Town won't let unmarried parents live together

CNN ^ | 5/17/2006 | AP

[ishabibble]

There was a Liberian woman in my old neighborhood who owned a three decker and actually tore out the top two kitchens to make more room for mattresses and piles of blankets on the floor. At least 50 people, including children, lived in that incredible pesthole. The pest control guy who was called by the appalled city health workers ran out of the place like he was being chased by the devil. Broad daylight and there were thousands of cockroaches all the way up the walls and mice running near the sleeping people. Nobody in the pest control business would do it, and the state threatened to condemn it. The morbidly obese Liberian woman cried, "BLACK" and that was the end of it. She climbed into her big Mercedes and went to her job at a state institution, where she is a head nurse.
I stood on the sidewalk all day and watched this happen.

My point is that there are poor people and there are filthy, disgusting animals. In the last 5 weeks, the Leftie MSM has made Mexicans the new bogeyman, and surprise surprise...look how many people want to line up for a free kick.
Here is my idea. If I were a Mexican being glared at, and threatened in my workplace, and made to feel that I was lower than the dirt on the ground, I'd call the cops and tell them that I am a black person. I tell them that my name is Shenequa Torres and I would refuse to produce any paperwork at all. I would scream "RACISM" at the top of my lungs until I had people arrested, a lawyer, and a huge civil rights case. I would say, black black black to every question, and I'd bet my eye teeth that, not only would I get away with it, I'd make some money off of it.

I am a middle aged white woman with red hair and blue eyes.
I bet I could do this same scenario and make it work. Why?
Because people today are stupid, and conditioned to fear the black race card, and if I screamed loud enough, some gov't parasite would help me. The minority leeches would take up my cause, and the civil rights clowns would have to back me on the outside chance that I maybe, might, just could have one single drop of black blood in my veins. Slippery slope?
We went down that in the 60's, now we're in black culture hell.

[Kirkwood]

"The mother and father aren't related by blood, marriage, or adoption."

Your interpretation means that everyone not married or adopted must then be blood relatives to everyone else living in the home. So that means a mother or father by marriage living in the home is not permitted. Likewise a child from a previous marriage is also not allowed to live there. A live-in nanny or caretaker is also not allowed. Some ordinances are just stupid and fail to match reality.

[spunkets]

The building code is what contains the occupancy rules.

[Diamond]

See # 63
There is a requirement in our Constitution that the officials in Blackjack support the Constitution as our supreme law.

I did see #63. That's what I was replying to. 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?

Cordially,

[Uddercha0s]

See my post # 80. you are right.. there is nothing in the Constitution denying their rights.. I beleive there was a little war over a disagreement like this...

[MBB1984]

Sorry, but there is nothing in the US Constitution stating that a local municipality cannot restrict who can live together. If I am wrong, please cite the applicable amendment. There might be some Federal legislation in this area, but I doubt it.

The Constitution only gives certain limited rights to its citizens to make them self governing or at least that was the intent of the Founders. It is up to the people to take it from there. The Constitution was not designed to offer protection and redress from the Courts against every silly law.

[Diamond]

So that means a mother or father by marriage living in the home is not permitted. A live-in nanny or caretaker is also not allowed. Some ordinances are just stupid and fail to match reality.

A mother or father by marriage, by definition, is related by marriage. The same would be true for a child from a previous marriage. The city only prohibits more than three unrelated people from living together. For the nanny, do the math.

Cordially,

[gdani]

....but what in the Constitution says that a municipality, consistent with the laws of the State of Missouri cannot have such an ordinance?

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court says they can't and - practically speaking - that's all they need to know.

Moore vs. City of East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494 (1977)

As I said before, I hope the taxpayers of Black Jack aren't stuck footing the bill on the eventual lawsuit.

[astoundedlib]

I don't understand why two unmarried parent living uinder the same hood is not okay?

please i need some insigts or clarification...

Best regards.

[Diamond]

The Constitution only gives certain limited rights to its citizens to make them self governing or at least that was the intent of the Founders

One disagreement with you here; the Constitution does not give rights, and it does not limit them or take them away. Rights are intrinsic and inalienable. Rights do not come from government. The Constitution does recognize the rights of the People, but The Constitution's purpose was to grant certain, limited, enumerated Powers to the Federal government.

Cordially,

[doc30]

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.

So you are saying that the government should use the full force of law to establish Christian lifestyles? So everyone living there must legally abide by whatever interpretation of Chrisitanity the town finds acceptable? What are they going to do? Force conversions at gunpoint? Sounds more like totalitarianism than a free society. The town can ask, but they have no right to discriminate housing based on the family relationship. That is against federal housing laws and the town will lose big time in court.

[Protagoras]

A government without any religious moral standards is, well, exactly what we have today; a nation of lawlessness with inverted, perverted, twisted GOVERNMENT-INVENTED "morals" being forced down our throats, like homosexual 'marriage', five ILLEGAL ALIEN families living in a one bedroom apartment, 'assisted' suicide, abortion on demand, drive-through divorce, multi culturalism, 'tolerance', feminism, legalized pornography, legalized prostitution;

Right, what we need is a faith based government that enforces it's morals for all.

Some countries already have it.

Iran comes to mind.

[colorado tanker]

Actually, the purpose of these zoning ordinances has nothing to do with government imposing morality. They're enacted to keep a neighborhood single family residential and to keep values up by preventing multiple families from living in one residence.

[Diamond]

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court says they can't and - practically speaking - that's all they need to know.

The Supreme court said no such thing. From your cite:

(a) This case is distinguishable from Belle Terre, supra, where the ordinance affected only unrelated individuals. The ordinance here expressly selects certain categories of relatives who may live together and declares that others may not, in this instance making it a crime for a grandmother to live with her grandson. Pp. 498-499.

Perhaps you know something the Missouri Court of Appeals doesn't know.

Cordially,

[ConsistentLibertarian]

And government recording of the phone numbers and times at which unmarried parents calls their children living elsewhere and doing so secretly, without a warrant, and without any kind of oversight whatsoever: Criminal, and yet another proof of why a free people must never surrender their right to bear arms as a warning to, and defence against, a government creeping towards tyranny.

[jpsb]

"were denied an occupancy permit"

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.

[Diamond]

Right, what we need is a faith based government that enforces it's morals for all.

Can you explain to me how there can be a government that is not based on faith, so to speak, in one system of morality or another, (take your pick) and futher, how any government can exist without enforcement of it's morality, whatever that morality is?

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

Cordially,

[gdani]

The Supreme court said no such thing

Try taking a broader reading of the ruling and reviewing what SCOTUS said about municipalities defining "family" as it relates to living arrangements and local laws enforcing such. That's the whole point.

[atomicpossum]

What the heck is an occupancy permit?

Occupancy permits are generally issued by municipalities to ensure compliance with building and maintainance and appearance codes. I'm actually surprised so many people have never heard of them.

Please tell me the government does not have the power to deny someone the right to live in thier home.

Well, among other powers, there's the power of condemnation...

[jpsb]

I understand government not allowing people to live in unsafe/unsantitary housing. That is somewhat understandable, but that does not appear to be the case here.