Unmarried couple denied right to move in

[deadparrot]

BLACK JACK, Mo., Feb. 22 (UPI) -- A Missouri couple say they were denied an occupancy permit for their new home because they're not married.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving have been together for 13 years and have three children, ages 8, 10 and 15, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The couple are appealing the occupancy permit denial from the Black Jack, Mo., board of adjustment, which requires people living together to have blood, marriage or adoption ties. Loving is not the father of Shelltrack's oldest child.

"I was basically told, you can have one child living in your house if you're not married, but more than that, you can't," Shelltrack told the newspaper.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060222-025336-1265r

Original St. Louis P-D article: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/4FD1ED4E83EDFF7D8625711D00230E71?OpenDocument

[KingFlorez]

1. More fundies who can't mind their own business

They really need to get a life

[thinkingwoman]

2. oh yeah...

this is going to be good.

:popcorn:

[xiamiam]

3. its illegal...discriminatory...nt

[underpants]

5. It is still technically against the law in Va.

but no one pays any attention to it. No one who rents on a regular basis.

[xiamiam]

6. its against the law in the entire United States

[demosincebirth]

53. self delete

[ThomCat]

4. If they own the house, who the hell can tell them not to live there?

That's just #$%@& FOUL!

Friggin Fundies! :grr:

[MountainLaurel]

9. You'd be surprised

Housing occupancy requirements have been used in all sorts of interesting ways: Remember the story not too long ago about a change in the definition of "family members" in Manassas, Virginia, targeted at Hispanic famillies?

[ThomCat]

12. No. Please share.

I'm not quite pissed off enough today. :grr:

[MountainLaurel]

45. Here are some links

The one positive is that the city has since rescinded the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122701216.html

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1205/289889.html

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0106/293242.html

[Gormy Cuss]

7. Well, it's for the good of the community.

Shelltrack and Loving ought to get married like normal people. :sarcasm:

"This is about the definition of family, not if they're married or not," Mayor Normal McCourt said. "It's what cities do to maintain the housing and to hold down overcrowding."

On edit: I just read the original story in the St. Louis paper and a member of the board had the nerve to ask them why they didn't just get married. These petty tyrants are out of control.

[OKthatsIT]

11. It's against the law to profile like this

[ThomCat]

14. Is it?

I hope they have a lawyer looking into this. I hope it's illegal. But I would not be surprised if it's not.

[Gormy Cuss]

16. It's not against Federal housing law.

Edited for clarification:
If they were denied a rental or mortgage based on marital status that would be illegal. The ordinance instead is about occupancy permits, which can be used to keep out illegal rooming houses, rental units in single family zoning, etc. If the town prohibited all unmarried parents that would be discriminatory. They don't, they merely specify limits.

It's still sleazy.

[SoCalDem]

76. If they were issued a joint mortgage, the occupancy issue should go away

How could a mortgage be issued and the person not be allowed to live in the house they are legally obligated to pay for:shrug:

[Gormy Cuss]

77. Yes, or if they assumed the house as joint tenants or tenants in common

Both adults would have legal standing as owners, and all 3 kids are related to the mother. I'm not a lawyer but it seems that it would be difficult to enforce this occupancy ordinance if that were the case.

I just hate these kinds of laws.

[shoelace414]

8. I'm confused.. which party is the big government party?

[NoAmericanTaliban]

19. Libertarian aspect of GOP is history....

they used to claim to get gov't out of our lives - but what really is occuring is that they want less gov't in corp. lives, but more control over individual lives, while the whole time revealing less about the gov't. A lot of folks still fall for that old line.

[Roland99]

75. And the people who call themselves Libertarians now are NUTCASES

[Bassic]

69. I'm amazed that true conservatives are going

along with this kind of shit. I mean at first they might have been stunned into inaction, but it's been years now, why the fuck aren't they reacting? What the hell is this if it's not Big Government on the citizens backs? I guess that was just populist bullshit on their part.

[JuniperLea]

10. They have blood ties...

Their children.

This happened to me when a boyfriend and I tried to rent an apartment together in Torrance, CA, in 1977. I thought it was weird then! I can't believe this is still happening!

[Lars39]

13. I would have moved my stuff in anyway and told them to go

screw themselves.

[silverweb]

15. After 13 years?

I thought "common-law marriage" was recognized just by virtue of a couple being together for something like seven years -- or don't we recognize that any more?

