[Jacquerie]

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.

[Grut]

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. ;^)

[moonman]

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:

[AZRepublican]

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.

[cvq3842]

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.

[ml/nj]

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

[Wolfie]

Out of the boardroom, and into the bedroom. Gotta love it.

[uptoolate]

201-year-old law"

201 years!!!!

This law went unnoticed or challenged for 201 years!!!!

What kind of a people would have created a law like that?

Those people 201 years ago knew absolutly nothing about law and the Constitution.

I didn't realize that all of the the framers of the Constitution were all dead 14 years after the signing of said document.

Surely had they been alive at the time of this law, they would have not allowed it to exist.

Or if they were alive, they were the most ignorant represenatives the people have ever known.

[rawhide]

Deborah Hobbs, age 40.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don't mind it being legal. What I want is for it to be legal for a landlord to refuse to rent to unmarried couples.

[Toby06]

Good, that rule is retarded anyway!