Town won't let unmarried parents live together

[im10ashus]

:wtf:

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

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.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

cont'd...

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

[annabanana]

1. what year is this?

(just askin')

[im10ashus]

7. I wondered the same thing.

I hope they have legal recourse. This would not be a good precedent.

[dipsydoodle]

20. Roughly

1806 I guess. Do they still burn witches there as well ?

[mike_c]

2. they should not complain....

At least the townfolk didn't stone them.

[Canuckistanian]

3. What was that about "getting government off our backs"??

And out of our private lives? I guess that only applies to guns.

[ceile]

4. I think they're a mixed race couple as well.

Wonder if that had anything to do with it? Man, and I think living in TX is bad sometimes.....idiots.

[LostinVA]

8. They are -- what a surprise, eh?

[Canuckistanian]

12. Say no more

If it were Tom Cruise and Katie moving in, they'd give them a reception and the key to the city.

[nickinSTL]

37. yeah, Missouri's trying to rival TX in some areas

damn sickening.

I hope they fight this. It's absurd.

[dogday]

5. Isn't that unconstitutional???

You can't tell people who they can and cannot live with.. I know that is a violation of one of our freaking rights.... :wtf:

[rucky]

14. Only if SCOTUS finds it that way.

Legislatures & councils pass unconstitutional laws all the time, but they're effective until Supreme courts strike it down.

[heart of darkness]

19. The court has found similar regulations constitutional.

For example-Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974): ordinance restricted house to single-family occupancy and excluded households with more than two unrelated persons; suit on ground that ordinance was unconstitutional as arbitrary and unreasonable. Held, the legislature may properly define what is a “family” for zoning purposes if the ordinance is reasonable, not arbitrary and the definition is rationally related to public welfare. the court found in this case that the purpose was to maintain family neighborhoods, decrease traffic and noise, low population density—all legitimate.

I would distinguish the OP's case from this by saying that it doesn't relate to the public welfare to keep parents of a child apart and the other factors wouldn't come into play.

Anyway, the point being that the court doesn't like to see these cases-it sees this not as a constitutional issue, but as a state's rights issue, because otherwise it would be innundated with all the stupid regulations that city's pass.

[happyslug]

31. Yes but see Moore vs East Cleveland.

Where the Supreme Court distinguished "Belle Terre v. Boraas" when the people in the household were blood relatives to each other.

For Belle Terre vs Boraas:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=416&invol=1

For an edited Version:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/belle.html

Moore vs East Cleveland:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=431&invol=494

For an edited version:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/moore.html

[heart of darkness]

33. good point..

I was thinking of Moore in a more narrow sense, but I would agree that it supersedes in this case

[dogday]

40. How could they find it any other way.....

You can't tell people in America who can live together and who can't... That is the most absurd thing, I have ever heard... People have to be married, what a load of crappola....

[acmavm]

6. So, shall we assume that all of the resident's are as pure as

the driven snow? This is absolutely none of their frigging business. Make them show the part in the Bible or whatever where the "judge not or..." was cancelled.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. I don't understand why this couple is in trouble for this.

The ordinance says "more than three people not related by marriage, blood, etc".

It is just the two of them. Their kids are obviously related by blood to them.

:shrug:

[im10ashus]

13. A very good point.

These are "their" children, so in essence, they are all related. I think it has more to do with their being interracial.

[Midlodemocrat]

15. Thanks for agreeing.

I just don't see how they are breaking this ordinance. :shrug:

[im10ashus]

18. Nor do I see how they are breaking it.

I wonder what a couple that is unmarried but has foster children would be forced to do? I smell a discrimination lawsuit. :shrug:

[politicaholic]

10. Another example of the MSMs on going War on Christianity...

when will Christians ever get a break to be able to worship and oppress in peace as the American forefathers intended.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. Huh?

[politicaholic]

29. Obviously you didn't read my post closely enough my dear...

my humor can be a little to subtle sometimes.

1) the forefathers intended separation of church and state
2) "worship and oppress" (sometimes words can be missed)

perhaps I should use the :sarcasm: emoticon more often

BTW - I like your posts, I read them all of the time

[TallahasseeGrannie]

32. Oh, ok

the sarcasm thingie IS useful sometimes. I thought maybe you had posted that in the wrong place or something. Now I see the "nuance."

