Posted on 05/17/2006 9:11:44 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
By far most of the comments on the blog follow along the lines of "Marriage is just a piece of paper!"
When exactly did that happen in our society? And do you guys think the three brides I saw this weekend know that their entire celebration is just for "a piece of paper"?
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?........
My thoughts exactly
Fondrey Loving ping!
ACLU to the rescue. I figure if the SC says it's constitutional for two men to have sex at home then it must be unconstitutional to deny people the "right" to live together without benefit of clery.
Wow, that may be fine in rural areas but in urban areas where rents are high people live together out of financial necessity.
Brothers in Christ should suffice.
Fondrey?
Unmarried parents living with their children: somewhat objectionable
Unmarried parents needing permission from the government to live with their children: Rediculous Buracracy.
The article doesn't say specifically, but implies they were moving into a privately owned residence (a five bedroom house).
Umm, so let's see what wins out here.
You'll have the conservative base whining about the state of America/Society for unmarried couples living together while in different thread would lament the government butting into our lives.
So which is it folks?
>>>Unmarried parents living with their children: somewhat objectionable
Unmarried parents needing permission from the government to live with their children: Rediculous Buracracy.>>>
Glad to see some common sense on this thread, I was doubtful!
"And do you guys think the three brides I saw this weekend know that their entire celebration is just for "a piece of paper"?"
It's also for the china and crystal and silver and sheets and towels and ice buckets and serving trays and candlesticks and knife sets and AllClad pots and pans and table linens and espresso machines and convection ovens and stuff like that.
Any of the three brides could have told you that!
"blood, marriage or adoption."
The way I read it; the mother is related to the children by blood, the father is related to the children by blood, the children are related to each other and the parents by blood. So what is the issue?
And the ice cream maker.
Never overlook the ice cream maker.
The mother and father aren't related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
I remember good old Fondrey! Too bad they haven't managed to resolve the situation.
It's not even worth the paper it's written on. As soon as either party changes their mind, the other party is SOL. If you complain, you'll be subject to the states wrath.
I overlooked the ice cream maker. I guess it depends on when you were married, what kind of loot you get. A friend of mine looked over my huge amount of stuff and wailed, "WHY did I get married when I was still a hippie?" :)
"denied an occupancy permit..."
What business is it of any government lackey how many people live in a home. As long as the residents are not disturbing their neighbors, then who even cares. Sounds to me like this couple tried to follow the law, when they should have ignored it.
This of course is more proof that the "righteous right" is as dangerous as the "looney left." Both groups want to use the force of government to enforce their preferred morals.
Of course, this couple tried to do more than many do, yet we get to see how the government mandated a lesser quality of life for the children, to the applause of the righteous.
I understand the mother and father are not related by blood. Not many mother's and father's are. But, how can they deny their own ordinance. The parents are related to the children and visa versa by blood. Period. Who are the children supposed to live with if not their blood parents?
OK... this is a freaking weird one.. I'm going to play devil's advocate a wee bit. The article says:
The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption."
Technically they don't fit that description. (I know someone is going to jump on me for this next one) If the landlord allows them, then why should he not allow 15 hispanics to move next door? And don't give me BS that they should check the papers.. it was never done before and won't be happening anytimesoon.
Don't get me wrong, kudos to them.. to stay together that long thru thick and thin, I applaud them. As far as living together.. I could give a whoopdedoo.. this time tho it seems a piece of paper has a little bite...
I have to agree with them on this case. The government has absolutely no right to tell you who is allowed to live on private property unless it becomes a public health problem (i.e. 50 people living in one house).
"What business is it of any government lackey how many people live in a home."
Well, if it keeps thirty illegal immigrant laborers from sharing a house in your neighborhood, you'd appreciate it.
If it is the former, the City Councilmen are acting foolishly. Passing laws prohibiting cohabitation means admitting your culture failed and now you have to use force.
I don't care how many people live in a house in my neighborhood. So long as they aren't disturbing the peace or causing damage to my property, I simply don't care.
Federal law can trump this, all they have to do is state that they are living there as a FAMILY.. doesn't matter what their blood relationship is, could be NONE... Federal Housing law prohibits the local government from doing anything the way its written.
If the people living their claim to be residing together as a family, even if they have no blood relation at all, they are protected under Federal Housing Codes... this town is about to get a HUGE JUDGEMENT AGAINST IT if it tries to enforce this.
This is a case of the law missing the mark. The correction is to change three people to three adults. As the law currently stands, three adults can live together in whatever sexually arrangement they desire, so the law was obviously not designed to control the morals of the occupants. Rather it poorly attempts to prevent multiple families from living in single family dwellings. Now I wonder who they could be targeting with such laws?
An occupancy permit is issued by the building dept. It applies to any structure intended, or used for human habitation. Could be a home, wharehouse, office, apt, ect... It means they found that the structure meets code requirments.
It seems like a silly thing to try and enforce. Don't they have anything better to worry about in that town?
No, I would say they've just scored themselves an indentured servant.
hmm.. I don't know if I agree with your statement. In a way this is actually cool from my viewpoint. The strongest government should be at the local level. If we are to have any form of government whatsoever. Really, that is what most affects us and we have the most control over. In this case it was the city council. (Please don't flame me, I'm not saying wheter the decision was right or wrong).
This idiocy won't stand a court challenge.
Hopefully, for the sake of the city's taxpayers, the city has insurance to cover legal expenses. Because someone is going to sue & easily win.
HA HA HA HA HA that's priceless...
Although, it might make your friend feel better to know that most of the...equipment we got has remained unused, and is just taking up space.
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.
I take it that you obtain it at the same place you obtain your travel papers.
So is a driver's license, an insurance card, a contract, a deed.
If marriage is 'just a piece of paper,' it's because the rights and privileges of the institution have been being pulled away for years now.
This town is full of Cr-p!
Lawsuit city if were me.
Nope! Wanna' take a guess as to why?
People can whine about umarried people cohabiting while simultaneously not wanting the government to step in and tell us who is allowed to live with whom.
There's no requirement for these people to live in Black Jack.
Cordially,
And BTW, I have no dog in this hunt so to speak. I do not, nor ever will have kids, a dog, cat, or even a house plant.
Thanks spunkets. I was thinking this was something completely separate from building code or should be so far as the structure was concerned. Appears a little too regulated on the surface. I suppose I should check into my own towns building code
Me too. I lived with my husband before we were married. Here in Sacramento they actually have confidential marriage licenses. They are not accessible by the general public. It was made for people who lived together and may want to keep their actual marriage date secret.
Indeed. Count me as one of them.
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.