Oh NOW I understand why Elspode feels the nation is fascist

[Undertoad]

Cause where he lives it sometimes is!!! Read on and vomit.

Unwed couple sues town over housing flap

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - A Missouri couple who must get married, or move, in order to comply with a housing ordinance in Black Jack, Missouri, sued the town on Thursday, claiming rules prohibiting the unmarried couple and their children from living together are unconstitutional.

The petition, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, challenges a Black Jack city ordinance that prohibits more than three people from living together in the same house if they are unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption.

Plaintiffs Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving and their children moved from Minnesota to Missouri earlier this year, buying a five-bedroom home in the tiny community outside St. Louis.

Shelltrack and Loving have lived together about 13 years and have two children together, along with a 15-year-old daughter of Shelltrack's from a previous relationship.

Black Jack, a town of about 7,000 that prides itself on a city Web site for its "character and stability," refused to grant the couple and their children an occupancy permit for their home because they do not meet the definition of "family" as set forth by the city, the complaint alleges.

The city has threatened to begin fining the couple as much as $500 a day, said Tony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, which is helping represent the family in the lawsuit.

[Griff]

This is actually a fairly common ordinance in towns trying to keep college students at bay... of course, that doesn't make it right.

[elSicomoro]

This started earlier this year, IIRC. Some suburbs here in St. Louis still require occupancy permits for homes and apartments, Black Jack being one of them. The family fought the definition with the City Council, but lost a few months ago.

While I think the couple is stupid for not marrying (13 years? Come on now!), Black Jack is even more stupid. I guess they don't like tax revenues.

Of course, I believe MO still has a law that officially prohibits an unmarried man and woman from living together.

[Griff]

No common law marriage in Mo?

[elSicomoro]

No. I thought IL did, but they don't either...only 15 states and DC.

[Trilby]

Town right next to University of Dayton (Oakwood) has that same ordinance. Utter BS.

[Undertoad]

Teen in CT can't sell night crawlers anymore because some town official didn't like his hand-painted sign

[9th Engineer]

Does anyone know why common law marriage was introduced? It's a really dumb concept in my opinion, if a couple is intentionally NOT getting married then they probably don't want to be told they are now married due to time spent together.

[9th Engineer]

Also, even though it's a stupid law it really doesn't qualify as fascist. Fascist is now just a buzzword people throw around indescriminantly.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Fascist is now just a buzzword people throw around indescriminantly.

Some folks misuse it as a suffix as well.

[elSicomoro]

http://tinyurl.com/jagg6

Some background on this story, based on what I heard on the radio yesterday:
--Person wants to set up fruit/vegetable stand in Pevely
--Person gets a hard time from Pevely's city government
--A state permit to sell your own bounty is not necessary
--Mayor sells his own tomatoes from his house
--Mayor draws ire of some residents

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Does anyone know why common law marriage was introduced?

Initially, it was because there were some people who literally couldn't afford to get married, because of the various government and officiator fees. Now it has become easier and cheaper to get married. My parents were common-law married, because they both thought weddings were dumb and didn't want to bother with the hassle of getting a marriage license from the government.

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Initially, it was because there were some people who literally couldn't afford to get married, because of the various government and officiator fees. Now it has become easier and cheaper to get married. My parents were common-law married, because they both thought weddings were dumb and didn't want to bother with the hassle of getting a marriage license from the government.

It's my understanding that it entered the legal code because during the Middle Ages (probably earlier but the Middle Ages is when codified law started in England) it was required that a priest perform all sacraments, and specifically marriage and baptism. But priests were not available in many areas, or only occasionally. Couples might have had to wait years before they could stand before a priest, and babies tended to happen without the blessing of the church. To avoid the stigma, a couple was allowed to proclaim THEMSELVES married and get on with the housekeeping. That is the key point of common-law marriage, you have to publicly say that you are married. Shacking up for years does not constitute a common law marriage, as many abandoned women have discovered in court.

[Elspode]

On the path to fascism...I think we're *on the path* to fascism.

Lots of things going on in this country look awfully familiar with things that have gone on in other countries in the past...things that didn't end up in safer, more free societies.

[Cyclefrance]

Sounds like you need our Human Rights law.

Over here if anyone tries to prevent someone doing what they want then that someone claims their human rights are being abused/infringed and, lo and behold, they get their way.

May sound good, but the trouble is every Tom Dick and Harry uses it when they are in a situation they don't like - even (maybe that should be 'mainly') criminals who all too easily when trying to be brought to justice will use the Human Rights Act to turn the tables.

As an example we find that attempts to deport terrorist agitators are thwarted because the individuals claim that we are denying them their human rights to stay here as a place of safety rather than their homeland where they would be under threat of death from their government.

Just shows the sorts of mess we land ourselves in, what with the wierd rules and regulations aired here in this thread and then the equally wierd outcome from a law that's meant to bring the situation into balance. Prime examples of what you get when people stick their oars in attempting to make inappropriate improvements - they only end up creating as many (maybe more) problems than existed in the first place.