This is just wrong.

[Lance_Boyle]

22. state-by-state

There is no common law marriage in NC, for example. And cohabitation is still illegal in NC - there is actually an ongoing court battle over that one.

[MountainLaurel]

46. Funny you should mention this

An online acquaintance who works at a public library has been getting some shit recently about being in violation of state law by living with her fiancee.

[sarcasmo]

73. What State is that Mountain Laurel.

[MountainLaurel]

74. North Carolina

Same state as the one in the OP.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Common law was still recognised in MO when I lived there,

20 years ago (has it really been so long?) so I can't imagine it doesn't still exist.

And as noted above, they do have blood relationships - through the children. Any good lawyer should be able to rip this to shreds.

[RoyGBiv]

63. Not sure about MO ...

Some common law statutes, however, require that at least one party in the relationship claim to be married by common law. The couple will go their entire relationship without claiming marriage, and then when it breaks up, one party will claim common law marriage for the community property aspects of the breakup.

I'm not a lawyer, so take that with a grain of salt, but this is how it was explained to me some time ago when a friend was dealing with this after a breakup.

[AnneD]

34. In Texas

common law is 6 mos, it is community property state, and our birth certificates have never used the term illegitimate as a description.

[Mithras61]

37. Not quite accurate...

According to http://ct-divorce.com/Commlaw.htm

Texas calls it an "informal marriage," rather than a common-law marriage. Under § 1.91 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married.

[AnneD]

40. When was that changed...

I had always heard it referred to as common law marriage (informal is new to me-but I am not a lawyer either)and that it dated back to the Spanish/Mexican times (that we were common law like other Mexican owned territories AZ, NM, CA, NV). It was to protect the property rights of Mexican women that lived with Anglo men (it took a long time for the circut priest or preacher to make the rounds). I knew about the 3 prong test though. Is it just semantics or was it always informal marriages?

[Mithras61]

61. As far as I know, it is semantics...

but the crucial thing is that you have to claim to be husband & wife, in public, with witnesses and no denials from the other. Some judges have even required it be on three separate occasions or that you have signed contracts (like renatl agreements) as spouses. In some states, simply living together is enough, but as you noted, in TX you have to actually claim the relationship.

[AnneD]

71. I am thinking that the Mexican influence in the SW

may have been about community property. Women have alway been able to own property here but I know this was not true in other states. Thanks for the enlightenment.

[happyslug]

81. No this is English Common law

To understand Common Law marriage you have to go back to the fall of Roman Empire in the West. Under the Roman Empire All Marriages had to be performed by a Official of the Roman Empire. This remained the situation when the Empire became Christian. The problem occurred when the Empire fell and no one was left to perform the Marriage Ceremony. This was resolved by having the Couple themselves exchange vows (mostly in front of their local Parish Church but that was NOT required). After the Exchange of Vows the Couple and their Families would enter the Church and have the Parish Priest Bless the Marriage. Note the Priest did NOT married the Couple (For that was a duty of the State Under Roman Law) but each family had records that this was a Valid marriage but their own customs (remember this is the days where the extended family was much more important than it is today, thus any marriage was more a merger of two families than two people agreeing to be married).

Anyway this situation survived till the Renaissance where various "reformers" wanted to change and return to "Roman Law". Attempts were made but failed for the above had become deep rooted into people's conception of how a valid marriage came to be. Reformers wanted a return to Roman law but knew that was impossible thus in the Council of Trent (1645), the Marriage law was changed but only marginally by requiring all marriages in Catholic Countries to be performed by a Catholic Priest. This satisfied the legalistic wing of the reformers for you were now having valid Roman Civil Law Ceremonies instead of a mere blessing and the change was NOT that huge that people would ignore it (Most Marriages had been Bless by the local Parish Priest BEFORE Trent and thus the big change was the move into the Church as opposed to the exchange of vows on the Steps of the Church).

Thus all Catholic Countries of 1565 (Including Spain and Mexico, conquered by Spain in 1519) followed the Rules of the Council of Trent. Protestant Countries were slower at adopting the rule, but most did so by 1600 (and was one of the "Reforms" most Protestant Reformers wanted for the Catholic Church). The big exception was England and Scotland. England did not abolish Common Law Marriage till Marriage Act of 1753 (and retained it for cases here a Ceremonial Marriage was impossible). The Marriage Act of 1753 did NOT apply to Scotland thus Common Law marriage is still valid in Scotland.

