Get married, or get evicted...

[Masquerouge]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_on_re_us/unmarried_couples_4

I find this crazy. Just because the parents are not married, this family can not live under the same roof?

But what's more:

The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children

Oh, because unmarried couples with one child is NOT a family?

I really hope there is more to this story than plain and simple bigotry.

 

[.Shane.]

Yeah, I was reading this earlier. Gotta love forcing morality on people's housing choices, of all things.

And here I thought most of the morality idiots were in Kansas. Some must have moved across the border.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I really hope there is more to this story than plain and simple bigotry.

Maybe not, but I think it might be illegal to do that. If not, hey it's just one worthless little small town, right?

 

[mrtn]

Iran, USA, what's the difference?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Iran, USA, what's the difference?

The difference is that they are merely getting evicted, not sent to prison or worse, and that this can only happen in backwards small towns.

 

[malclave]

I can kind of understand the council not wanting to redefine "family".

However, they should alter the ordinance so that unmarried people are not prevented from getting an occupancy permit. Or if they won't, the people affected should pursue this in the courts.

 

[Xanikk999]

How are they going to enforce this? This is incredibly common. Sounds unfair to me.

 

[7ronin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_on_re_us/unmarried_couples_4I find this crazy. Just because the parents are not married, this family can not live under the same roof?

Sure they can live under the same roof, the city just isn't going to subsidize it. Will you tell municipalities who they can or can't provide public housing to? Lots of legal issues here which weren't address in the short news clip.

 

[De Lorimier]

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.

So if the measure would have been adopted, no real abuse could take place. Unless you consider two adults living with their three kids some kind of abuse of the system. This is ********.

 

[bhsup]

Well, I don't see subsidized housing mentioned in the Yahoo! news article, but frankly that doesn't make a difference.

As a resident of the Great and Sovereign State of Missouri, I would like to go on record as stating that this is an asinine law. Keeping parents from living with their kids because of marital status?!

 

[Xanikk999]

I doubt this is going to be enforced.

Reason is is because theres a similar law in virginia thats in effect and nobody has been evicted because of these reasons.

 

[Grisu]

what a moronic law.

and there I was laughing at my mother when she told me that in the 60s it wasn't allowed for unmarried couples to live together in Zürich...that was 40 years ago and still struck me as stupid.....

 

[IglooDame]

Well first off, a little Googling brought up different articles, one of which included this:

Shelltrack, 31, could appeal Black Jack's decision to the St. Louis County Circuit Court, but she said that would involve legal fees that she and Loving can't afford because of the money they poured into buying their home.

She said, however, the couple has filed a complaint with the U.S. Housing and Urban Department.

"I refuse to run down to the courthouse and get married just so I can live in my own home," she said. "I love my house. I love the area. I love the schools. We wouldn't have bought the house if we didn't think it was what we wanted."

So that clears up any question about public housing. They bought the house.

So now... "Denied an occupancy permit"?

An OCCUPANCY PERMIT???

Excuse me, I need to go find a bucket into which I can empty my stomach...

 

[IglooDame]

I doubt this is going to be enforced.

Reason is is because theres a similar law in virginia thats in effect and nobody has been evicted because of these reasons.

On the contrary, we're hearing about it because it is being enforced. And so it's another example of why "oh sure that's a law, but no one enforces it, so don't worry about it" is so much bullcrap.

 

[JohnRM]

Well, that would be just about the time that the local government offices get burned to the ground.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

This is ********!!!

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The difference is that they are merely getting evicted, not sent to prison or worse, and that this can only happen in backwards small towns.

Eviction is better than being tortured to death as would probably be the case in Iran.

 

[IglooDame]

Well, that would be just about the time that the local government offices get burned to the ground.

Indeed, although being one of those people that scopes out an area in advance and does consider the *ahem* sociopolitical tendencies of the places I'm considering moving to, I'd not be in that circumstance in the first place.

But make no mistake - this is about their not being married. They are both biological parents of two of the three children, the eldest child having a different father. They're in a five-bedroom house, no overcrowding issues there, and they'd not be seeing any of this were they legally married.

 

[Elrohir]

Iran, USA, what's the difference?

The difference is this: In the US, they're evicted. In Iran, their heads would be cut off for adultery. See the difference?

 

[zulu9812]

I'm confused: why do these people need a permit to live in a house?