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

Skip to comments.

N.C. Law Banning Cohabitation Struck Down
AP ^ | 7/20/6 | STEVE HARTSOE

Posted on 07/20/2006 10:13:56 AM PDT by SmithL

Raleigh, N.C. -- A state judge has ruled that North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued last year to overturn the rarely enforced law on behalf of a former sheriff's dispatcher who says she had to quit her job because she wouldn't marry her live-in boyfriend.

Deborah Hobbs, 40, says her boss, Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, near Wilmington, told her to get married, move out or find another job after he found out she and her boyfriend had been living together for three years. The couple did not want to get married, so Hobbs quit in 2004.

State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling late Wednesday, saying the law violated Hobbs' constitutional right to liberty. He cited the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case titled Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law.

"The Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas stands for the proposition that the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home," Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a statement.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: aclu; culturewars; govwatch; homosexualagenda; judiciary; lawrencevtexas; marriage; playinghouse; ruling; shackingup
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-261 next last

1 posted on 07/20/2006 10:13:56 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Assuming this decision sticks,
how do all the aggrieved from former generations
get recompensed?

/sarcasm

I find it very difficult to believe that the state's constitution granted this "right."


2 posted on 07/20/2006 10:18:40 AM PDT by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The libertarians (particularly those shacking up with their girlfriends) will no doubt cheer this one on, but consider the purpose behind such a law: the interest of society in promoting stable relationships in which children can best be raised. Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto.


3 posted on 07/20/2006 10:19:53 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Man that place still has way too many of the stereotypes of The South Of The 1930's for comfort. From what I can gather from the Duke alleged-rape threads, February 2007 is their idea of a "speedy trial" for somebody indicted in May 2006.


4 posted on 07/20/2006 10:22:31 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM

Our rights are not granted by documents. They are sometimes confirmed in them, or enshrined in them, but they are not granted by them. And the absence of a right from the text of a documents does not mean, in the least, that the right does not exist and is not fundamental.


5 posted on 07/20/2006 10:26:59 AM PDT by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
The libertarians (particularly those shacking up with their girlfriends) will no doubt cheer this one on, but consider the purpose behind such a law: the interest of society in promoting stable relationships in which children can best be raised.

OK, Dr Laura. Calm down. Take your meds.

6 posted on 07/20/2006 10:27:59 AM PDT by D-Chivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: D-Chivas

People listen to Dr. Laura because what she says about many issues makes good sense. Only a fool would deny that it is in the public interest to promote marriage.


7 posted on 07/20/2006 10:30:33 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Nicely said... (And that's a great quote on your home page)


8 posted on 07/20/2006 10:31:06 AM PDT by A. Goodwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; TaxRelief; Alia; 100%FEDUP; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; ~Vor~; A2J; a4drvr; Adder; ...

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail Constitution Day, TaxRelief OR Alia if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.
9 posted on 07/20/2006 10:33:44 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Down with Half-Assery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
More idiocy from the bench. Constitutional for 201 years. Now suddenly, not.

All hail our exalted black-robed leaders!
10 posted on 07/20/2006 10:34:02 AM PDT by Antoninus (Public schools are the madrassas of the American Left. --Ann Coulter, Godless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Are you a citizen of my great state of North Carolina?


11 posted on 07/20/2006 10:36:09 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Down with Half-Assery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Our rights are not granted by documents. They are sometimes confirmed in them, or enshrined in them, but they are not granted by them. And the absence of a right from the text of a documents does not mean, in the least, that the right does not exist and is not fundamental.

Well said. This is one point many, many freepers fail to grasp.

12 posted on 07/20/2006 10:36:10 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

ping


13 posted on 07/20/2006 10:37:23 AM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Bravo, well stated.


14 posted on 07/20/2006 10:38:33 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Down with Half-Assery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
More idiocy from the bench. Constitutional for 201 years. Now suddenly, not.

All hail our exalted black-robed leaders!

Yes, ocassionally some of them get it right, as in this case. Rights always trump powers of the state.

15 posted on 07/20/2006 10:41:58 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM

Constitutions do not GRANT rights -- they are SUPPOSED to delineate the extent to which a government may infringe or restrict those rights.


