Cohabitation Suit

[The ClayTaurus]

I mentioned this previously, but never read this article.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512220457

Michigan's 74-year-old law banning cohabitation -- a remnant of a bygone era on the books in only a handful of states today -- is being challenged by a divorced Ferndale man barred from sleeping under the same roof with his girlfriend when his young daughters visit.

Christian Muller, 35, said his girlfriend, Michelle Moon, has to sleep in his van parked in his driveway or spend the night with friends when his daughters, ages 5 and 7, come to visit on alternate weekends.

"Somehow we've been able to keep this from them," said Muller, who divorced in 2003 after seven years of marriage. "The kids wake up in the morning, and I get them their breakfast, and after that I go out and wake up Michelle, and she comes in and nobody says anything. I don't know how much longer we can keep this up."

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday they had appealed on Muller's behalf, asking the Michigan Supreme Court to hear the case and ultimately overturn a lower-court ruling.

If the court rules in favor of Muller, the decision likely would overturn the 1931 law that forbids cohabitation in Michigan -- one of only seven states that have kept such a law on the books, according to the ACLU.

...

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051223/OPINION01/512230322/1068/OPINION

You probably didn't even know it before this week, but there really is a law on the books in Michigan that outlaws shacking up. The 167-year-old statute, ridiculous by today's community standards, criminalizes "lewd and lascivious cohabitation," which means nearly 400,000 Michigan adults are breaking the law by living with their boyfriend or girlfriend.

Thankfully, the antiquated law has been practically unobserved and unenforced, at least until Oakland County Circuit Judge Daniel Patrick O'Brien invoked it in ordering a divorced father not to have overnight visitation with his children on nights his girlfriend slept over.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan is appealing the order, which came at the request of Christian Muller's ex-wife, to the state Supreme Court. The order, regulating overnight visitation when unrelated guests of the opposite sex are present, applies to both Muller and his ex-wife.

Of course, Muller, 35, of Ferndale, could settle the matter by marrying his girlfriend -- making it legal, so to speak. She now sleeps in a van parked in the driveway when Muller's two daughters, ages 5 and 7, visit on alternate weekends. But whether or not Muller remarries is none of the government's business.

Legislators ought to repeal this intrusive law, which has already earned Michigan unwelcome nationwide attention. A repeal would not sanction unmarried cohabitation. Rather, it would simply acknowledge that making it a criminal act exceeds the government's rightful authority, as most reasonable people would believe.

If necessary, the state Supreme Court should strike down this unconstitutional law, but legislators could save everyone a lot of trouble by sending this archaic statute straight to the shredder.

 

[dmp]

The law isn't unconstitutional - it's just stupid.

 

[MissileMan]

The law isn't unconstitutional - it's just stupid.

I agree it's stupid, but couldn't this be construed as an invasion of privacy?

 

[dmp]

I agree it's stupid, but couldn't this be construed as an invasion of privacy?

Depends on how far one extends expectations of privacy. There exist quite a number of laws which remove privacy - even privacy from within one's domicile.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'd agree that it's not unconstitutional. The states are allowed, by the U.S. Constitution, to legislate in all areas that the Constitution doesn't forbid it to.

That said, it's the stupidest law I think I've ever heard of. It's one thing to argue the benefits and costs/consequences of cohabitation; it's another altogether to disallow that kind of freedom.

 

[Joz]

Is this the only couple in Mich that aren't living together?? How many others are actually obeying this law?


I'd really like to know the thinking behind some of these that are still on the books.

Ohio Crazy Laws
Bexley
# Ordinance number 223, of 09/09/19 prohibits the installation and usage of slot machines in outhouses.

Clinton County
# Any person who leans against a public building will be subject to fines.

Cleveland
# It's illegal to catch mice without a hunting license!

Columbus
# It is illegal for stores to sell corn flakes on Sunday.

Fairview Park
# It's against the law to honk your horn "excessively". A grandmother was fined for honking her horn twice at her neighbor.

Ironton
# Cross-dressing is against the law.

Lima
# Any map that does not have Lima clearly stated on the map cannot be sold.

North Canton
# It is against the law to roller skate without notifying the police.

Oxford
# It's illegal for a woman to strip off her clothing while standing in front of a man's picture.

Toledo
# Throwing a snake at anyone is illegal.

Youngstown
# Riding on the roof of a taxi cab is not allowed.

http://www.dumblaws.co/

 

[Mr. P]

I agree it's stupid, but couldn't this be construed as an invasion of privacy?

I'd say the 9th Amendment is all they can hope to use.

 

[Said1]

Fairview Park
# It's against the law to honk your horn "excessively". A grandmother was fined for honking her horn twice at her neighbor.

Old people shouldn't have horns.

Maybe she wasn't "old", but still old people shouldn't have horns.

 

[Mr. P]

Old people shouldn't have horns.

Maybe she wasn't "old", but still old people shouldn't have horns.

Here they have horns, and a GREAT BIG middle finger!

 

[Said1]

Here they have horns, and a GREAT BIG middle finger!

My neighbours honk at everyone and everyone honks at them. Every once in a while the old man gives me a drive somewhere, continous "beep, beep" follwed by "hi". Or "do I know them?" "Beep, beep" followed by "Ehhhh, F*ck You. "

 

[Annie]

Maybe I'm weird here, but would this be an issue if his 'kids' weren't involved? Yeah, I agree the 'law' isn't enforced, but when it comes to the kids visiting, would you choose different? Why hasn't he just married Michelle and be done with the charade?

