Get married, or get evicted...

[Masquerouge]

Sure they can live under the same roof

No they don't, says the article:
"Originally Posted by the article
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."

 

[IglooDame]

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

Because the laws of their local town require it.

If that doesn't make sense to you, you're in the majority.

 

[woody60707]

WOW, where is the ACLU on this one?

 

[Xanikk999]

Regardless of this law and even if they are saying they will enforce it they really wont.

They may kick out a few couples for show but this isnt going to happen on a wide basis. I dont know how i can explain it to you, but i just know laws like these arent followed.

Its like the law in oklahoma where a passenger cannot be intoxicated even if hes not driving, along with the fact public intoxication is illegal.

Its just plain stupid for logical reasons. How else can he get home from a bar in that example? Walking in public isnt allowed in neither is sitting in the passenger seat of a car.

Different examples but the same point at the end. Simply these laws wont be enforced en-mass if at all.

 

[Masquerouge]

Regardless of this law and even if they are saying they will enforce it they really wont.

I hope you're right.

 

[IglooDame]

Regardless of this law and even if they are saying they will enforce it they really wont.

They may kick out a few couples for show but this isnt going to happen on a wide basis. I dont know how i can explain it to you, but i just know laws like these arent followed.

Its like the law in oklahoma where a passenger cannot be intoxicated even if hes not driving, along with the fact public intoxication is illegal.

Its just plain stupid for logical reasons. How else can he get home from a bar in that example? Walking in public isnt allowed in neither is sitting in the passenger seat of a car.

Different examples but the same point at the end. Simply these laws wont be enforced en-mass if at all.

I'm sure the "few couples" that are kicked out for show will take comfort in that knowledge.

 

[woody60707]

I'm sure the "few couples" that are kicked out for show will take comfort in that knowledge.

I was thinking the same thing. There are somethings in life where just one time is too many. And not being able to live freely in your home that YOU OWN, well that crosses the line.

 

[warpus]

No they don't, says the article:
"Originally Posted by the article
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."

I read somewhere that the original intention of this law was to prevent groups of students from moving into certain houses.

 

[amadeus]

Black Jack, Missouri is a town of less than 7,000 people.

Ironically enough, the city has a black majority population.

 

[woody60707]

I read somewhere that the original intention of this law was to prevent groups of students from moving into certain houses.

Ahhh, yes, goverment and good intentions.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Reiterating my Mantra:

The state has no business in matters of the heart

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

There are lots of laws like this on the books so 30 single people don't move into a house in a location zoned for family housing; and I'm glad they do. Most states get around such stupidity as in this article as declaring any couple living together with child as a 'common-law' marriage. Missouri has no such law; and this town has a stupid counsil.

 

[EolTheDarkElf]

I'm sorry but.... spell it out to me like I'm 6 years old or something:

- it's in the United States of America
- it's their own house, they own it, not subsidized by the community
- they can't live there as they please because they didn't get a permit from the local administration

Is that true?

If it is.... land of the free indeed... I'm truly shocked. I'm still hoping it is at least a town-owned home or something.

 

[Xanikk999]

I'm sorry but.... spell it out to me like I'm 6 years old or something:

- it's in the United States of America
- it's their own house, they own it, not subsidized by the community
- they can't live there as they please because they didn't get a permit from the local administration

Is that true?

If it is.... land of the free indeed... I'm truly shocked. I'm still hoping it is at least a town-owned home or something.

Theres still regulations of what you can do on your property in at least most countries.

For example where i live you have to take care of your grass. Cant just leave it to go fallow and overgrow.

And you cant burn garbage on your property.

Theres countless examples. But i agree with this example in the OP that it is wrong. There should be no zoning based on whos living there.

 

[EolTheDarkElf]

Theres still regulations of what you can do on your property in at least most countries.

Well, in general terms, I can't deny there is some truth in that. Hmm...

For example where i live you have to take care of your grass. Cant just leave it to go fallow and overgrow.

That also seems harsh.

The closest I can think of here, is that if you own a property you are required to remove the snow from the sidewalk in front of it. I think all such laws here have a sensible practical impact and are justified by the fact that your property is not in the void, but surrounded by other properties.

But then even "you have to cut your grass" is a far cry from "get out!".

 

[amadeus]

It's pretty ridiculous that people characterize the entire United States based after one single incident in a small town in Missouri.

 

[Neomega]

It's pretty ridiculous that people characterize the entire United States based after one single incident in a small town in Missouri.

People do the same to Iran and Pakistan all the time. Even if Iran's higher courts strike down rulings. (like "honor killings".... not legal), or in Pakistan, the gang rape of a girl for adultery by town elders was found to be illegal.

 

[Masquerouge]

It's pretty ridiculous that people characterize the entire United States based after one single incident in a small town in Missouri.

Welcome to the world, rmsharpe. You might like it after a while.

 

[EolTheDarkElf]

It's pretty ridiculous that people characterize the entire United States based after one single incident in a small town in Missouri.

I know where you are comming from, but on the other hand this "single incident" is legal from the point of view of the nation-wide law of the United States.

So maybe there is something about it, that speaks about freedom in the US as a whole (answering this looking back at what I said myself, maybe the comment wasn't meant for me, but I think it applies).

 

[CaptainF]

What an utterly idiotic statute.