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 ...
That ruffled my feathers too. I've heard of occupancy permits for businesses (bad enough) but now permits for a house for personal use?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
You are being sarcastic, right?
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.
Bush's fault.
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?
----------------------------------------
One wonders how you recognized it, based on your comments.
No, I find nothing sarcastic about giving children a loving, committed, stable home. Children need married parents, hopefully the two parents that made them.
-----------------------------------------------------
Maybe that they don't give a hoot what you think since it really is none of your business.
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.
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.
Umm, better go brush up on the constitution. Then brush up on your common sense.
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.
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,
If the town decided to impose slavery on everyone with blond hair do they have the right to that law?
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.