16 posted on 07/20/2006 10:46:04 AM PDT by LN2Campy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM
I find it very difficult to believe that the state's constitution granted this "right."

And as all Americans know, rights are not endowed by our Creator, but given by the grace of government. I learned this from Ronald Reagan himself /sarcasm off

17 posted on 07/20/2006 10:47:52 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Oh, for pete's sake! How is society harmed by a man and a woman who are not married living together? Since over half of all marriages end in divorce, anyhow, I fail to see the harm here.

Rights belong to the individual. Two individuals, each with separate rights to live where they want, as long as they can afford to, choose to live in the same house or apartment.

Who cares? Young people do it all the time. They're called roommates. Other people share housing, as well.

It is not the place of the state to decide who shall live with whom. It's that simple.


18 posted on 07/20/2006 10:49:55 AM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM
I find it very difficult to believe that the state's constitution granted this "right."

It doesn't matter whether the constitution grants a "right" if the constitution doesn't grant the government the "power" to act in the first place. It's disconcerting how many people have a serious mental block over understanding that concept..

19 posted on 07/20/2006 10:52:52 AM PDT by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Oh, for pete's sake! How is society harmed by a man and a woman who are not married living together?

You evidently failed to read my post: "Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto."

20 posted on 07/20/2006 10:55:06 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM
PS. I should say that in principle it doesn't matter, since in practice it obviously does matter.
21 posted on 07/20/2006 10:59:31 AM PDT by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

"You evidently failed to read my post: "Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto.""

There are too many variables in that situation to draw any conclusions as to the cause for the problems of the ghetto.

Again, there are many unmarried people who live together in this society. Not all live in ghettos. So, show me the harm of that one, single factor.

And, in case you wonder, I'm a married man.


22 posted on 07/20/2006 11:00:00 AM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

The wisest response is often not the most appreciated. Obviously, some folks have the convenience of their desires and priorities ahead of the stability of their children, grandchildren and absolutely forget the society in general. You´re right.


23 posted on 07/20/2006 11:01:24 AM PDT by kdf1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
And the absence of a right from the text of a documents does not mean, in the least, that the right does not exist and is not fundamental.

Right, but how do you base a coherent jurisprudence on unwritten laws without just making things up as you go along?

I also doubt the right to fornicate is existent, let alone fundamental.

24 posted on 07/20/2006 11:04:54 AM PDT by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

You are right.

The radical libertarians have come crawling out of their holes to attack you on this one.

ANY sociaety has a RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITy to establish standards of acceptable behavior.

The fact that this law was on the books for 200 years AS WELL AS SIMILAR laws all over the nation, indicates that the Founding Fathers who WROTE our Constitution had no problem with them.

But our radical liberal courts, with some help from the anti-western ACLU, suddenly "discvovered" a new right - the right to live like swine.

As you so well point out, SO MANY of our societal problems today spring from illegitimate births - violence, welfare costs, lack of moral standards, no sense of community or patriotism, lack of the concept of honor, etc. etc. All of these have roots, in whole or in part, in the disintegration of the nuclear family, the basic building block of any civilized society.

Idiotic decisions by Federal Courts like this one are indeed contributing to the collapse of western civilization.


25 posted on 07/20/2006 11:07:27 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox

You're correct. Rulings such as this transfer power from the people to the judges. This is the effect of the "unenumerated right to privacy" created by the Supreme Court in Griswold. Does it mean we have a right to do ANYTHING we want in private? No, but it transfers the power of determination from the voters to the judges. All the "unenumerated right to privacy" means is that we can do anything in private that judges approve of. If we're doing something in private they don't approve of, then suddenly the right to privacy vanishes.

Watch how fast liberal judges uphold bans on smoking in the privacy of one's home when they start to come down. Ditto for when liberals start to regulate what we eat, and someday they will, believe me.


26 posted on 07/20/2006 11:11:53 AM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto.

Cohabitation isn't "taking the place" of anything here. This is a 40-year-old woman with no plans for marriage. The article doesn't mention any kids. Rent everywhere is expensive. The only thing cohabitation may be "taking the place" of in this instance is a 40-something couple still living with their parents. Not the end of civilization.

