Skip to comments.N.C. Law Banning Cohabitation Struck Down
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 ...
Assuming this decision sticks,
how do all the aggrieved from former generations
I find it very difficult to believe that the state's constitution granted this "right."
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.
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.
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.
OK, Dr Laura. Calm down. Take your meds.
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.
Nicely said... (And that's a great quote on your home page)
Are you a citizen of my great state of North Carolina?
Well said. This is one point many, many freepers fail to grasp.
Bravo, well stated.
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.
Constitutions do not GRANT rights -- they are SUPPOSED to delineate the extent to which a government may infringe or restrict those rights.
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
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.
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..
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."