Land of the free? Nope, home of the Red States....

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, May 17, 2006.

  1. Town Cracks Down On Unwed Couples
    BLACK JACK, Mo., May 17, 2006

    (CBS/AP) The city council in Black Jack, Mo., has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together. The mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

    Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

    The town's planning and zoning commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the city council in a 5-3 vote.

    "I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

    Mayor Norman McCourt said starting Wednesday the city will begin trying to evict groups who do not fit into Black Jack’s definition of family, reports CBS affiliate KMOV-TV in St. Louis.

    The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

    McCourt declined to be interviewed, but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

    In the statement, McCourt said, "the city provides information about its occupancy permit requirements to anyone who requests it. ... As mayor, I am required by state law to uphold the laws of the city of Black Jack."

    Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.
     
  2. It says that more than 3 people cannot live together that are not related by blood. Only two people are not related by blood in this situation since all the kids are related by blood to the parents. I wonder if they can use an argument like that in court.
     
  3. It says that they can dictate by law how you live. The rest are argumentative details.
     
  4. I thought that this kind of thing could only happen in a communist country.
     
  5. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

  6. Sounds the same as a Homeowners Association to me. In many you can't have more than a certain number of non related people living together.
     
  7. Of course it is Missouri, where Ashcroft resides...
     
  8. a homeowner's assoc. is a private group, its jurisdiction is based on voluntary, affirmative action by residents. a homeowner's association does not have police power.

    this article refers to a municipal zoning law, that is, a dictate from the state (ie, the government) covering all residents.
     
  9. There was a Supreme Court case years ago on this question. As I recall the town lost. It's not clear to me why a town can't decide that residential sections will retain their residential character and not turn into rooming houses. This is a hot issue in communities with universities. Most people would as soon have a house full of Hell's Angels next to them as today's spoiled rotten college kids coming and going all night long.

    Legally, it would seem the argument here is that the town is making an invalid distinction based on marital status. The couple would claim that distinction either burdens their fundamental right to live together or the distinction is irrational because being married or not has no impact on what the law is aimed at, presumably rooming houses.
     
  10. jem

    jem

    heathens should live in heathen neighborhoods. by the way I do not think an unmarried couple with children should be allowed to get married. Marriage is between man and a woman. Not a man and a women and three kids. Just joking. But I know some of you anti religion types were hoping some religious person would come along and defend the town. But I am not going to do it for multiple reasons.
     
    #10     May 18, 2006