27 posted on 07/20/2006 11:12:15 AM PDT by Freedom_no_exceptions (No actual, intended, or imminent victim = no crime. No exceptions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

But...Its for the chiiiiiildren!


28 posted on 07/20/2006 11:12:48 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This thread looks like trouble!


29 posted on 07/20/2006 11:17:36 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Delicacy, precision, force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto."


I heard about this this morning and it interested me because I am from NC and I cohabitate. I guess am damned for hell.


I suppose if two cohabitators from the ghetto were to get married, they would suddenly be tranformed to a uppity Hamptons resident like yourself.

Get off your high horse. Cohabitators are bad in your eyes. People with greater-than-thou attitudes are bad in mine.
30 posted on 07/20/2006 11:28:22 AM PDT by HOTTIEBOY (I'm your huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox
I also doubt the right to fornicate is existent, let alone fundamental.

You think maybe it might be part of "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness"?

31 posted on 07/20/2006 11:31:21 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

So an unmarried coupel who live together are jewish? I don't get it. A ghetto is a jewish slum.


32 posted on 07/20/2006 11:33:35 AM PDT by Toby06 (True conservatives vote based on their values, not for parties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

there is still a law in Las Vegas that prohibits cohabitation with a prostitute. Charles Bush strangled himself in 1992 when he found out and was busted by the Bad Boys...


33 posted on 07/20/2006 11:37:05 AM PDT by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

go check a ghetto. tell me how many co-habitaing couples there are.
you're not gonna find many, you will, however, find single moms by the score. you wanna find cohabitation, look at middle class white people in the suburbs. most of the ones who have and raise kids are just fine.
what you're pointing at is the breakdown of family values due to indiscriminate sex. people out "having fun" who end up as single parents.


34 posted on 07/20/2006 11:39:32 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Toby06

coupel should have read couple. I swear, I really do know how to spell, just can't type.


35 posted on 07/20/2006 11:40:17 AM PDT by Toby06 (True conservatives vote based on their values, not for parties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Single folks raising kids alone is bad.
Two adults raising kids together is good.

We agree.

Whether they are 'married' is nobody's business.


36 posted on 07/20/2006 11:43:19 AM PDT by najida (The internet is for kids grown up-- Where else could you have 10,000 imaginary friends?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: najida

BUT!!! Sometimes single parents raisingkids alone is better than married couples raising kids if either of the married parents is abusive or otherwise sucks as a parent. I know a lot of really good, hardworking single parents, and some excellent unmarried couples raising kids together, and some really crappy married coupels raising kids.

To say that married couples raising kids is always better, I'd have to disagree. OK, yeah, 60+ of the time or so, yeah, it's better.


37 posted on 07/20/2006 11:46:53 AM PDT by Toby06 (True conservatives vote based on their values, not for parties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Toby06

My life would have been different (and better) if I'd been raised in a single parent house.


38 posted on 07/20/2006 11:47:59 AM PDT by najida (The internet is for kids grown up-- Where else could you have 10,000 imaginary friends?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

You evidently failed to read my post: "Anyone who wonders what happens in a society where cohabitation takes the place of marriage need look no further than the nearest ghetto."

---

I personally know many couples who live together. None of them are from a ghetto.


39 posted on 07/20/2006 11:48:00 AM PDT by FearlessFreep (Excuse me. But are those your legs or are you riding a chicken?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68; MineralMan; lugsoul
Yes, ocassionally some of them get it right, as in this case.

Judges updating constitutions as they see fit is not "getting it right". "Everybody does it" is not an excuse for judicial legislation.

40 posted on 07/20/2006 11:48:34 AM PDT by Hacksaw (Deport illegals the same way they came here - one at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; madprof98
"""So, show me the harm of that one, single factor."""

There is no harm in it. None. The fact that my girlfriend and I live together has absolutely no significance whatsoever on madprof98's everyday life. We share the bills. And we will eventually get married if we see that we can live together. I won't make the same mistake twice.

But it is nobody else's dang business. If people like madprof98 don't like my living arrangement, then people like madprof98 don't have to come to my house, They can just turn their nose up into the air and ride on by.
41 posted on 07/20/2006 11:48:51 AM PDT by HOTTIEBOY (I'm your huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
The radical libertarians have come crawling out of their holes to attack you on this one.

