Skip to comments.Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parents
Posted on 05/24/2006 8:54:29 AM PDT by tbird5
A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family.
The brewing controversy in Black Jack, a town of 6,800 in the central state of Missouri, began unfolding earlier this year when Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a four-bedroom house they had purchased.
Local officials told the couple that the fact they were not married and had three children, one from Shelltrack's previous relationship, did not fit the town's definition of "family".
A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".
The couple were then left with the option of getting married, packing their bags and leaving town, or putting up a fight, which is what they decided to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
They have two kids. What are they trying to prove by not getting married?
Wonder how this one will play out at the SCOTUS.
They don't want to be "tied down"... -sarc
They are aspiring to become Hollywood movie stars?
That they are free?
"Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving"
.....with names like that.....
...Oh, never mind.....
This is nothing more than a poorly crafted law which misses the intended target, multiple families living in one house, i.e. illegal aliens from Mexico. A simple change to the law will fix the problem for unmarried couples. Of course, that wouldn't make such an inflammatory newspaper article.
>>>They have two kids. What are they trying to prove by not getting married?>>>
This is America, how is it your business?
I've been following this for a while, since it's kinda local. The question I have, and one which hasn't been brought up in public, is this--There are only two unrelated people in that "family"--the two parents. The kids all are related to both of them. How can this ordinance be enforced against this couple?
Jeeze this town didn't make the kids feel bad enough did they? What century are the inhabitants of this town living in?
I have no problem with this law and if the couple can't abide by the rules, well this is AMERICA, so move!
This has all to do with their warped view of unmarried parents and nothing to do with blood.
Without making a comment about the law itself, I would say that it's being applied in this case because not EVERYONE in the group is related. IOW, the law probably says that everyone in a house with more than three people in it must be related in some fashion. Everyone. Not that three or more must be related, but everyone must be related if there are more than three people in a house.
I'm totally confused. If they have two kids together then aren't they related by blood? The parents would never be related by blood...I would hope.
I understand the reasoning behind this enforcement, but my point was (and I guess I wasn't very clear), why isn't their lawyer pointing this out? I would think that they would be able to win this very easily in court.
You need an occupancy permit for a house you've bought? I'm not much for unmarried couples shacking up, but I fail to see how it's the town's business.
To me, the objectionable part is the government requiring an occupancy permit. The idea that one has to get a permit from the government to occupy a house they own is ludicrous. Almost as bad as the government being able to take away your house and land and give it to someone else.
Both destroy the concept of private property, a cornerstone of our way of life.
"I have no problem with this law and if the couple can't abide by the rules, well this is AMERICA, so move!"
What a ghastly comment.
They purchased the house according to the article. How is it American to have an occupancy law that says they cannot live in their own home?