Given that the 13 Colonies were formed BEFORE the Marriage Act of 1753, that act was ruled NOT applicable to the 13 Colonies (after July 4th, 1776 the 13 original States). Since the Marriage Act was NOT applicable to the 13 Colonies, it was ruled NOT applicable to any State, even if formed after July 4th, 1776 UNLESS that States adopted the Marriage Act or abolished Common Law Marriage on its own.

Under the English Common Law, you had two types of Common Law Marriage, In Praesenti i.e. in the present, when two people of the opposite sex who are NOT married (or incompetent) announce to each other that they are Husband and wife. For example in the olden days when a Captain married a Couple on his ship, the captain was NOT marrying the couple but witnessing and documenting the exchange of vows that makes up this type of common law marriage between the couple.

The second type of Common law Marriage was "In Futureo" (Spelling?) i.e. In the future. That was a promise to marry in the future followed by Sexual Intercourse. When Richard III made himself King of England at the death of his Brother it was based on a Legal Opinion that his Brother's marriage was Invalid (and thus the brother's two sons illegitimate) do to his brother having had prior to his Marriage made a promise to marry another woman and then had sex with her (Thus forming a Valid Common Law "In Futureo" Marriage).

Now the big issue was HOW to prove one of the above happened. When both parities agreed (or you had documentation that they were married such as filling out joint Income tax forms) there is no dispute, but when one claims that such a marriage occurred and the other denies it (and they is NO documentation or the documentation is unclear) then the test is did the couple hold out each other as Husband and wife? If yes, then that was "Proof" that an exchange of vows had taken place.

While England had two forms of Common Law Marriages, most US States only recognized one, the "In Praesenti". It look from this stature that the Texas Legislature adopted the "In Praesenti" Common law marriage AND the test when they was no other documentation.

Notice, NO TIME LIMIT is mentioned in ANY of the above. Technically you can be married under the common law even if all you did was talked to the other party once (In the case of "In Praesenti" Common Law Marriage) or had sex with the other party just once (in the case of "In Futereo" Common Law Marriage).

Most states have abolished Common law Marriage (my Home State of Pennsylvania did so effective January 1st, 2005). While various reasons are often given for the abolishment, the main thrust seems to be property. For example if you are married you have a duty to take care of your spouse, but if you are merely living together no such duty exists. Common Law Marriages were mostly used by the dependent spouse (Generally the woman but can be the man) to get the other spouse to take care of her or his personal needs WHEN THAT SPOUSE NO LONGER WANTED TO DO SO.

While the above seems to be the main reason for abolishment of Common Law Marriage, in earlier years (i.e. pre-1900) the reason seems to be that people would marry someone their family did NOT want them to and take they money to their new spouse instead of the spouse the rest of the family wanted for the heir. Yes, people wanted to "protect" family wealth more than marriages. As one wag pointed out, if you have a good solid relationship a Common Law Marriage was as good as a Ceremonial Marriage, the only time it was worse is if your relatives wanted to steal your money from your widow or widower.

While the Common Law Marriages was often cited as the cause of denying a Widow her dowry rights at the death of her husband, the more common action was to Deny the Widow that she was her husband's widow on the ground she did NOT have a valid Marriage. Abolishment of Common Law Marriage made this easier (and thus easier to take her money from the widow). Since about 1900 this has become less common given that most people with money now have Wills.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
http://www.oneplusone.org.uk/marriedornot/PDF/CommonLawMarriage.pdf#search='Common%20Law%20Marriage%20in%20Present'
http://www.unmarried.org/common.html For a list of States with Common Law marriages:

STATE-BY-STATE REQUIREMENTS TO FORM A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:*

Alabama: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.

Colorado: A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.

Iowa: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.

Kansas: For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married.

Montana: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.

Oklahoma: To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.

Pennsylvania: A common-law marriage may be established if a man and woman exchange words that indicate that they intend to be married at the present time.

Rhode Island: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.

South Carolina: A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.

Texas: A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.

Utah: For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.

Washington, D.C.: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to D.C. be married and (2) cohabitation.

[Ilsa]

64. I learned it the same way as Mithras.

You can be legally married in a day in TX by cohab, intention, and presenting yourselves as married. (And so it would require a divorce if they wish to split.)