Actually, I think they are better termed "conservatives". Those are the ones who foolishly think the rights of individuals are paramount and should not be trampled on by the state. Leftists generally view the state as supreme and it is the state that grants rights to its citizens. I'll go with the former.

The fact that this law was on the books for 200 years AS WELL AS SIMILAR laws all over the nation, indicates that the Founding Fathers who WROTE our Constitution had no problem with them.

200 years ago, we had slavery and Women had few if any rights. Religious tests though unconstitutional were the law in many states. The founding fathers gave us a Constitution that allowed for continued improvement of our Nation and society.

But our radical liberal courts, with some help from the anti-western ACLU, suddenly "discvovered" a new right - the right to live like swine.

The 6 million couples living together outside of marriage hardly compare with the 2 1/2 to 3 million divorces annually, which directly and negatively impact over a million children annually. So the definition of swine may have to be greatly expanded.

Idiotic decisions by Federal Courts like this one are indeed contributing to the collapse of western civilization.

Perhaps they understand that true liberty means free choices, which at times will be the wrong choices. But that is the basis of freedom...the freedom to make a bad choice.

42 posted on 07/20/2006 11:49:52 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY
I suppose if two cohabitators from the ghetto were to get married, they would suddenly be tranformed to a uppity Hamptons resident like yourself.

It's not the lack of marriage that is the problem, it's the lack of dedication and commitment to one's partner and offspring that creates the problem for society. A piece of paper from the church and government doesn't mean a thing without the commitment.

43 posted on 07/20/2006 11:50:13 AM PDT by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: najida

Hey sweety!


44 posted on 07/20/2006 11:53:38 AM PDT by FearlessFreep (Excuse me. But are those your legs or are you riding a chicken?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Judges updating constitutions as they see fit is not "getting it right". "Everybody does it" is not an excuse for judicial legislation.

It's also called recognizing rights of individuals, something that many here want no part of.

45 posted on 07/20/2006 11:54:37 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

One of the reasons socialists push sexual libertinism, homosexuality, etc., is that they tend to lead to bigger government in the long run. That's why Europe has seen such an expansion of government power as it's become more sexually "tolerant". Note that sexually "tolerant" Sweden has astronomical tax levels, a massive bureaucracy, government that intrudes into people's lives at a level unheard of here.

People tend to forget about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, property rights, gun rights, and so on when liberty becomes defined around sex. To express it symbolically, while people are out having an orgy to celebrate their sexual liberation, government takes over everything else.


46 posted on 07/20/2006 12:07:26 PM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
The fact that this law was on the books for 200 years AS WELL AS SIMILAR laws all over the nation, indicates that the Founding Fathers who WROTE our Constitution had no problem with them.

Theres also a law on the books that makes it illegal to beat your wife with any object wider that you thumb. And you cannot beat your wife on the courthouse steps on Sunday.

But our radical liberal courts, with some help from the anti-western ACLU, suddenly "discvovered" a new right - the right to live like swine.

Where you see swine, I see a very expensive (I won't say how much) brand new house in a gated community with marble accents, all the tech playthings inside, a two car garage and a well manicured lawn.

Idiotic decisions by Federal Courts like this one are indeed contributing to the collapse of western civilization.

This decision was made because the judges ruled that whatever my living arrangements may be is nobody's business. They made these decisions so that they wouldn't have to round up hundreds of thousands of couples who are hard working, taxpaying, law abiding Americans and throw them in jail. If what i am doing is morally wrong, (Morals that have obviously been established by the almighty doer-of-no-wrong, you.) then it is between me and me God. Not me and my government or my neighbor or you.
47 posted on 07/20/2006 12:11:41 PM PDT by HOTTIEBOY (I'm your huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: HOTTIEBOY
Hottie don't waste your time arguing With the holier-than-thou squad. It'll only get you pissed and give you a headache.

Hubby and I lived together 6 years before we got married at bike week. (And we were in a nice quiet rural area.)

50 posted on 07/20/2006 12:31:17 PM PDT by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Tagline removed per Admin. Moderator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-261 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