Thanks for the kind words.

T-Grannie

[rock]

11. What'd are you in for, Lefty?

I lived in a house with this other person, see. You don't want to cross me!

[leeroysphitz]

16. Like a protest sign once said "I can't believe we're still arguing

about this"... Where is the ACLU?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Unconstitutional.

It restricts the freedom of assembly.

[Poll_Blind]

21. I hate to bring it up but I believe that's only for public places.

If you gather in a place of business you can be charged with economic terrorism now. Martin Luther King, Mohandas Ghandi- terrorists for their non-violent sit-ins.

When it comes to private property you have even less rights, although there has to be something already on the books about this. Or, maybe not. Maybe, in America's long and very checkered civil-rights history no one has dared push such puritanical beliefs so far.

I would not be at all suprised to learn that America is beginning a descent into a dark whirlpool filled with bobbing crosses.

PB

[heart of darkness]

26. No, doesn't invoke assembly..

see my post above..The Court in Belle Terre said that regulations like this don't involve any express constitutional right as long as they aren't arbitrary. The Court gives a lot of deference to the legislature; the regulation only has to be “rationally related” to purpose; doesn’t infringe a constitutional right so long as the distinctions made do not invoke a suspect class (as defined by the Fair Housing Act)

The best argument might be that it is a violation of privacy or that it violates the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by being biased against a suspect class. One of the classes in the FHA is family status, but that is narrowly defined as having kids-meaning you can't exclude someone with kids.

Edit: to get the year of the act right

[The Straight Story]

22. I think their real goal may be to stop gay parents from moving in

Not so much others - and they took a hardline stance to show they would enforce it for all people.

Just a guess :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. Well good luck with THIS one

Black Jack, Missouri!

LOL.

[myrna minx]

25. This flies in the face of the Fair Housing Laws...

The Fair Housing Laws
Fair Housing Act
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability). More on the Fair Housing Act
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/

[im10ashus]

27. Thanks, Myrna Minx!

I was looking for that in particular.

:hi:

[myrna minx]

28. You're welcome.

This is against the law. It would never hold up at the Supreme Court.

[heart of darkness]

30. Iits not a per se violation of FHA

the Court has interpreted familial status to only mean that a party can't deny housing to someone with children. It has said this provision is not invoked when restricting housing to non-related adults. Cases under FHA where gay couples have been denied housing don't meet this standard. If the court was to allow this, it would automatically mean that gays would have the right as well under the 14th amendment.

[happyslug]

34. But it violated Moore vs East Cleveland.

For the citation is my previous post.

[heart of darkness]

35. but it doesn't violate the FHA per se

[happyslug]

38. Moore vs East Cleveland is NOT a FHA case

Moore is a case involving FUNDAMENTAL rights vs Zoning regulations. The Court held when it came to BLOOD RELATIVES, it is a fundamental right for the family to be permitted to stay together even if that violates local Zoning acts.

Remember the thread is NOT the FHA but the ability of this municipality to expel this family form their home because the family does NOT meet the definition of Family as used in the Zoning Act. While Village of Belle Terre said Zoning can be used to keep out Collage kids (i.e. collage students are NOT families within the definition of the Zoning Act), Moore said that rule does NOT apply when it comes to blood relatives and any Zoning law that interferes with a fundamental right (like keeping one's family intact) is unconstitutional against that family.

[heart of darkness]

39. The poster I replied to invoked FHA...

to say that this regulation was wrong. FHA does not necessarily apply here, hence my post.

Yes, you could argue under Moore that this is unconstitutional. You would have to use the fact that they have kids together as a hook to show blood or familial relationship to get around Belle Terre.

edit: typos

[happyslug]

42. I have re-read Moore, including the dissents

Moore in many way is a mess, like most US Supreme Court Zoning cases. The reason for this is the Supreme Court likes avoiding two types of cases, Gun Control and Zoning cases. While various reasons are given for this avoidance, but the real reason is such cases are unpredictable for they both break up and realign the traditional Left-Right positions of the justices.

