boyfriend or move out if she wanted to work for him.

State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling Wednesday, citing a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case which struck down a Texas sodomy law.

Jennifer Rudinger of the ACLU of North Carolina said that decision stands for the idea that the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.

A spokeswoman for State Attorney General Roy Cooper said lawyers were reviewing the decision and there's been no decision yet on whether to file an appeal.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: churchandstate; govwatch; judiciary; ruling; victory4fornication; victory4sluts; victory4vice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2006 4:57:09 AM PDT by ShadowDancer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer

I'm not going to try to defend the law. The problem is that the ACLU and their political wing, the federal courts are on jihad to toss out our traditions and ways of life.


2 posted on 07/23/2006 5:06:43 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer
Jennifer Rudinger of the ACLU of North Carolina said that decision stands for the idea that the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.

I'm sure it affects interstate commerce... reduces the demand for wedding cake ingredients presumed to be shipped across state lines, for instance. ;^)

3 posted on 07/23/2006 5:07:29 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer
I thought judges can only interpret and rule on the constititionality of law as it implies. This must mean then the following is no longer true ...

1,049 federal rights depend on marital status. What the privilege of marriage buys you.

After being in a romantic partnership for almost eight years, after living together for four years, after jointly purchasing property, sharing bills and income, after having a ceremony during which we publicly declared our commitment to one another in front of all our friends and family, Terra and I are still denied 1,049 federal rights automatically granted to heterosexual, married couples. Rest of article can be found at: http://scribbling.net/1049-federal-rights-depend-on-marital-status Some of those rights include:

4 posted on 07/23/2006 5:10:52 AM PDT by moonman (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford is not a federal judge. On the other hand he knows what he likes.


5 posted on 07/23/2006 5:19:37 AM PDT by muawiyah (-/sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: moonman
1,049 federal rights depend on marital status.

Beep. Circle takes the square. Those are federal privileges, not rights. A right is something that, when exercised, puts no onus or obligation on another person.

That being said, "free association" is a right. Regardless of the religious or moral implications, these folks cohabitation has not engendered an obligation on the part of a third party.

6 posted on 07/23/2006 5:20:43 AM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Junior
That being said, "free association" is a right.

Unless it is an all male golf club.

7 posted on 07/23/2006 5:25:38 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: moonman

Can I ask why you went through all of that but did not marry?


8 posted on 07/23/2006 5:30:07 AM PDT by ShadowDancer (No autopsy, no foul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Belonging to a club that doesn't want you isn't a right.


9 posted on 07/23/2006 5:42:10 AM PDT by clyde asbury (Andante con moto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

It's still a right, regardless of what the government declares.


10 posted on 07/23/2006 5:42:11 AM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer

The 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case was a terrible injustice because the constitution gives the federal govt. zero jurisdiction over individules and their activity within a state. Basically what the court did was violate citizens P&I's in the right to govern themselves.



11 posted on 07/23/2006 5:42:30 AM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer
The problem is the court's overreaching.

This may well be a "dumb" law. But unconstitutional?

Let the legislature - the people's representatives - decide this.

But this program of "interpreting" rights into (and out of) the Constitution is fast making it unrecognizable. All because of a very small number of litigants, lawyers and judges.
12 posted on 07/23/2006 5:49:06 AM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Free association applies in both directions, for the individual and for the group.
13 posted on 07/23/2006 5:50:10 AM PDT by clyde asbury (Andante con moto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer

More than likely because the guy wont marry her. he lacks commintment. She is only fooling herself. One day if sh pushes him he will leave.


14 posted on 07/23/2006 5:57:58 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Unless it is an all male golf club.

*cOuGh*

More accurately that would be, 'an all male PRIVATE golf club' owned by PRIVATE members who decide who their members shall be to their PRIVATE club.

Of course there are those who don't believe in the ownership of PRIVATE property and would disagree.
15 posted on 07/23/2006 5:59:25 AM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
What this country needs is more people shacking up together.

Oprah and Phil Donahue and all the lib freaks have run a million shows declaring the virtue of living like a fornicating dog.

Filty people support filthy people, and declare it a victory for virtue, as in godless hedonism.

16 posted on 07/23/2006 6:00:08 AM PDT by gunsofaugust (Moral liberals are the most repulsive excrement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gunsofaugust

You're equating living together with godless hedonism? Wow, your brain does some serious yoga bends, doesn't it?


17 posted on 07/23/2006 6:06:00 AM PDT by ShadowDancer (No autopsy, no foul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: clyde asbury
"Belonging to a club that doesn't want you isn't a right."

It read as sarcasm to me.

 

18 posted on 07/23/2006 6:24:31 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer
I am assuming "living together" was meant in terms of living in fornication. Not just living under the same roof in celibacy.

The Church has always taught that sex that is not within the bounds of marriage, is fornication.

19 posted on 07/23/2006 6:26:27 AM PDT by gunsofaugust (Moral liberals are the most repulsive excrement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer
A judge says North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional.

And he has just discovered it! For 201 years North Carolina must have had stupid judges.

(I hope he is referring to the North Carolina Constitution, because it's pretty tough to find anything about this in the Federal Constitution.)

ML/NJ

20 posted on 07/23/2006 6:34:09 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 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