[JVS]

43. same here

[closeupready]

17. Disgusting. Isn't there such a thing as common law marriage?

Maybe not technically in the US, but I do think there is in LA?

[juajen]

35. I don't believe so, not in Louisiana

Very Catholic state, you know.

[AnneD]

41. and isn't it under

Napoleonic Code or was that changed. I remember reading in my history book that that was a concession given during the LA Purchase.

[Mnemosyne]

49. Here ya' go:

http://www.unmarried.org/commonlaw.pdf

[AnneD]

70. learn somthing new

every day. Thanks

[Mnemosyne]

72. I was lucky and found out in

1978 before I ended up *married* to the guy I was living with in Alabama at age 19. Whew, that was close! lol

[tabasco]

36. Depends on the state.

PA has common law marriage. MD does not.

[Sammy Pepys]

18. I can see some reasoning behind the rule...

...though I'm not advocating that it's a good one.

[tkmorris]

21. I'd love to hear what your reasoning is

Seriously, no intention to flame you here. If there's an argument to be made here I'd like to know what it is.

[Sammy Pepys]

27. Well, call me old school...

..and I half expect to get flamed for this, but why not just get married? They've been together 13 years, have two kids, and are taking care of a third. Unless there is some sort of divorce or legal problem precluding them from doing so, I don't see what the big deal is.

The three person relation limit is probably based on an effort to curb instances were houses end up having 10 or 12 random people living in them. Obviously, these folks are not attempting to estbalish a flop house, and I don't see why the board doesn't recognize that.

[retread]

30. "... why not just get married?" Maybe they see no need for the state to

sanctify their relationship?

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. Maybe one is a good catholic who has been divorced.

Therefore, prohibited to marry again. Does the state have the right to demand they violate their faith?

[seriousstan]

52. A good Catholic can't live in sin either.

If that is the case, they are currently violating their faith.

However, if you are serious in learning about the options in the Catholic Church.......

Since the vows were exchanged in public and meant to be "until death do us part," then there must be a public declaration stating that the vows are not binding. The Church sincerely tries to help those individuals who have suffered the tragedy of divorce as well as to hold true to the teachings of our Lord. A person who is divorced may petition the Church to review the marriage and investigate whether a full, free-willed consent (as much as any person can give) was exchanged at the time of the wedding. The Code of Canon Law specifies that "matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other to establish marriage" (No. 1057.2). If the Church determines that a defect in the consent existed at the time of marriage, then a Declaration of Nullity (an annulment) would be granted. Such a declaration proclaims that one or both parties did not (or could not) give a full, free-willed consent, and therefore no indissoluble, sacramental bond was established. Yes, a ceremony took place, but no sacrament occurred.

In investigating these cases, the Tribunal of the Diocese carefully examines the circumstances of the couple at the time of the marriage: such circumstances include their age and maturity; a pattern of alcohol, drug, or any substance abuse; any physical or emotional abuse in their personal history and in their relationship; any deviant sexual practices; any infidelity; any conditions placed upon the marriage; their openness to children; any history of serious psychological problems or mental illness; any previous marriages or attempts to marry; and the ability to enter a permanent, faithful, exclusive union. In examining these circumstances and how they impact upon the couple's ability to make a full, free-willed consent, the Tribunal looks at the couple's relationship during the courtship, the time of marriage, and their lived-life in marriage. The Tribunal will also ask for witnesses, who knew the couple during this time frame, and contact them to answer specific questions. In all, the Tribunal strives to be compassionate and just. Moreover, the proceedings are done under strict confidentiality.

Granted, pursuing a Declaration of Nullity is not easy. The process involves paperwork and interviews, which do surface hurtful memories. The process also may take twelve months or more because of the caseload of the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the process does bring healing and closure to a past hurt. Moreover, if granted, the Declaration of Nullity brings freedom to a person who now can enter into a new marriage freely.

In 1995, 54,013 were granted in the U.S.

[harpboy_ak]

65. time for the church to get real

and they wonder why, when they insist that women must live with men who beat them, and they try to avoid paying for the hurt caused by the abuses committed by their clergy and then covered up by the church hierarchy, when they insists that only celibate males can celebrate liturgy... they wonder why people are deserting the church in droves?

it's time for the pope to get out of his ivory tower and join the real world. he can't save souls if he drives them out of the church.

