Full Version: Should Government define a family?
This story is just a terrible, awful example of government overstepping it's authority.
The city council in Black Jack, Mo., has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together. 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.
link
Great family values they have in Black jack, evicting families for living together as a family.
I know the story is a little bit old, but the ACLU just announced they were taking the case on.
ACLU Challenges Denial of Housing Permit to Unmarried Couple in Black Jack, Missouri
The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a family that was denied a permit to live in the city of Black Jack because of a law that prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.”
I also think stories like this remind us all that issues like gay marriage and the argument for government to define marriage for our society are not exclusive to homosexual couples. That when we invite and demand and make claim of the government's superiority in these definements we all suffer the consequences.
Question:
Should government be allowed to define what a family is, even so far to the extent of placing restrictions on how a family can or can not live and create a home together?
The city council in Black Jack, Mo., has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together. 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.
link
Great family values they have in Black jack, evicting families for living together as a family.
I know the story is a little bit old, but the ACLU just announced they were taking the case on.
ACLU Challenges Denial of Housing Permit to Unmarried Couple in Black Jack, Missouri
The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a family that was denied a permit to live in the city of Black Jack because of a law that prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.”
I also think stories like this remind us all that issues like gay marriage and the argument for government to define marriage for our society are not exclusive to homosexual couples. That when we invite and demand and make claim of the government's superiority in these definements we all suffer the consequences.
Question:
Should government be allowed to define what a family is, even so far to the extent of placing restrictions on how a family can or can not live and create a home together?
Should government be allowed to define what a family is, even so far to the extent of placing restrictions on how a family can or can not live and create a home together?
Yes, government should be allowed to define what constitutes a family. Missouri does not have common law marriages, a fact indicating the State's ability to both positively and negatively define marriage. Laws of this type were initially implemented as part of the Progressive agenda during the Industrial Revolution in response to the horrendous overcrowding of tenements. While there was likely a Victorian moral impulse involved as well, consider if you will the "family" created by Fagan, and whether or not such a social unit should be given as much government recognition as Donna Reed's archetypical family.
There are also underlying, very practical normative justifications for such laws. One of the most significant is the dynamics of domestic abuse. Simply put, a step-father/live-in boyfriend is far more likely to commit both domestic and sexual abuse within the household than a biological father. I'm not exactly sure why accepting, much less endorsing and/or encouraging this "family form" is a good idea.
But hey, forget that the city fathers of Black Jack have their own notions of what the village should look like, lets just force them to conform to the vision of a couple of folks who think so highly of shacking up.... Its not like there aren't another 100 towns around SaintLew where these bozos could move...
Yes, government should be allowed to define what constitutes a family. Missouri does not have common law marriages, a fact indicating the State's ability to both positively and negatively define marriage. Laws of this type were initially implemented as part of the Progressive agenda during the Industrial Revolution in response to the horrendous overcrowding of tenements. While there was likely a Victorian moral impulse involved as well, consider if you will the "family" created by Fagan, and whether or not such a social unit should be given as much government recognition as Donna Reed's archetypical family.
There are also underlying, very practical normative justifications for such laws. One of the most significant is the dynamics of domestic abuse. Simply put, a step-father/live-in boyfriend is far more likely to commit both domestic and sexual abuse within the household than a biological father. I'm not exactly sure why accepting, much less endorsing and/or encouraging this "family form" is a good idea.
But hey, forget that the city fathers of Black Jack have their own notions of what the village should look like, lets just force them to conform to the vision of a couple of folks who think so highly of shacking up.... Its not like there aren't another 100 towns around SaintLew where these bozos could move...
Should government be allowed to define what a family is, even so far to the extent of placing restrictions on how a family can or can not live and create a home together?
It's unfortunate for this couple, but the ordinance is not unconstitutional on its face. In fact, such a much narrower definition of family in a zoning ordinance was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1974.
What the couple should've done was ask for a variance. If they didn't get the variance they should've sued the realtor who sold them the house without informing them of the ordinance.
It's unfortunate for this couple, but the ordinance is not unconstitutional on its face. In fact, such a much narrower definition of family in a zoning ordinance was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1974.
What the couple should've done was ask for a variance. If they didn't get the variance they should've sued the realtor who sold them the house without informing them of the ordinance.
Black Jack changes ordinance; unwed couple can now get permit
This law had nothing to do with overcrowding as they claim, as a married couple could have 20 children in a two bedroom home according to this. That is one of the reasons I was so anticipating Black Jack's back down from this ridiculous ordinance, it was only inevitable. If it was truly about overcrowding then why not implement a number of occupants by square foot ordinance of some sort?
