What Kind of a Law is this?

[1549]

Town won't let unmarried parents live together

Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 11:41 a.m. EDT (15:41 GMT)

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and 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."

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.

Mayor Norman 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.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Whats the point..."if you are not blood, you can't live together!"

I guess nobody is finding roomates to help pay the rent in that town.

 

[5stringJeff]

If the children belong to both parents, then wouldn't there be a blood relationship?

 

[jillian]

If the children belong to both parents, then wouldn't there be a blood relationship?

But not if they're gay and the child isn't the blood of, or adopted by, one of them. If they want to pass an anti-gay measure, they should call it what it is so it can be properly challenged.

Just wondering what type of "governmental interest" they claim for that one.

 

[1549]

But not if they're gay and the child isn't the blood of, or adopted by, one of them. If they want to pass an anti-gay measure, they should call it what it is so it can be properly challenged.

Just wondering what type of "governmental interest" they claim for that one.

The strange thing is that the article does not say that the parents of an adopted child have to be married for the family to be considered legit.

 

[Mr. P]

Whats the point..."if you are not blood, you can't live together!"

I guess nobody is finding roomates to help pay the rent in that town.

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption."

Get over it, already! Ever hear of a flop house? They kinda impact property value and increase crime. It's a good move, a good vote.

 

[dmp]

But not if they're gay and the child isn't the blood of, or adopted by, one of them. If they want to pass an anti-gay measure, they should call it what it is so it can be properly challenged.

Just wondering what type of "governmental interest" they claim for that one.

If they couples are gay, they should not be parents anyway; in the interest of protecting children from a serious mind-fuck.

 

[Nienna]

THe law says "more than three." So, I assume that a gay couple with only one child would still meet the requirements.

 

[jillian]

If they couples are gay, they should not be parents anyway; in the interest of protecting children from a serious mind-fuck.

That isn't a conclusion one can draw from any study that's been done of these kids. :cof:

THe law says "more than three." So, I assume that a gay couple with only one child would still meet the requirements.

Fair observation. It does create issues when there's a second child. I still can't imagine what the basis was for passing the reg.

 

[dmp]

That isn't a conclusion one can draw from any study that's been done of these kids. :cof:

Translation:

"There's NO study you can cite which I'll believe because the results of the study wouldn't meet my pre-conceived ideas"



Open your mind, dude.

 

[jillian]

Translation:

"There's NO study you can cite which I'll believe because the results of the study wouldn't meet my pre-conceived ideas"



Open your mind, dude.

Ditto. :cof:

 

[Gunny]

But not if they're gay and the child isn't the blood of, or adopted by, one of them. If they want to pass an anti-gay measure, they should call it what it is so it can be properly challenged.

Just wondering what type of "governmental interest" they claim for that one.

Your lefty roots are showing. The law more than likely has absolutely nothing to do with gays. I'd bet it's a leftover morality law that no one's bothered to change. There are hundreds if not thousands, in ALL states.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Whats the point..."if you are not blood, you can't live together!"

I guess nobody is finding roomates to help pay the rent in that town.

It's called self-righteous, moralistic bullshit.

 

[dilloduck]

It's called self-righteous, moralistic bullshit.

Unlike your good natured tolerant participaton!

 

[Gunny]

It's called self-righteous, moralistic bullshit.

Probably for you who would let Bubba live with his sheep if he wanted.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Probably for you who would let Bubba live with his sheep if he wanted.

Sounds like that's all you can find to sleep with.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Unlike your good natured tolerant participaton!

As long as no demostrable harm comes to either of the adults involved or to the children, it's no business of some sexually frustrated busy-body politician what their living arrangements are

 

[pegwinn]

Key para from the source:

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.

There is a similar ordnance where I live. What it does is favor the real estate folks from construction, to management, to sellers. We have a big twelve university here and the frat houses are not residences, merely party palaces.

I understand the perceived outrage, but I'd wager a beer the ordinance will stand.