[saigon68]

67. I agree-- the church has spent too much time

Covering up the stories of pedophile collar wearing men, Anally Raping young boys

[iverglas]

32. nah, I'll call you a nosy parker

why not just get married?

And one might ask you: why not just go jump off a bridge? I'm sure you've got your reasons, but what do they matter to me?

I don't see what the big deal is.

And your not understanding other people's reasons for what they do -- not that you even know what they are, of course -- makes it okey dokey to discriminate against them for doing those things?

Yikes. These ideas are really very, very scary. They tend to lead to things like stoning adulterers.

Obviously, these folks are not attempting to estbalish a flop house, and I don't see why the board doesn't recognize that.

There ya go. If the intention is to prevent the establishment of commercial rooming houses, for instance, in residential zones, why not make by-laws that do that instead of doing something else?

[tkmorris]

38. Fair enough

I don't find that argument compelling however, for the simple reason that getting married (or not) should be entirely up to them. It would appear that in this case the local officials are engaging in some arm-twisting. Whatever their reasons for not getting married are, they are entitled to them.

[laylah]

42. Sammy dear

with all due respect, I lived with the father of my first daughter for 3 years. We became pregnant again, at which time I pushed for marriage because of your kind of thinking and what it could do to my children (ignorance and all). So, we married...and after 23 years have divorced. If YOU choose to marry, whenever and for whatever reason, good on you but don't put your "values" onto others. What others decide to do is not up to you or anyone else!

Jenn

[mondo joe]

50. Answer: marriage is a personal choice.

The big deal is privacy and autonomy.

[LostinVA]

51. Maybe because they don't want to

All marriage is is a legal contract, specically created for wealthy people. Most people didn't get REALLY married under a middle class was created.

It's no one's business.

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. Why not just get married?

Ay yay yay. Maybe because they don't fucking want to?

I suppose this is the flame you were expecting, tra la la...:eyes:

[sandnsea]

59. Well, call me prehistoric school then

but why not let people do what they will on their own property until a situation arises that is a legitimate nuisance.

[Jersey Ginny]

68. No one should be forced into a legal contract

Also, I know a few couples who aren't married in solidarity with GLBT discrimination.

[Bridget Burke]

78. I've known several couples, together for years, who married....

And then divorced. Why should this couple risk wrecking a long term relationship?

[Misunderestimator]

79. It would be caving into discrimination... beside making it even more...

difficult for those of us who CANNOT be married. Wow. That's like saying... Why not just accept invasion of your rights if you aren't doing anything wrong?

[tonkatoy57]

20. I Think there is a subtext to this story

In the Post-Dispatch story about this there were photos accompanying the article.

She's (appears to be) White and he's Black.

Make of that what you will.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. That's some subtext.

Not too surprising, as I remember parts of MO.

[shain from kane]

29. It's Blackjack, Missouri, but it ain't black, jack.

I think that you are a lot closer to the truth, and the reason behind this ordinance than most may care to admit, especially residents and political leaders in Blackjack, MO.

[iverglas]

33. if not the reason behind the ordinance itself

... perhaps the reason why it is being applied to this couple. Are there really no other unmarried couples with children living there? Seems kinda hard to believe, but then I'm a foreigner who finds many things hard to believe. ;)

[SaintLouisBlues]

39. Actually Black Jack has lots of African-Americans. North County

Probably 70 percent. Democratic also.

[shanti]

57. there you go....

this happens, even tho people don't want to believe it. i speak from experience.

[sui generis]

23. They need to move in anyway and have news cameras ready

when the JOP comes to try to throw them out.

Occupancy should be concerned with safety and readiness of the house, not the occupants.

I sure hope someone gets an additional ass crack over this.

[tanyev]

25. So if the issue is no marriage license, why would one child be OK,

but more than that is not OK? Makes no sense at all.

[iverglas]

28. once upon a time in Canada

municipalities tried to do things like this.

The issue (not clear in the article) is "single-family housing" zoning. Municipalities are indeed entitled to make zoning by-laws that restrict certain residential zones to single-family housing -- i.e. that would preclude boarding houses, retirement homes, group homes and the like.

The question is what constitutes a "family". Well, many years ago in Ontario, it was held that rules that amount to discrimination for which there is no rational basis aren't allowed.

Here's how standard Ontario municipal by-laws read now:

Family
shall mean one or more persons who are related by bonds of consanguinity, marriage or common law marriage or legal adoption, or not more than five unrelated persons, with or without one or more full-time domestic servants, occupying a dwelling unit.