Also this law was enacted in the mid 1980s.
Yet if the couple had only one child out of wedlock it would be acceptable? It is only when the second child out of wedlock occurs that we see the threat to what the notion of family is in Black Jack increase...does it further increase with each child thereafter and why is one ok but two is not?
Comments I have read from the ACLU lawyer who is representing the Loving couple, that truly is the man's name, says that another couple in town who had twins out of wedlock were also facing the same actions from the city. So I guess twins our of wedlock were double trouble for the real families of Black Jack.
The city of Black Jack had their chance, this issue went up for vote with an option to further clarify the intent and definition of this ordinance so that it more aptly targets the issue of "overcrowding" and not families and they refused it by a vote of 5-3.
Obviously more pressure was needed and the ACLU was there to help and says will keep the suit in case any other family in Black Jack is still in need of their help. I am left wondering why Black Jack feels foster families do not qualify to live in their town.
QUOTE(Bikerdad)
Missouri does not have common law marriages, a fact indicating the State's ability to both positively and negatively define marriage. Laws of this type were initially implemented as part of the Progressive agenda during the Industrial Revolution in response to the horrendous overcrowding of tenements. While there was likely a Victorian moral impulse involved as well, consider if you will the "family" created by Fagan, and whether or not such a social unit should be given as much government recognition as Donna Reed's archetypical family.
This law had nothing to do with overcrowding as they claim, as a married couple could have 20 children in a two bedroom home according to this. That is one of the reasons I was so anticipating Black Jack's back down from this ridiculous ordinance, it was only inevitable. If it was truly about overcrowding then why not implement a number of occupants by square foot ordinance of some sort?
Also this law was enacted in the mid 1980s.
QUOTE(Bikerdad)
But hey, forget that the city fathers of Black Jack have their own notions of what the village should look like, lets just force them to conform to the vision of a couple of folks who think so highly of shacking up.... Its not like there aren't another 100 towns around SaintLew where these bozos could move...
Yet if the couple had only one child out of wedlock it would be acceptable? It is only when the second child out of wedlock occurs that we see the threat to what the notion of family is in Black Jack increase...does it further increase with each child thereafter and why is one ok but two is not?
Comments I have read from the ACLU lawyer who is representing the Loving couple, that truly is the man's name, says that another couple in town who had twins out of wedlock were also facing the same actions from the city. So I guess twins our of wedlock were double trouble for the real families of Black Jack.
The city of Black Jack had their chance, this issue went up for vote with an option to further clarify the intent and definition of this ordinance so that it more aptly targets the issue of "overcrowding" and not families and they refused it by a vote of 5-3.
Obviously more pressure was needed and the ACLU was there to help and says will keep the suit in case any other family in Black Jack is still in need of their help. I am left wondering why Black Jack feels foster families do not qualify to live in their town.
Should government be allowed to define what a family is, even so far to the extent of placing restrictions on how a family can or can not live and create a home together?
Based on the restrictions that the city councils have imposed on people's living arrangements, then I am opposed to Government defining what a family is. My opposition is based on the economic situation in America.
The most expensive item in most people's budget is providing a roof over one's head. Currently, housing is unaffordable for many people. If 4 people decide to live in an apartment and sleep on bunker beds, then why should City Hall object? Suppose these "family friendly" politicians make a law against a man and woman having premarital sex. Then they make laws saying that an unmarried man and woman cannot live together. Suppose that those very same politicians make a law against homosexualism. Then, a man cannot share his apartment with another man. Rather than punishing people for sexual perversion, these laws instead punish people for being too poor to pay the rent.
Based on the restrictions that the city councils have imposed on people's living arrangements, then I am opposed to Government defining what a family is. My opposition is based on the economic situation in America.
The most expensive item in most people's budget is providing a roof over one's head. Currently, housing is unaffordable for many people. If 4 people decide to live in an apartment and sleep on bunker beds, then why should City Hall object? Suppose these "family friendly" politicians make a law against a man and woman having premarital sex. Then they make laws saying that an unmarried man and woman cannot live together. Suppose that those very same politicians make a law against homosexualism. Then, a man cannot share his apartment with another man. Rather than punishing people for sexual perversion, these laws instead punish people for being too poor to pay the rent.
