Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parents
BREITBART.COM, ^ | May 23 2006 | unknown

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: moralabsolutes; talibornagain; theocracy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-428 next last

1 posted on 05/24/2006 8:54:33 AM PDT by tbird5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tbird5

They have two kids. What are they trying to prove by not getting married?


2 posted on 05/24/2006 8:56:17 AM PDT by Xenalyte (Anything is possible when you don't understand how anything happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbird5
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".

Wonder how this one will play out at the SCOTUS.

3 posted on 05/24/2006 8:56:45 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
They have two kids. What are they trying to prove by not getting married?

They don't want to be "tied down"... -sarc

4 posted on 05/24/2006 8:57:09 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
They have two kids. What are they trying to prove by not getting married?

They are aspiring to become Hollywood movie stars?

5 posted on 05/24/2006 8:58:13 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
They have two kids. What are they trying to prove by not getting married?

That they are free?

6 posted on 05/24/2006 8:59:15 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tbird5

"Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving"

.....with names like that.....

...Oh, never mind.....


7 posted on 05/24/2006 9:00:27 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbird5

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.


8 posted on 05/24/2006 9:00:57 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte

>>>They have two kids. What are they trying to prove by not getting married?>>>

This is America, how is it your business?


9 posted on 05/24/2006 9:02:02 AM PDT by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tbird5
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".

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?

10 posted on 05/24/2006 9:02:11 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbird5; All
did not fit the town's definition of "family".

Jeeze this town didn't make the kids feel bad enough did they? What century are the inhabitants of this town living in?

11 posted on 05/24/2006 9:04:12 AM PDT by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbird5
What selfish people. Refusing to give their children a committed, loving, stable relationship.

I have no problem with this law and if the couple can't abide by the rules, well this is AMERICA, so move!

12 posted on 05/24/2006 9:05:21 AM PDT by yellowdoghunter (Vote out the RINO's; volunteer to help get Conservative Republicans elected!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
The kids all are related to both of them. How can this ordinance be enforced against this couple?

This has all to do with their warped view of unmarried parents and nothing to do with blood.

13 posted on 05/24/2006 9:06:11 AM PDT by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

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.


14 posted on 05/24/2006 9:11:23 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tbird5; beaversmom
had three children

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.

15 posted on 05/24/2006 9:12:53 AM PDT by TXBubba ( Democrats: If they don't abort you then they will tax you to death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven; areafiftyone
...I would say that it's being applied in this case because not EVERYONE in the group is related.

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.

16 posted on 05/24/2006 9:13:43 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tbird5

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.


17 posted on 05/24/2006 9:15:22 AM PDT by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbird5
...were denied an occupancy permit ....

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.

18 posted on 05/24/2006 9:18:07 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter

"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.


19 posted on 05/24/2006 9:20:06 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter

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?


20 posted on 05/24/2006 9:20:57 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
To me, the objectionable part is the government requiring an occupancy permit.

That ruffled my feathers too. I've heard of occupancy permits for businesses (bad enough) but now permits for a house for personal use?

21 posted on 05/24/2006 9:21:53 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Julliardsux

"What selfish people. Refusing to give their children a committed, loving, stable relationship."

This comment is also ridiculous. You have no idea about their relationship. What, if the state blesses it with a marriage certificate, suddenly it is committed, loving and stable? horsefeathers.


22 posted on 05/24/2006 9:23:49 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Julliardsux
What a ghastly comment.

Usually only to those who are doing the same thing. It is terrible to let chilren see adults shacking up. This is America, the people of that town have a right to have the laws they wish, if they don't like it, they can change the law.

23 posted on 05/24/2006 9:24:06 AM PDT by yellowdoghunter (Vote out the RINO's; volunteer to help get Conservative Republicans elected!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot; SoDak; kenth
To me, the objectionable part is the government requiring an occupancy permit.

The occupancy permit indicates that the house has been inspected and is safe to live in. Since this was new construction, this ensures that the bulder/owner does not move into a partially completed home and then not complete it.

This is a state law, and I always assumed that every state has occupancy permits.

24 posted on 05/24/2006 9:24:17 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
How can this ordinance be enforced against this couple?

What I want to know is, how can this ordinance be enforced against anyone?
25 posted on 05/24/2006 9:24:18 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

I'm with you, the issue here is not the family configuration but the concept of an "occupancy permit" to live in one's own home.


26 posted on 05/24/2006 9:24:53 AM PDT by thoughtomator (A thread without a comment on immigration is not complete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter

You are being sarcastic, right?


27 posted on 05/24/2006 9:25:27 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
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'm not sure what there is to point out. If the law is as I described, then the two parents are not related (not blood relatives, obviously, and not related by marriage or adoption), and thus cannot occupy the house since they have more than one child together.

I'm not saying the law is right or just, I'm just saying how it's being enforced without a simple exemption being pointed out. After all, if there was a clear relation between the two parents, then the case wouldn't have gotten this far.

28 posted on 05/24/2006 9:26:27 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tbird5

Bush's fault.


29 posted on 05/24/2006 9:26:43 AM PDT by YourAdHere (Bradypalooza. Available at Amazon.Com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenth

this is ridiculous. how exactly should ANYONE need an occupancy permit? i don't care if they are married or not. sounds more like an out of control homeowners association than a government. does Missouri have a state constitution that allows common law anything?


