Town won't let unmarried parents live together

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, May 17, 2006.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    Yes, you heard right.

    This, friends, is what high-and-mighty, Bible-bangin', holier-than-thou "morality" gets us.

    Hope this doesn't give any other conservative communities ideas.

    CNN link
     
  2. riciad macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #2
    Do many towns in the U.S. require residents to have an occupancy permit?
     
  3. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    These sorts of provisions are more common than you might think, and were created for less than obvious reasons. A lot of communities have "family" definitions in their zoning codes to prevent residences from being turned into de-facto rooming houses. I only dimly recall the details from my days as a city planner, but it seems to me that this principle has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    Who the hell would want to live in Black Jack is my question. It isn't exactly one of the best areas of St. Louis.
     
  5. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #5
    That may be true for particular areas, but is it common for entire towns to be zoned that way (which is what this seems to be)?
     
  6. Lau Guest

    #6
    Well, that's a damn good advert to anyone with any sense to steer well clear of the place, married or not. What is this, the 1800s?
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    Yes, the standard would have to apply to the entire community for it to be legal, I think. I know the courts have ruled on these "definition of family" issues, but I'm sorry I don't recall the details.

    I'm still trying to get over the name of this city -- Black Jack. Pow, right in the back of the head! You just can't make that kind of stuff up!
     
  8. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #8
    I've heard of these kinds of rules being used to limit student roommates as well... I've lived with three roommates in a two-bedroom apartment, as an undergrad -- a situation that would violate this ordinance.

    Mmmm, it seems unfortunate to me, though. This is essentially likely to end up driving unwed fathers out of these homes, isn't it? Society wants to complain that they don't contribute, but then rules like this to make it difficult for them to do so. :(
     
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    Govt getting into people lives when it should mind its own fricking business. Govt at the local,state and federal level are getting way way to Intrusive.
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    "This is essentially likely to end up driving unwed fathers out of these homes, isn't it?"

    mkrishnan: Yup. Just like AFDC.

    Don't Hurt Me said, "Govt getting into people lives when it should mind its own fricking business. Govt at the local,state and federal level are getting way way to Intrusive."

    Amen! That's what us conservative* types have been bitching about for some forty years, now. Forty years and more back, folks weren't all that politically bothered and exercised except right around election time. The federal gummint was mostly "them", up "there" in WashDC. Very little impact on daily life. To me, the Big Divide came with LBJ's "Great Society". FDR planted the seeds, but LBJ did a lot of fertilizing and cultivating. We've been harvesting ever since.

    Some actual good came from all those good intentions. No doubt. But danged near every program from that era has grown and grown and grown. More and more add-ons of regulatory controls. Labels on stepladders. Helmet laws. WOD and WOT laws. And it's not just the feds. Hell's bells, it took an act of Congress to get it made legal to turn right on red after stop. Duh?

    Ya gotta have government. But Lord God in Heaven, what we don't need is Leviathan!

    'Rat

    * Small-c conservative ain't NeoCon nor is it necessarily Republican. Nor is it "Freeze it like it is; no change allowed." To me, it's more "orderly" and "rational" and "better" with these words defined more by consensus than by winning faction.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
  12. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #12
    but under ANY reasonable definition the family in the original article are just that, a family.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    Here we go again! It's all the fault of the "librools"! As if conservatives haven't caused any damage. Give me break. That's really tired man.
     
  14. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #14

    I am actually in grad school for Urban and Regional Planning. IJ hit it pretty much in the head. These strange ordinances are designed to prevent "undesirable" multi-family homes from popping up in suburban single-family america. The original batch were all written post WWII in the suburbinazation phase and many have already been challenged and failed in front of the courts. I can't remember the case name, but in the 1970s a suburb of Cleveland (or maybe clevland itslef)) was taken to court over a an ordanince very much like the one in question, and it was held to be invalid. This is nothing new, still ridiculous but not new, this ordinance will probably at some point go before the state supreme court and be invalidadted as well.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    Ouch!
     
  16. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #16
    That made me laugh so I am not changing the mistake :)
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    Yeah, I'm staggering around over here, but that's nothing really new.
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    I'm not defending, just explaining.
     
  19. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #19
    What they need is a few polygamous brethren and their ilk to move in. Nice family people.
     
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    Married, too. That's the part that counts.
     
  21. emmawu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Location:
    Wauwatosa, WI
    #21
    Won't that be nice for the kids. Kids don't feel guilty at all when their parents break up. What a f***ed up city!
     
  22. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #22
    Well we all know how liberal Misery... I mean Missouri is. ;) But I think his point was that this those pushing for this are not conservatives, despite what they call themselves. Did I get that right?

    To quote Bill Maher, "I'd be a Republican if only they would". :cool:
     

Share This Page