QUOTE(bucket @ Aug 16 2006, 05:29 PM) 
This law had nothing to do with overcrowding as they claim, as a married couple could have 20 children in a two bedroom home according to this. That is one of the reasons I was so anticipating Black Jack's back down from this ridiculous ordinance, it was only inevitable. If it was truly about overcrowding then why not implement a number of occupants by square foot ordinance of some sort?
Also this law was enacted in the mid 1980s.
The law has been changed now to include unrelated people and their children living together as a single housekeeping unit. I think the city backed down because of the bad publicity they were getting. There was also, some erroneous reporting (according to the city's news release).
City of Black Jack press release – August 16, 2006
This doesn't change the fact that there was a Supreme Court precedent supporting the constitutionality of the ordinance as it stood prior to the revision.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Aug 19 2006, 12:21 PM)
This doesn't change the fact that there was a Supreme Court precedent supporting the constitutionality of the ordinance as it stood prior to the revision.
You have made mention of this precedent now twice without any link, summary or information of it. I would probably be best to offer us all some information of the SC precedent in order to better discuss or continue the debate.
From what I have read most states in their own constitutions forbid such ordinances.
QUOTE(bucket @ Aug 22 2006, 10:19 AM)
You have made mention of this precedent now twice without any link, summary or information of it. I would probably be best to offer us all some information of the SC precedent in order to better discuss or continue the debate.
From what I have read most states in their own constitutions forbid such ordinances.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 1974
QUOTE
It is said that the Belle Terre ordinance reeks with an animosity to unmarried couples who live together. There is no evidence to support it; and the provision of the ordinance bringing within the definition of a "family" two unmarried people belies the charge.
Apologies. There you go.
This law is just another way to control people and get more money,atleast that the way i see it..i live by the golden rule,"do unto others as you would have them do onto you"".if they are not harming anyone,than let the people live in peace.
Should government be allowed to define what a family is, even so far to the extent of placing restrictions on how a family can or can not live and create a home together?
Only insofar as the view of the population of that municipality (as a whole) consider the definition.
I understand why, from a religious standpoint, such a law would be enacted (although I personally disagree with it). The problem here is (opinion only.. no absolute knowledge of the vicinity of Black Jack, Mo), based upon how laws of this type tend to be created, that a small minority decided for the majority what should and should not be acceptable. Since the majority usually have a "makes no difference to me" attitude, laws like this get passed.
But, I have to add one more thing. Black Jack Missouri must be a really great place to live. Great roads, no crime, perfect living conditions. A regular Mayberry. Otherwise, they wouldn't have time to deal with such ridiculous issues as whether the parents of a family of 4 are legally married or not. To me.. this is just one more case of the government putting it's nose where it doesn't belong.
It would be nice if we lived in a Democracy where issues such as this actually went up for a vote. But, we don't. We only get to elect those who then decide for us, and they only do what we as the majority want, 6 months before election time.
I for one would like to see a new topic show up:
Should we as a nation adopt a governmental policy where issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, Marijuana legalization, embryonic Stem Cell Research etc.., be put on the ballot to be voted on by the population rather than left for the our representatives and President to decide what they think is best for us? Why or Why Not?
Being new on this site, I don't think I have privileges to create topics yet.
Only insofar as the view of the population of that municipality (as a whole) consider the definition.
I understand why, from a religious standpoint, such a law would be enacted (although I personally disagree with it). The problem here is (opinion only.. no absolute knowledge of the vicinity of Black Jack, Mo), based upon how laws of this type tend to be created, that a small minority decided for the majority what should and should not be acceptable. Since the majority usually have a "makes no difference to me" attitude, laws like this get passed.
But, I have to add one more thing. Black Jack Missouri must be a really great place to live. Great roads, no crime, perfect living conditions. A regular Mayberry. Otherwise, they wouldn't have time to deal with such ridiculous issues as whether the parents of a family of 4 are legally married or not. To me.. this is just one more case of the government putting it's nose where it doesn't belong.
It would be nice if we lived in a Democracy where issues such as this actually went up for a vote. But, we don't. We only get to elect those who then decide for us, and they only do what we as the majority want, 6 months before election time.
I for one would like to see a new topic show up:
Should we as a nation adopt a governmental policy where issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, Marijuana legalization, embryonic Stem Cell Research etc.., be put on the ballot to be voted on by the population rather than left for the our representatives and President to decide what they think is best for us? Why or Why Not?
Being new on this site, I don't think I have privileges to create topics yet.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.