The reason for this is that these types of cases are more individual rights vs group right case than Group vs group rights. Right wingers who believe in small government and minimal government interference with business hate both Gun Control and Zoning, but economic right wingers like both for in zoning laws the VALUE of their property is enhanced by State action AND people who may take they property by force are restricted.

As to Liberals, liberals who like Government to help people like Zoning Laws (It provides places for EVERYONE in theory) and Gun Control (Restricts weapons to police who in theory protect EVERYONE). On the other hand liberals who prefer INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM hate both, for gun control restricts the freedom to defend one self in the matter one wants to, and Zoning law restricts HOW one can use one's own property.

(Please no comments on Gun Control, I am using it as example NOT to take a stand one way or another on that issue in this thread).

Even the first Zoning law case (VILLAGE OF EUCLID, OHIO v. AMBLER REALTY CO., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=272&invol=365) saw the opinion being written by one of the Most conservative men on the Court at that time (1926, Justice Sutherland) with the three Justices he almost always voted with being the dissent in Euclid. This as the classic split, the three dissenters wanted to reject Zoning for it interfered with how people could use their property, Sutherland and the majority valued Government Controls that ENHANCED property values over the individual right to use one's property as he or she saw fit.

This split continues to this day, it is a split that divides those people who value individual Rights from those that believe it is Government's role to enhance the Majority property value (and yet zone for everyone).

In Moore you saw Justice Burger going on and on that the case should be denied for the Grandmother should have gone and ask for a Variance of the Zoning Law instead of Challenging its Constitutionality (You can tell he did NOT want to rule on the merits of the case, he wanted to uphold the right of the town to pass any zoning restriction the town wanted, but at the same time did not want to rule that a Grandmother could, by that town, to force to kick out her orphaned 10 year old son, thus he went on and on about the failure of the Grandmother to ask for a Variance so her ten year old grandson could live with her). Two other justices were less concerned, they were more than willing to uphold the Zoning law for it preserved this suburb to the exclusive use of nuclear families.

Brennan and Marshall had the best argument, talking about the use of Extended families especially by Poor people (mostly black but also white poor people) and that such a Zoning rule would prevent such extended families from living under the same roof SOMETHING PEOPLE HAVE DONE FOR EONS except for the period since WWII.

The plurality decision just hanged its head on facts of the case, that the ten year old nearest relative was his 63 year old Grandmother and they did not want to rule the ten year old had no right to live with his grandmother under this Zoning Act and thus the Act was unconstitutional as applied to the ten year old and his Grandmother.

Notice NO MAJORITY DECISION IN MOORE, but it is clear that most of the Justice found it unfair to break up intake families.

Since Moore, the Court has ruled raising a family is a fundamental right (See TROXEL et vir. v. GRANVILLE, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-138

In Troxel, the Court ruled the State can NOT compel a Mother to leave the Paternal Grandparents see their Grandchildren if such visitation interferes with how the mother wants to raise her children (The Father was deceased so had no say in the raising of his Children after his death). The rationale for that decision was that Parents had a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to raise their children, the same argument made in Moore. In Troxel the Grandparents had won Visitation with their Grandchildren even when the Mother objected to the Visitation and it interfered with how the Mother wanted to raise her Children. The Court ruled such a STATE ORDERED visitation interfered with how the Mother was to raise her family and that was a Fundamental Right.

Basically Troxel backs up Moore that it is a fundamental right to keep one's family together and thus this statute prohibiting co-habiting people from living together WITH THEIR CHILDREN, is unconstitutional (Notice I avoided co-habituating people living without Children, that may NOT be covered by Moore and Troxel and more in line with Belle Terre v. Boraas.

[heart of darkness]

36. but it doesn't violate the FHA per se

[im10ashus]

41. I think that is open to interpreation.

Unless a building or community qualifies as housing for older persons, it may not discriminate based on familial status. That is, it may not discriminate against families in which one or more children under 18 live with:

A parent
A person who has legal custody of the child or children or
The designee of the parent or legal custodian, with the parent or custodian's written permission.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm

[happyslug]

43. They are NOT discriminating because the Couple has Children

They are being discriminated against because they are NOT married. Thus the FHA does NOT apply.