Town won't let unmarried parents live together

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/unmarried.ap/index.html

I think this is a shame.

How can they do that? So this isn't a free country.

mindi77 said:

How can they do that? So this isn't a free country.

Click to expand...

only if you are an illegal... sorry- couldnt resist! :slap: :slap: -----> me

A LAW? :doh:

"This ordinance is outdated. We are a family," says Shelltrack, 31. "There's a mom, there's a dad, there's three children. We are a family." Whether Shelltrack, a stay-at-home mom, and Loving, 33, who works for a payroll-administration company, are married "should not be anybody's business, if I pay my taxes, if I'm able to buy the house," she says.

http://tinyurl.com/pfjwb

As long as they love one another and love their children I don't see what the problem is.

The dark ages:doh: I cannot believe that these people cannot , by law, be premitted to raise their children under one roof. This could really have an advserse effect on these poor kids. These people pay taxes and they should be permitted the right to live together. It must be one of those "Bilble thumping" type governments there. I don't mean this to offend any of our Religious posters by this comment:blowkiss:

I live in this area though not in Black Jack itself. I can tell you 2 things. There are "wanna be" politicians involved...can't get elected to a real office...this is their claim to fame and without trying to step on anyone's sensitive toes here, I will say that the government body and the people actually involved do not, for the most part, have the same skin color...enough said.


Lisa

lymom3 said:

I live in this area though not in Black Jack itself. I can tell you 2 things. There are "wanna be" politicians involved...can't get elected to a real office...this is their claim to fame and without trying to step on anyone's sensitive toes here, I will say that the government body and the people actually involved do not, for the most part, have the same skin color...enough said.


Lisa

Click to expand...

That's very unfortunate. I hate politics, and politicians who promote the "better than you" agendas. Personally I have friends that were Living together for 10 years and then decided to get married. There marriage only lasted 6 months and ended in a nasty divorce. Just because marriage is right in one situation, doesn't mean that it's right for everybody.:twocents: As long as these children are wll cared for and loved, then it should be nobody's business if they are married or not.

Well they are being discriminated on the basis of "family status".

The City is treating unmarried "families" differently then families that are married.

Where they told before they moved that only married couples can live there.......is this posted somewhere......

Also if their skin colour comes in to play, well that again is discrimination.

The City is "encroaching" into the private lives and there is no compelling reason to do so, also they are being "controlled" and having their private lives controlled by the City.

Why have they not gone to a Human Rights lawyer yet......I would run not walk....as the City would have to prove why they are enforcing this "ordinance" and what "compelling" reason it has to enforce it.

Not for the good of society, not for "appearances", not for the sake of anything.

I don't think a Judge will see the "merit" of the City with this ordinance......

What is the purpose and point of this ordinance........

Once they get served with a $$$$$$$$$ lawsuit, maybe the City will "rethink" their position.......

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.

But the three children are "related" by blood to both parents, it is only the two parents who are not "related by blood, marriage or adoption".

So if the ordinance says it prohibits more then three people from living torgether, only two people live together that are not related by blood, marriage or adoption.

Even if the man is not the Father of these children, and they again are all natural children of the mother, then again the mother is related by blood and the man is just one person living there not related by blood, marriage or adoption.

I would LOVE to present this in court.......pro bono of course.......

I take it there are no "foster families with foster children" in Black Jack..........

Snip..

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...

I wonder if they also prohibit roomates sharing a house or apartment Would'nt they be allowed to live together since the children are blood relatives of both the parents? I wonder also if it specifically list only adults in this ordinance.

I think any couple raising their children together in the current times, married or not, certainly should not be frowned upon for that. The "old fuddy duddy's" need to realize that their version of "family" has changed too. As much as it might have been simpler in Leave it to Beaver times, the world is NOT going to go back to that.

I've really striven the past several years to change my thinking with my kids. There is nothing that they hate worse than when I start a sentence "when I was in high school"... Ok, so that WAS ummmm 27 years ago....cough cough. Not much is left the SAME as when I was growing up . While the powers that be might not like the idea of "living in sin" why are you going to punish people for wanting to raise their kids as a family unit?

At some point you have to live in the present...

lymom3 said:

I think any couple raising their children together in the current times, married or not, certainly should not be frowned upon for that. The "old fuddy duddy's" need to realize that their version of "family" has changed too. As much as it might have been simpler in Leave it to Beaver times, the world is NOT going to go back to that.

I've really striven the past several years to change my thinking with my kids. There is nothing that they hate worse than when I start a sentence "when I was in high school"... Ok, so that WAS ummmm 27 years ago....cough cough. Not much is left the SAME as when I was growing up . While the powers that be might not like the idea of "living in sin" why are you going to punish people for wanting to raise their kids as a family unit?

At some point you have to live in the present...

Click to expand...

great post-

They might not fit the "narrow" definition of family, but then for the sake of this town they can say they are a household.

But they know they are a family......

Again Mom and Dad are related to each child by blood........so in essence they are not breaking the ordinance of the "town"

Can you imagine, no roomates, or not more then three, no renters of room in the house of a little old lady.

No same sex couples sharing a house....I hope an attorney "challeges" this......

Cyber its a rare occasion but I agree with you..

This is ridiculous

They say they are trying to prevent boarding houses...except that does leave out all the situations in the prior post....

lymom3 said:

They say they are trying to prevent boarding houses...except that does leave out all the situations in the prior post....

Click to expand...

I think that's a convenient excuse for the law - they could prevent boarding houses and still allow families to live together without a marriage license - it's a deliberate act, some posing that will cost a few families a bunch of trouble, get dismissed by a court, and be forgotten in awhile.

Smoke and mirrors comes to mind along with the word "BS". This sounds like it came from their legal counsel.....boarding houses....my *advertiser censored**

If that was the case, they would use the term boarding houses. They would define boarding houses and enact "city by-laws" that reflect that.

This little piece of work, is a morals clause, that is it. If that was not the case then it would not be applicable to "families" married or unmarried.

Are they now saying that two parents and three kids are "running a boarding" house....please....

So is that why they did not change the definition of "families".

Oh I so want to got to Backwards, opps Black Jack.

These people just want to play God with other lives, have a feeling of power and control of others, know that they have "messed" with other lives and make others feel inferior to them. Force them to do get married or get out of their town.

Talk about insecure people who are not happy with what ever they are or whomever they are in life.

So they "decreee" from the City, WE are going to make this decision for you and WE will decide if WE will allow you to live in OUR town and WE will make you get married, because that is what WE have decided for YOU.

If you do not listen or heed OUR decree WE will evict you from OUR town.

This city needs a good swift kick in the......in addition to a lawsuit.

This sounds like a dictatorship, not a city in a democratic country.

Not a dictatorship, a theocracy. And there are far too many who would love to make one - as long as it's their religious values and their beliefs that are made into law.

Wow!
And to think we get accused of being backwards here in Australia lol :waitasec:

That's crazy, if I were that family, I would just up and move...doesn't sound like much of a place to live anyway...

My town has the ordinance barring more than 3 unrelated people living together in single family residence zones but it's mainly to prevent rowdy university students from all rooming in a family neighborhood and having wild drunken parties at all hours. I have been through that and very happy for the law, but never heard of unmarried couples having to deal with such a thing.