Unwed couple sues town over housing flap (Missouri)

[underpants]

This story was in the "Odd news" section of Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060811/od_nm/life_marriage_dc

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - A Missouri couple who must get married, or move, in order to comply with a housing ordinance in Black Jack, Missouri, sued the town on Thursday, claiming rules prohibiting the unmarried couple and their children from living together are unconstitutional.



The petition, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, challenges a Black Jack city ordinance that prohibits more than three people from living together in the same house if they are unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption.

Shelltrack and Loving have lived together about 13 years and have two children together, along with a 15-year-old daughter of Shelltrack's from a previous relationship.

Black Jack, a town of about 7,000 that prides itself on a city Web site for its "character and stability," refused to grant the couple and their children an occupancy permit for their home because they do not meet the definition of "family" as set forth by the city, the complaint alleges.

"It all goes to the definition of family," Stock said. "These laws are all over the country. These laws are trying to preserve neighborhood character."

[seriousstan]

1. Old news 2/27/06

Mini-battle over definition of 'family' has national significance

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving and their three children were excited when they moved into their new home in Black Jack City, Missouri. But their joy turned to shock when local bureaucrats denied them an occupancy permit because their household did not fit the city's definition of "family."
Black Jack is a small community with only 2,400 households. The Census Bureau shows a slight hint of diversity in Black Jack, with 563 people living alone, 1261 married couple households, 528 households containing unmarried blood relatives, and 70 "non-family" households.

Apparently city officials want to rid the town of 'non-family" living arrangements. A local ordinance forbids three or more individuals from living together if they are not related by "blood, marriage or adoption."

Although Shelltrack and Fondray are not married, they have lived together for 13 years. Fondray is the father of two of the children, but not the oldest. As a result, the city says their household composition violates the city ordinance and they should move out.

http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/column-one/2-27-06-definition-of-family.htm

[underpants]

2. Picture of the couple hmmmmmm

from a May 17 article
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.

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/9235306/detail.html

[CottonBear]

6. They do meet the definition of family as defined by the municipality.

She is related to her children from a previous relationship, he's related to the children that they have together and the children are half-siblings or full-siblings to each other.

The only two people who are not related by blood (obviously) are the parents.

edit: The definition of family as stated in the article:

"The petition, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, challenges a Black Jack city ordinance that prohibits more than three people from living together in the same house if they are unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption."

[dbackjon]

3. I hope they win -

This seems unconstitional. And it could be used against Gay Families as well.


But this also pisses me off about the couple - just get married, damn it.

[underpants]

4. Why do they have to get married? What's it to you are anyone else?

[dbackjon]

5. Because on a personal level

It pisses me off the people that CAN get married don't, while people that want to get married (like me) can't.

:)

[Dora]

8. Wow. That's the first time I've heard that sentiment.

I've heard of people who can get married choosing not to as a protest against the forbidding of people who DO want to get married from doing so.

You have a unique perspective.

[NVMojo]

9. I can understand your point of view ...getting married the way

these assholes want is really nothing more than a legal piece of paper that ends up allowing the couple to file taxes as married, be on each other's health insurance, etc.

Spiritual "marriages" or unions are much different.

[AtomicKitten]

7. an archaic law that needs to be changed

eom

[MrCoffee]

10. College towns do this ALL THE TIME

It's ostensibly to keep college kids from renting a house and having loud parties/disturbing neighbors/lowering property values.

[Trillo]

11. If they can't find housing, they why would they be liable for taxes?

My answer: economic terrorism