From a British Columbia municipal law professor's course notes (the Supreme Court decision is slightly too old to be on line yet):
http://outlines.law.uvic.ca/courses/municipal/mun_spring04_curran_outline_keithand.doc

Void for unreasonableness, void for uncertainty, delegation without guidelines, severability

... Bell, R. v., 1979 S.C.C. {Supreme Court of Canada}

a. Facts: bylaw defined a dwelling unit as for use by individual or one "family", and "family" as people related by blood, marriage or legal adoption. Bell living in this zoned area with unrelated people, convicted by lower court

b. Decision (3-2):

i. Majority (Spence J):

1.This is not regulating the use of the building but rather who uses it

2. Such personal characteristics are not a proper basis for zoning

3. This is land zoning by people zoning which was not intention of legislation e.g. disallows common law couples ...

There is criticism of the legal basis used for the judgement at the time, but there is absolutely no chance that such by-laws would ever be upheld in Canada now.

Laws against co-habiting without marriage ... don't they make humorous TV shows about things like that?

And that's in the land of the free, y'all tell me. Huh. I think I'll take rights.

[YankeyMCC]

44. "This is about the definition of family," the Mayor of the town

What makes these people think it's the government's place to define what a family is?

[iverglas]

47. well ... see my post 28

What makes these people think it's the government's place to define what a family is?

It is a government's place to define a family for purposes that are legitimate purposes of that government.

In the case of zoning by-laws, where it is a legitimate purpose of the government to restrict certain residential zones to single-family housing, the government actually needs to define "family". Otherwise, all sorts of bizarre and discriminatory things might be done in deciding what was "single-family" use and what wasn't.

What it is not legitimate for a government to do is define "family" in such a way that it excludes certain living arrangements for no legitimate purpose, i.e. no purpose that relates to land use.

It is really not arguable that the marital status of people in a household has any effect on the character of the neighbourhood or the nature of the land use in the municipality. So defining "family" based on a household's members' marital status isn't a legitimate exercise of the power to regulate land use.

In my humble opinion, and that of the Supreme Court of Canada, anyhow.

[Dead_Parrot]

48. Blood ties!?

...requires people living together to have blood, marriage or adoption ties.

So a brother and sister with 3 kids would be OK, then?

Gotta love the fundies...

[Xithras]

55. This is a gross misuse of a legitimate legal principle.

Many cities prohibit unrelated people from moving in together, and it usually has nothing to do with enforcing morality. Usually these laws are put in place in order to prevent multiple families from living in a single home. My brother actually lives in a neighborhood with HOA rules that basically do the same thing...prohibit unrelated people from moving into a single home. The difference is that they recognize unregistered domestic partnerships and long term relationships as "legitimate", and understand that the point of the rules is to prohibit overcrowding in homes and NOT to police what is and isn't a "family". Without rules like this, you get situations where three or four families pool their money to afford a house and move in as a single group. Since few houses are designed to hold that many people, it's a health hazard.

I used to prohibit unrelated and unmarried people from renting my investment homes, but that had more to do with the difficulty I had in enforcing rental contracts when one tenant left and the other stayed. Legally, making exceptions was a nightmare so I just couldn't do it. People used to get FURIOUS with me when I informed them that their new live-in was a violation of their rental agreement and grounds for eviction, but legally we had little choice in the matter.

[iverglas]

56. furious indeed

People used to get FURIOUS with me when I informed them that their new live-in was a violation of their rental agreement and grounds for eviction, but legally we had little choice in the matter.

And the situation would have been different if they had moved their new SPOUSE into the unit ... how?

Little choice? I'm seeing a lot of choice, badly exercised, and the "I have no choice" excuse used for the "I'm doing what I think is best for me and the hell with you" choice. I own and rent out residential property, by the way. I don't allow dogs, firearms or loud parties, but I don't regard myself as entitled to interfere in people's private lives by ousting them from their homes if they do something that most people consider to be a matter of a pretty fundamental human right: form an intimate relationship and a family.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that right is somewhat archaicly expressed like this:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. ...

The Declaration is not exactly binding on landlords, but I don't voluntarily do things that interfere in people exercising those rights.

And legally, where I'm at, I'm not entitled to in this situation.

