Posted on 05/24/2006 8:54:29 AM PDT by tbird5
Let me guess...they passed that ordinance after an un married BIRACIAL couple moved in. This is in violation of the civil rights amendment. Yes, it would be nice if they were married, but what business is it of anyone's if they are not. They pay taxes, don't they?
The thread isn't about those things.
Children need loving, stable, committed homes by the parents that made them. I won't apologize for holding that view and praying that every child is given that type of home.
That's Stewart's dissent you've just quoted. Obviously he is wrong, otherwise it would have been the Court's opinion, not the dissent.
You are a wealth of knowledge. Thanks for all your facts.
-----------------------------------------------
You left out that you also believe that this can only be accomplished via a state-sanctioned contract, without which the family may not live where it chooses to.
Maybe you would enjoy this quotation from Brennan's concurring opinion:
"In today's America, the "nuclear family" is the pattern so often found in much of white suburbia. J. Vander Zanden, Sociology: A Systematic Approach 322 (3d ed. 1975). The Constitution cannot be interpreted, however, to tolerate the imposition by government upon the rest of us of white suburbia's preference in patterns of family living."
Hopefully if you answer you can do so without being snarky.
I am thinking. I am thinking that since slavery, baby murder and Jim Crow laws etc. were (and in the case of baby murder, are) the antithesis of upholding the value of the family, the analogies are completely inapposite.
Cordially,
What would happen, God forbid, if your house burned down and you lost that all important marriage license? Would you still be married? All a marriage license is, is for the state to regulate you further. These folks bought a house and are raising their biological children. If they were liars, wedding bands are pretty cheap.
How nice, but it's irrelevant to the subject. Maybe you can find a thread that you can post that to where it matters.
I won't apologize for holding that view and praying that every child is given that type of home.
Praying? You advocate the use of guns and violence to enforce your opinion.
Not to mention for the second time, you have no idea whether or not these people provide those things.
To tell you the truth, I wish people who weren't ready to have a marriage, would not have children.
What if they were first cousins, they wouldn't be allowed to marry by law?
These two adults refuse to provide a loving marriage for their children.
"I guess you probably have no problem with it, and that is fine, we are each entitled to our own opinions. "
you need to stop doing the following: Everytime someone points out flaws in your logic, you retort with an assumption that the person agrees with the underlying conduct. The debate is whether it should be illegal or not. Not every unsavory behavior should be made illegal. You are irrelevant every time you do this, and often wrong.
You disagree with my opinion that private property rights and the right of free association are two fundamental rights of human beings, I don't have a problem with your opinion.
Why do you have such a problem with mine?
I don't care about your opinion, I care that a person on a conservative website advocates government force and coercion be used against people who are not violating anyone's rights themselves.
What these people do or do not do with their relationships are none of your business, or government's, as long as they aren't violating your rights.
MYOB
That is not what I said and you know it. But nice try.
Let's be clear then. You said you had "no problem with this law":
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".
Is that your vision of America? Where the government decides which definition of "family" can live in a town?
Two single people with one child are okay, but two single people with two children are prohibited from living in a home that they purchased? I guess personal property rights don't mean very much in your vision of America.
It's not just the libs who want to use the power of the government to do a little social engineering, after all, is it?
Read the whole decision. This was a case where the ordinance expressly selected certain categories of relatives who could live together and declared that others could not, in this instance making it a crime for a grandmother to live with her grandson. Pp. 498-499. It was NOT a case of unrelated parties, as in Black Jack. The court said
Note that the Court's rationale consists explicitly in upholding the value of the family.But one overriding factor sets this case apart from Belle Terre. The ordinance there affected only unrelated individuals. It expressly allowed all who were to live together, and in sustaining the ordinance [emphasis mine] we were careful to note that it promoted "family needs" and "family values." 416 U.S., at 9 . East Cleveland, in contrast, has chosen to regulate the occupancy of its housing by slicing deeply into the family itself. [emphasis mine] This is no mere incidental result of the ordinance. On its face it selects certain [431 U.S. 494, 499] categories of relatives who may live together and declares that others may not. In particular, it makes a crime of a grandmother's choice to live with her grandson in circumstances like those presented here.
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.