Town won't let unmarried parents live together

CNN ^ | 5/17/2006 | AP

[bigLusr]

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

[Protagoras]

If you've ever gotten a speeding ticket you will know that "enforcement of morality" is not limited to authoritarian Islamic dictatorships.

I've seen that kind of stretch before. I'm not even going to dignify that kind of thing. If you want to address real points, I'd be happy to. If you actually want to argue that speeding is a moral issue in this context, we will never, ever have a meaningful discussion.

[drjimmy]

What the heck is an occupancy permit? Please tell me the government does not have the power to deny someone the right to live in thier home.

Occupancy permits are in part designed to prevent homeowners from living in an unsafe home. An inspection is done to make sure the wiring is proper and building materials are up to snuff. On a broader level, they are used--along with zoning laws--to prevent one property owner from impinging on the safety and property values of neighbors. It stops someone, for instance, from occupying a barn and calling it a "home" where people live, even though it doesn't have plumbing, etc. Likewise, zoning stops someone from turning their house into a factory. Because of their higher population density, most incorporated villages and cities have zoning laws; many towns do not.

[Lunatic Fringe]

I didn't realize we were living in Puritan America circa 1697!

What business is it of the city if two people are married or not? Government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

[Lunatic Fringe]

So what is the issue?

Uptight Christians, I wager.

[Kellis91789]

It will prevent all of the following:

1) A live-in nanny.
2) A group of college students from sharing a house.
3) A family renting a room to a boarder.
4) Taking in displaced Katrina victims.
5) etc.

I don't think there should be any restrictions as long as there is at least one bedroom and one bathroom for every two people, and those rooms meet some minimum size requirement.

[pnz1]

So were they supposed to get the occupancy before moving into the home?

[BritExPatInFla]

A couple shacking up and having babies out of wedlock, and refusing to marry, aren't practicing Christianity in any way, shape or form. They way they are living seems to be violating Jesus Christ's most emphatic teachings and commandments on marrige, adultery and fornication.

I think the Town is absolutely right in asking them to get married to legitimize their family and bring a respectable example into the community. If more Towns had this courage then we'd see a lot less of this sort of degredation of the family, (and the female body), in America.

You're assuming that they even consider themselves Christian. It's none of the town or its' residents' business if the couple is married. Infact, all of them are related by blood, as they share common children. How about this slippery slope. The town decreeing that they be married and/or live as a family in a 'Christian' way is the first step in setting a state decreed religion.

[Diamond]

I've seen that kind of stretch before

The stretch is in comparing any government that owes its roots to Judeo Christian principle with an Islamic dictatorship.

I'm not even going to dignify that kind of thing. If you want to address real points, I'd be happy to.

In other words, you cannot cite me a law that does not have, or purport to have, some moral foundation to it, speeding included.

Cordially,

[pnz1]

http://www.cityofblackjack.com/default.asp?sectionID=42&MENUID=736&pageID=10114&lMnu=
Press release from the City of Black Jack

[tpaine]

The representatives have no constitutional power to dictate who can live together as a family, and have sworn an oath to support the US Constitution as our supreme law.
-- Thus they are restricted in this instance to reasonably regulating zoning issues, health & safety codes, etc.

1. Define "family".

That's part of the point. Representatives have no power to define/dictate what is a family.

2. The representative's are not even purporting to dictate who can live together as a family. They have simply legislated certain occupancy requirements for living in Black Jack.

Bull. Thats not what the article says.

There is no requirement for these people to live in Black Jack.

Wrong. - There is no power to deny them living in Blackjack.

There is, however, a legal defintion of the word "family".

Just above you said the opposite; they are dictating "who can live together as a family".

The burden of proof is on the one who wants to change it.

Not true, -- they can petition for redress against an unconstitutional law. [see the 1st] This they will do, and win...

Yes, they can, but they will probably not win. See #65.

Apparently, the USSC refused to hear that issue, just as they refuse to hear infringements on our RKBA's. -- This is not a "win".

Defending liberty is everyones business.

Define "liberty".

I doubt you are capable of accepting any definition compatible to our Constitution, - so I won't bother.

[Protagoras]

I don't need you to say "in other words". My words were very understandable.

The stretch is in comparing any government that owes its roots to Judeo Christian principle with an Islamic dictatorship.

Since I never did that, it wasn't a stretch by me.

Now go sell that nonsenical speeding laws are moralist laws to someone who actually wants to chase his tail.

You want to talk about morality in government? Let's, but that other BS is off the table.

As an unabashed Christian, I don't concede anything in these discussions.

Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.

[Red Badger]

Any government official down here who proposed such a abomination would be the guest of honor at a necktie party.......

[Diamond]

Representatives have no power to define/dictate what is a family.

Sez who?

Cordially,

[tpaine]

I agree that the officials in Blackjack support the Constitution as our supreme law, but what in the Constitution says that a municipality, consistent with the laws of the State of Missouri cannot have such an ordinance?

The 14th says so. Laws in Missouri cannot deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process of law. --- The ordinance in question clearly deprives the two unrelated/unmarried parents of the right to live in a five bedroom house with their children.

Due process has been ignored in both the writing and in enforcing such an unreasonable 'law'.

[KoRn]

Crazy......

[Diamond]

Case closed.

Not so fast. I'm not sure in what sense you mean that the Bible "allows" slavery. It was a fact of history, to be sure, and still is in some places. I do know that the 13th Amendment was passed in large part to Christians such as William Wilberforce, and the abolitionists justifications for its prohibition in America were almost entirely moral in nature.

Cordially,

[tpaine]

Uddercha0s wrote:

.. there is nothing in the Constitution denying their rights.. I beleive there was a little war over a disagreement like this...

And shortly after that war, the 14th was ratified, preventing States from ignoring our Constitutional rights when writing & enforcing laws.

[Dominic Harr]

It will prevent all of the following:

And -- it will *allow* 2 people with one child to shack up together no problem. "3 or more".

You can live in sin in that town, just don't have more than 1 kid.

This issue is one of those that seperates the 'conservatives' from the 'liberals'.

If you feel govt should have this power, you are a liberal.