Update on Unwed couple/children barred in Missouri town-ACLU

[uppityperson]

Simply put, the town passed a law that any group of 3 or more people living together has to show ID for every resident, that unmarried couples (no matter how long together or how stable) cannot live there. This is a St. Louis middle-class suburb, according to the story. Unmarried families can be fined $500/day, the ACLU has taken the case on, the Black Jack City Council rejected a measure to change the law.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003012539_blackjack23.html

(clip)
The debate over how to define "family" has become increasingly heated after decades of changing social norms. And a growing number of urban and suburban communities are turning to housing and zoning laws to say what is — and isn't — a family, said Frank Alexander, interim dean of Emory University's School of Law in Atlanta.

"It's a not-so-veiled attempt to control who lives down the street and legislate relationships," said Alexander, who teaches a course on how housing laws define America's families. Black Jack Mayor Norman McCourt noted that no federal or Missouri law bars housing discrimination based on marital status. Missouri does not recognize common-law marriage.

Advocates say communities are just defending local standards. "They have the right to protect and restore a marriage-based moral order," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America, a public-policy organization based in Washington...
(more at link)

[Warpy]

1. You just KNEW that CWA had to be mixed up in this somewhere

Honestly, Miss Prunella needs to get a new hobby. People are going to start looking at her funny if she keeps peeping into strangers' bedrooms.

I would dearly love to see a stake driven into the black, shriveled and oozing heart of the idea of a victimless crime. No victim, no crime. Period.

Most of the mischief in human history has been caused by people who wanted to create crimes out of human activity that produces no victims.

I think the ACLU will win this one. I seem to remember their winning similar cases in the 70s about unmarried adults in rental housing. The freedom of association is guaranteed, whether or not some preacher has mumbled words over the happy couple.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

5. Yes, the ACLU will win . . .

. . . and if they don't, I fear for my best friend and her partner. The state of Missouri has gone to the dogs, and two delightful gay women will probably be next.

Did you ever imagine, twenty years ago, when these jerks were still on the fringe of society, that they would be so successful at attempting to subvert the Constitution and set up a theocracy???

Unfreakinbelievable.

[ixion]

2. a "marriage-based moral order"?

:wtf:

That is unconstitutional about six different ways from Sunday. :grr:

[1monster]

3. Wouldn't the Fourth Amendment apply here?

Article
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And the First (freedom of expresson...stretching it just a bit)

Article
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And definitely the Nineth Amendment

Article
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[waiting for hope]

4. ACLU is fighting that here in NC

as well - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901091.html

That law has been on the books since 1805....isn't it 2006? Here's a snippet from the right wing nut here:

"We think that it's good to have a law against cohabitation because the studies show that couples that cohabitate before they're married, that their marriages are more prone to break up, there's less stability in the marriage," said Bill Brooks, executive director of the conservative North Carolina Family Policy Council.
:puke:

Can't these idiots use their time more wisely by trying to help combat hunger and homelessness here in the US?

[WePurrsevere]

7. What legitimate studies have shown this? Many couples I know live together

before the "official" ceremony takes place and many of their marriages do better then those who didn't. Heck even my husband and I lived together for a bit (with my daughters from my first marriage) and 12 1/2 years later we still not only love each other but LIKE each other.

This whole keeping loving commited couples out of an area because they don't hold that legal slip of paper is horse puckey. Being commitmented to and remaining in a loving relationship has nothing to do with a bit of paper or vows said in a building somewhere.

[eleny]

6. "marriage-based moral order"

:rofl:

[Ian David]

8. You know what would be interesting?

Finding out where this couple stands on the issue of gay marriage.