 

[Mr. P]

Maybe I'm weird here, but would this be an issue if his 'kids' weren't involved? Yeah, I agree the 'law' isn't enforced, but when it comes to the kids visiting, would you choose different? Why hasn't he just married Michelle and be done with the charade?

No it’s only an issue because (my guess is) his X is a vindictive BITCH.

 

[Annie]

No it’s only an issue because (my guess is) his X is a vindictive BITCH.

You have a daughter. Let's say she was 11. Your wife takes up with a much more virile guy. Divorce comes into play and you are granted custody. You want your daughter to be exposed to blatant sexuality? I don't know what happened here, but do know that my 7 and 9 year old sons and 10 year old daughter were exposed to some pretty risque stuff. Both boys acted out, in a serious way. In court it was presented as 'sexual precocity', meaning they were acting out in ways they were not able to understand, though it crossed into assault. Visitation was ceased while the father and girlfriend got counseling.

 

[MissileMan]

You have a daughter. Let's say she was 11. Your wife takes up with a much more virile guy. Divorce comes into play and you are granted custody. You want your daughter to be exposed to blatant sexuality? I don't know what happened here, but do know that my 7 and 9 year old sons and 10 year old daughter were exposed to some pretty risque stuff. Both boys acted out, in a serious way. In court it was presented as 'sexual precocity', meaning they were acting out in ways they were not able to understand, though it crossed into assault. Visitation was ceased while the father and girlfriend got counseling.

They aren't only talking about having wild monkey sex, but sharing a bed to sleep in. Why is it always assumed that singles sharing a house engage in raucous sex at inappropriate times?

 

[Mr. P]

You have a daughter. Let's say she was 11. Your wife takes up with a much more virile guy. Divorce comes into play and you are granted custody. You want your daughter to be exposed to blatant sexuality? I don't know what happened here, but do know that my 7 and 9 year old sons and 10 year old daughter were exposed to some pretty risque stuff. Both boys acted out, in a serious way. In court it was presented as 'sexual precocity', meaning they were acting out in ways they were not able to understand, though it crossed into assault. Visitation was ceased while the father and girlfriend got counseling.

I don't know what happened there either. For all we know they have joint custody. I'll stick to a vindictive BITCH.

 

[Annie]

I don't know what happened there either. For all we know they have joint custody. I'll stick to a vindictive BITCH.

Right, you don't know what happened there either. In which case the rest of your post was pointless, though judgemental.

 

[Mr. P]

Right, you don't know what happened there either. In which case the rest of your post was pointless, though judgemental.

Not at all really, I've seen many guys take it in the shorts from a a vindictive X.
It seem the norm in a divoce. Tell me you don't think pulling out a 167 year old law is not vindictive.

 

[Annie]

Not at all really, I've seen many guys take it in the shorts from a a vindictive X.
It seem the norm in a divoce. Tell me you don't think pulling out a 167 year old law is not vindictive.

What the 'norm' is, could be questionable. What this case involved? Who knows?

I do know what the shrink testified to in my kids' case, and what the judge decided.

 

[Perdittimus]

New to the board, but am here because of this post. I am the girlfriend in this case who was sleeping in the car.

To answer a few questions, the ex wanted control, she used the courts to get it. They (a divorced couple) went to a family counselor when she raised objections to our 'sleep overs' knowing we were planning to move in together. She wanted us to wait an amount of time she prescribed and we didn't see the need. The counselor suggested a split of that time. We waited. She filed suit after we made it clear we were going forward after the time frame suggested by the counselor. She changed her tune from 'wait how long I tell you' to 'cohabitaiton is immoral, you should be married' (even though she'd cohabited with him for years before they married and only married because she got knocked up) because she knew I would not bend on that. The referees saw no reason for the restriction, the kids were not in any harm and we're not sex crazed maniacs who expose children to anything inappropriate. The judge, without hearing arguments, made his ruling and upheld it later in reconsideration (against the recommendation of the family counselor who'd met with us and both his children and my child on many occasions and testified to the wholesomeness and propriety of our home together) on the basis that she had quote "an affirmative moral opinion". The appeals court said that while the judge is supposed to use the best interests of the children and didn't, (direct quote: "The best interests were not at issue") they pulled the anti-cohabitation law out to rubber stamp the previous decision. That's when the ACLU took the case and it hit the news.

I was sleeping in the car because my daughter stayed in the house despite the ruling and I have the responsibility and right as her legal and custodial guardian to be near my child, period.

Also, he is not refusing to marry me, I am the one who refuses marriage because I think it is discriminatory. My aunts have been together almost 45 years and when one of them dies, the other will lose half of what they built together through inheritance taxes. They cannot share insurance. There will be no social security benefits for the one who is left behind. I believe this is unconsitutional because these protections are provided to married couples under state laws and the fourteenth amendment specifies that states cannot deny equal protections under the law. I believe it's morally wrong because any drunk couple of heteros can get married on a whim and divorced three days later and have more legal protections than this long-standing committed couple can have. Christian and I obviously agree on not getting married or our relationship wouldn't still be thriving after all this nonsense. Regardless of whether anyone agrees with my reasons, does anyone believe that the decision to marry is one that should be decided by an ex or a judge?

This has been going on for over two years. It has cost thousands of dollars, many sleepless nights in a van in Michigan winter and much energy and time from both of us. Right after the story was picked up from India to Hawaii on over 170 news venues, she quit. She gave in, said she didn't want to fight anymore. I'm sure the fact that she's from a small town and everyone knows who she is and now what she is had nothing to do with that decision.

Anyway, that's the skinny of it.