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 ...
I said they could work to change the law, what is so hard to understand about that?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
That is apples and oranges and everyone knows it.
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.
Um, they are. By challenging it in Court.
unmarried couples with children
Don't you know? It's the cool thing to do these days, live in Sin!
It is not better for the children. But then again, some adults think if they are happy, well, their children should be also.
Have you never had to get a CO for any of those houses?
Brush up on your case law. These laws, with certain restrictions, have been repeadly affirmed by higher courts.
Cordially,
Authoritarian, not conservative.
That is not what I said and you know it. But nice try.
Except for the relationship between the man and the woman, everybody else in that 5 person family is related by blood.
By the town's interpretation of that ordinance, it would be illegal to have your elderly mother-in-law live in the same house with you, your spouse and your child.
Does the couple have to marry each other? Can they marry other people?
I'm just amazed that this sort of ordinance can not only exist, but be upheld. I can understand rental regulations, and ordinances regarding the buildings habitability, but one that keeps people from living in their own homes is ridiculous to me
So was slavery and baby murder and government confiscation of private property and Jim Crow.
Brush up on your thinking.
Cordially,
I wonder what YDH would say if they were a same-sex married couple?
I mean, under YDH def'n of stability, that is more stable than a non-married heterosexual couple. And, I assume, under the ordiance, they could all live in the same house with their adopted children, or with one spouse's children from a pre-homosexual heterosexual union.
You don't think a muncipality has the power to define single family residential occupancy?
The city has undisputed power to ordain single-family residential [431 U.S. 494, 539] occupancy. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, supra; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 . And that power plainly carries with it the power to say what a "family" is. Here the city has defined "family" to include not only father, mother, and dependent children, but several other close relatives as well. The definition is rationally designed to carry out the legitimate governmental purposes identified in the Belle Terre opinion: "The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people." 416 U.S., at 9 . 9
from MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
Cordially,
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.