30 posted on 05/24/2006 9:26:53 AM PDT by applpie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
This is America,

----------------------------------------

One wonders how you recognized it, based on your comments.

31 posted on 05/24/2006 9:28:00 AM PDT by wtc911 (You can't get there from here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

No, I find nothing sarcastic about giving children a loving, committed, stable home. Children need married parents, hopefully the two parents that made them.


32 posted on 05/24/2006 9:28:08 AM PDT by yellowdoghunter (Vote out the RINO's; volunteer to help get Conservative Republicans elected!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
They have two kids. What are they trying to prove by not getting married?

-----------------------------------------------------

Maybe that they don't give a hoot what you think since it really is none of your business.

33 posted on 05/24/2006 9:29:08 AM PDT by wtc911 (You can't get there from here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wtc911

I guess for you it is only America if the laws suit you. Why doesn't this town have a right to the laws it wants? You don't HAVE to live there, you can move.


34 posted on 05/24/2006 9:29:14 AM PDT by yellowdoghunter (Vote out the RINO's; volunteer to help get Conservative Republicans elected!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

See post 23, YDH is not being sarcastic.

I am sorry, but the answer to this debate (nor ANY debate) is not "well, nyuck nyuck, shucks folks, that's da law, an' if ya don't like it, y'all can leave". I guess the slavery debate could have ended there, huh? Or maybe gun control law debates - "Hey, if ya want a gun, that's fine, just move".

right.

And I am pretty sure that YDH accused me of shacking up because I thought his/her comment was idiotic. Insightful. Wrong.


35 posted on 05/24/2006 9:30:06 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
This is America, the people of that town have a right to have the laws they wish,

Umm, better go brush up on the constitution. Then brush up on your common sense.

36 posted on 05/24/2006 9:30:16 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter

If you do not see the problem in the state telling anybody where they may or may not live based solely on marital status then it is you my friend who does not understand America.


37 posted on 05/24/2006 9:32:14 AM PDT by wtc911 (You can't get there from here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kenth
What I want to know is, how can this ordinance be enforced against anyone?

The S.C. has upheld such ordinances in the past. There was a MO appelate case from Ladue, also in St. Louis County, MO in the 80's that upheld that municipality's similar ordinance enforcement against former one term Congresswoman Joan Kelly Horn (D)and her boyfriend and their children.

Cordially,

38 posted on 05/24/2006 9:33:06 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
Yea, will someone please think of the starving children?

>Usually only to those who are doing the same thing.

Irrelevant.
39 posted on 05/24/2006 9:33:07 AM PDT by Boxen (You're thinking in Japanese. If you must think, do it in German!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter

If the town decided to impose slavery on everyone with blond hair do they have the right to that law?


40 posted on 05/24/2006 9:33:16 AM PDT by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Julliardsux

I said they could work to change the law, what is so hard to understand about that?


41 posted on 05/24/2006 9:33:22 AM PDT by yellowdoghunter (Vote out the RINO's; volunteer to help get Conservative Republicans elected!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter

They've been together thirteen years. Longer than many marriages last.

Please admit that it is possible for a non-married couple to have a more loving, committed and stable relationship than a married couple, without making me have to refer to the marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton.


42 posted on 05/24/2006 9:33:49 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
No, I find nothing sarcastic about giving children a loving, committed, stable home. Children need married parents, hopefully the two parents that made them

It's not about children or loving homes or commitment or stability or marriage or parents.

(None of which you could possibly know about this couple from the story in any case.)

43 posted on 05/24/2006 9:33:58 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
The occupancy permit indicates that the house has been inspected and is safe to live in. Since this was new construction, this ensures that the builder/owner does not move into a partially completed home and then not complete it.

Thank you. It makes sense in that respect as far as protecting the appearance and value of the property and the property of others. However, like many other laws, this angle taken does not seem to be the intent of the law. It is not so much unintended consequences as it is skewing the law to fit other desires.

This is usually a liberal ploy but it is bad no matter the motive. They had just as soon pass a law saying unmarried couples can't live together. We know how far that would go.

44 posted on 05/24/2006 9:34:04 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
I have no problem with this law and if the couple can't abide by the rules, well this is AMERICA, so move!

So your vision of America includes giving a government veto power over how citizens conduct their personal lives?

Bizarre.

45 posted on 05/24/2006 9:34:09 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Durus

That is apples and oranges and everyone knows it.


46 posted on 05/24/2006 9:34:40 AM PDT by yellowdoghunter (Vote out the RINO's; volunteer to help get Conservative Republicans elected!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tbird5
denied an occupancy permit after moving into a four-bedroom house they had purchased.

Nice to see property rights are alive and well in Missouri.
Bought and lived in lots of houses in lots of places and never once had to ask the government for permission to "occupy" it.

47 posted on 05/24/2006 9:35:00 AM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter

Um, they are. By challenging it in Court.


48 posted on 05/24/2006 9:35:41 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tbird5

unmarried couples with children

Don't you know? It's the cool thing to do these days, live in Sin!


49 posted on 05/24/2006 9:35:55 AM PDT by garylmoore (Homosexuality: Obviously unnatural, so obviously wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Julliardsux

It is not better for the children. But then again, some adults think if they are happy, well, their children should be also.


50 posted on 05/24/2006 9:36:04 AM PDT by yellowdoghunter (Vote out the RINO's; volunteer to help get Conservative Republicans elected!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-428 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson