Marry Or Get Out Of Town
Posted on May 24, 2006
I’ve gotten several emails asking what I thought about this news.
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.
So, what do I think? I think the town is being stupid. Whether this couple is married or not is no one’s business, and I think the town’s actions are quite cruel. I understand occupancy codes for health and safety reasons, but this is too far in my opinion. However, I it is a law on the books that has been put there by representatives of the people. Perhaps the people should vote to strike this law from the books if they think it is archaic, but currently it is a law and I can’t blame the city for trying to enforce the law.
The couple have taken their case to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is considering filing a lawsuit against the city on their behalf.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development is also conducting an investigation.
Anthony Rothert, the legal director for the ACLU in eastern Missouri, told AFP that some 10 unmarried couples with children had been denied occupancy permits in recent years in Black Jack and were essentially driven out of town.
One unmarried couple that owns a house in the mainly Catholic town and that recently had a second child is facing the same fate, Rothert said.
“I find this ordinance very bizarre,” he said, adding that the city’s argument that the law, adopted in 1985, was aimed at preventing overcrowding did not hold up.
I’m divided on this one, but I don’t see why the ACLU has any business getting involved. Personally I think the law is stupid, but that is something for this particular community to decide. I don’t think the community is being very fair, and I hope that they can assert this towards those that represent them and write such restrictive laws. However, I don’t think this is a call for the judiciary branch to get involved, nor the ACLU to be sticking its nose into.
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “Marry Or Get Out Of Town”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I agree that its a dumb law, and what a twisted situation!
I favor the town. Children of unwed parents are more likely to commit crimes and unwed couples are more likely to engage in child and domestic abuse. An example of abuse is that more children are killed by abortion on unwed mothers.
In the name of the community’s general welfare the town is well within its rights and its duties.
“I’m divided on this one, but I don’t see why the ACLU has any business getting involved. Personally I think the law is stupid, but that is something for this particular community to decide.”
It’s interesting that some people recommend a “hands-off” approach when it comes to contemptible proceedings that reflect their personal views on things like homosexuality and marriage, yet scream holy hell when communities and entire states take the law into their own hands in ways you disagree with, such as agitating for gay marriage. I guess it’s only okay for local government to act in accordance with what its citizens want when pro-Christian, pro-asshat agendas are being carried out.
“Children of unwed parents are more likely to commit crimes and unwed couples are more likely to engage in child and domestic abuse.”
So you’re saying that gays should marry so they can live in this turdbowl of a burg? Oh, that’s right — they aren’t allowed to!
It’s been shown that Christians are, on average, more likely to behave criminally and immorally than atheists. Does this mean that municipalities should get to bar them from living there?
“An example of abuse is that more children are killed by abortion on unwed mothers.”
Wait a minute. Children are being killed during abortions now? Who’s letting them get so close to the operating field and how exactly are they being killed? They shouldn’t even be allowed in the same room.
“However, I it is a law on the books that has been put there by representatives of the people. Perhaps the people should vote to strike this law from the books if they think it is archaic, but currently it is a law and I can’t blame the city for trying to enforce the law”
But you can thank your constitutional right to privacy and substantive due process that says the city can’t enforce this law.
“It’s been shown that Christians are, on average, more likely to behave criminally and immorally than atheists.”
Prove it.
“Wait a minute. Children are being killed during abortions now? Who’s letting them get so close to the operating field and how exactly are they being killed? They shouldn’t even be allowed in the same room.”
What’s funny about the abortion debate is the fact that idiots like you seem to oppose abortion regulations such as showing a woman a sonogram and informing them of any pain the fetus is feeling. Why? Because they say its a guilt trip. What does that say about abortion genius? If giving a woman ALL of the information before the procedure induces guilt, that should probably tell you something.
“Prove it.”
This is hardly an obscure study nowadays, but anyway…
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
“There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.”
Please don’t assume I’m pleased to read these results njust because I am blessedly god-free myself. Crime and dysfunction is never good for any society. And I don’t believe that religiosity *causes* crime; it’s clear that it simply doesn’t forestall it. But I’m sick of hearing categorical declarations from strongly religious people that their faith is correlated with higher moral and behavioral standards, because that’s somewhere between utterly unfounded and a complete inversion of the truth.
The One With A Brain,
“So you’re saying that gays should marry so they can live in this turdbowl of a burg? Oh, that’s right — they aren’t allowed to!”
That is the American Psychologist Association’s argument of why homosexual marriage should be legal. The statistics they are using are for married heterosexual couples so I question if they apply to homosexuals. Male homosexuality causes sickness and death which is why AIDS/HIV for one, is more prevalent among males that have sex with males than among heterosexuals. Therefore supporting homosexual marriage would be supporting depriving human beings of their natural human right to health and life.
“It’s been shown that Christians are, on average, more likely to behave criminally and immorally than atheists. Does this mean that municipalities should get to bar them from living there?”
I have not seen that study. I do know that born again Christians are less likely to get an abortion than other religions. I just assumed that would be true across the ethics spectrum. You should read the Declaration of Independence which clearly states that governments have a duty to ensure the natural right to life and health of their people.
“Wait a minute. Children are being killed during abortions now? Who’s letting them get so close to the operating field and how exactly are they being killed? They shouldn’t even be allowed in the same room.”
I assume you are an evolutionist. If so you need to speak to your demigod Charles Darwin who stated that killing children through abortion is a form of infanticide. He also called those who did it Barbarians. He wrote it is the evolutionist sacred scroll that goes by the name of “The Decent of Man”.
The One With A Brain,
Gregory S. Paul is a paleontologist and not a sociologist so he is way out of his field of expertise. His statistics also seem questionable as many of the cities on both cost are notoriously crime ridden. Looking at the 2004 murder rate of the states I found that Idaho, Wyoming, both solid conservative states have low murder rate of 2.2 each while Maryland a liberal state has a murder rate of 9.4. There are also liberal states with low murder rates and conservative states with high ones which leads to the conclusion that the federal voting record does not indicate whether a particular state is or is not a hotbed of crime.