If someone overcrowded the unit under municipal by-law rules, by moving anyone at all in, I could give notice to remedy the breach and notice to terminate if it weren't remedied -- say, if I rented a one-bdrm apt to two unrelated individuals who each moved a spouse into the unit, or rented a house to four unrelated individuals who moved three more in. Their breach of the rental agreement becomes my breach of the by-law, and in that situation I really don't have any choice, and their interference in my ability to meet my legal obligations becomes grounds for termination. But if the way the tenant chooses to occupy the unit doesn't violate by-laws (or other laws, like running a brothel or crack house ...) or interfere with other tenants' enjoyment, then basically, I don't have grounds for termination.

I most certainly could not discriminate between married and unmarried couples (or opposite-sex and same-sex couples, or different-race and same-race couples ...) in enforcing any rental rule, no matter how valid it otherwise was. We've got a Human Rights Code that absolutely forbids this, and I'd no more try to evade it than I would pick my nose and eat it in public, nor would I ever think of behaving in such a way even if we didn't have the Code.

Good lord; by-laws that deny occupancy permits on wholly illegitimate grounds, tenancies that can be terminated on a landlord's whim -- real live people without homes. Damn, I'm glad every day that I don't live in a time and place where such things are permitted.

[Xithras]

60. It had to do with not getting screwed.

When you permit non-married individuals...and I'm talking about roomates as much as couples...to lease property together you can find yourself in all kinds of sticky legal situations. The first and last time I did that, both parties signed their own rental agreements. When one person decided to move out, the other refused to pay the full rent claiming that she'd leased under the impression that she would only have to pay half the rent. When I took her to court to evict her, she SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED that point and was given a 90 day reprieve. By the time everything was said and done, I'd lost half the rent on the place for five months.

And of course, California has these f***** up assumed tenancy laws. I once rented to a single woman who moved her boyfriend in after a few months. When the woman split, I STILL had to go through the full (expensive) eviction process to throw the bum out. Even though he wasn't on the rental agreement, the fact that I was aware of his tenancy there made him a legal resident and provided him with the same protections as the renter I'd originally signed the unit over to. Even though the original renter turned her keys in and terminated HER lease legally, I still got stuck fighting HIM for two months before I managed to get him out of there.

THAT'S why unmarried couples weren't welcome in my rentals. I have nothing against them, and in fact I lived with my own wife for many years before we were married, but legally it's too diffucult to deal with the BS renter protection laws that completely ignore common sense.

If you're married, I can sue you as a couple and an order on one applies to the other. If you're single, I don't have to worry about second parties at all. If you're just a bunch of people living together, whether you're intimate or not, you just magnify the complexity of dealing with bad tenants. For many people, it's not worth it.

Actually, I ended up deciding that none of it was worth it. Nearly two years ago I pretty much got tired of the whole deal and sold all of the houses off (or sold my interest in the ones I didn't own outright). I simply got sick of the entire us vs. them mentality, and the constant legal hassles from my tenants. I could tell you horror stories about the people I had to deal with, there's enough material there to write a book.

[harpboy_ak]

66. you just didn't have good legall advice

i manage 3 mobile home parks with 350 units and 10 buildings with 160 apartments. our rental agreements were honed, with our attorney's assistance, over the past 15 years. all of our rental agreements and leases say how many persons may occupy the premises, name the tenants individually, and state that they are jointly and severally liable for the rent and any damages caused by any or all of them or their guests.

even though we go over the entire agreement with them, and the park or apartment rules, too, most tenants don't have a clue as to what it says. hell, some can't even remember what their rent is, even though they may have been paying the same amount every month for over a year.

in the rental business, you just have to assume that tenants are clueless and that a certain number of them will be tenants from hell. you just wait until the market is tight so that you know you can fill vacancies, then you give the annoying tenants a 30 day notice and get very selective about who you move in next.

of course, you can only do that if you have well run rentals with good maintenance so that the good tenants will stay.

[HuffleClaw]

58. erm, doesn't the bill of rights guarantee freedom of mobility?

so, i can't see this being remotely legal.

[Odin2005]

62. Many of these laws are usually unenforced anachronisms...

...that survive from back before dating was common. The fact that is an interracial relationship makes me suspicious that this law was "revivied" because of racism.

[Rich Hunt]

80. yeah, no shit

You can always count on some racist snoop to dust that stuff off when they want to harass or otherwise 'block' someone who is a threat.