Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5101112131415
Results 281 to 299 of 299
  1. #281  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I don't know. That law hasn't been enforced in probably over a century so its no big surprise that it was struck down. I don't know what bearing it has on the sam sex couples issue.
    I thought many housing associations and renters enforced such regulations, and had the law to back them up also.

    Surur
  2. #282  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I don't know. That law hasn't been enforced in probably over a century so its no big surprise that it was struck down. I don't know what bearing it has on the sam sex couples issue.
    I wonder how the law made it before the judge without somebody enforcing it.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #283  
    There are ways to challenge a law without being charged, aren't there?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #284  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    There are ways to challenge a law without being charged, aren't there?
    No
  5. #285  
    or rather, not that I have ever heard of
  6. #286  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    There are ways to challenge a law without being charged, aren't there?
    North Carolina Judge Strikes Down 201-Year-Old Anti-Shacking Up Law
    Thursday, July 20, 2006


    RALEIGH, N.C. A state judge has ruled that North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional.

    A lawsuit challenging the law was brought last year by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a former Pender County sheriff's dispatcher. Deborah Hobbs, who had been living with her boyfriend, quit her job in 2004 after Sheriff Carson Smith demanded she marry her boyfriend or move out if she wanted to work for him.

    State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling late Wednesday, saying the law violated Hobbs' constitutional right to liberty. He cited the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case titled Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law.

    "The Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas stands for the proposition that the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home," Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a statement.

    She added that "the idea that the government would criminalize people's choice to live together out of wedlock in this day and age defies logic and common sense."


    The suit names Smith, the Pender County Sheriff's Office, the state, Attorney General Roy Cooper and Pender County District Attorney Benjamin R. David as defendants. The state attorney general had argued that Hobbs couldn't challenge the law because she wasn't charged with a crime.

    A spokeswoman for Cooper said Thursday that lawyers were reviewing the decision and hadn't decided on whether to appeal the decision.

    In part, the law states: "If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor."

    About 144,000 unmarried couples live together in North Carolina. The ACLU says North Carolina is one of seven states with laws that prohibit cohabitation.
    Surur
  7. #287  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I don't know. That law hasn't been enforced in probably over a century so its no big surprise that it was struck down. I don't know what bearing it has on the sam sex couples issue.
    Like the Texas law that was struck down by the Supreme Court, this law was enforced arbitrarily and capriciously against those that the governing class did not like. It was used to maintain threat. Laws that cannot be consistently and equitably enforced undermine the Rule of Law. We all have a responsibility to resist such laws and we should all celebrate whenever one more is struck down.
  8. #288  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I thought many housing associations and renters enforced such regulations, and had the law to back them up also.

    Surur
    I've never heard of one but then again I live in California.
  9. #289  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I've never heard of one but then again I live in California.
    Black Jack's rule on unwed parents is unusual here
    By Eun Kyung Kim
    ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
    02/23/2006

    Black Jack isn't the only city with an ordinance defining what kind of family can live within its limits. Most municipalities in the St. Louis area have similar, if not identical, rules.

    Black Jack's ordinance applies to unmarried couples with children. Under the law, a home cannot be inhabited by three or more individuals not related by "blood, marriage or adoption."

    The ordinance recently has come under scrutiny because of Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving. The couple purchased a five-bedroom, three-bath house in Black Jack and moved into the home last month with their three children.

    But the couple was denied an occupancy permit because their household failed to meet the city's definition of family.


    Other municipalities - including Arnold, Bellefontaine Neighbors, Brentwood, Bridgeton, Chesterfield and St. Louis - have similar definitions on their books.

    "The reason why there's even a definition of family is to prevent frat houses or communal living organizations from taking up residences within single family neighborhoods," said Michael Hurlbert, city planner for Creve Coeur, which requires occupancy permits only for new homes.

    Hurlbert said he couldn't imagine city officials rejecting a family simply because the two parents weren't married.

    "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If their ordinance pretty much reads like ours does, then that seems a little ridiculous to me," he said.

    In University City, which houses many college students from Washington University and other nearby campuses, the definition of family is a bit more restrictive. There, family means "an individual or married couple and/or the children thereof."

    Lehman Walker, the city's planning and development director, said the city wouldn't bar a set of parents simply because they weren't married.

    "Why would we want to do that? We want to address the potential of overcrowding, rather than try to regulate morality," he said.

    Black Jack Mayor Norman McCourt insists his city's ordinance has nothing to do with being married or not.

    "It's definitely not a moral issue," he said. "It's for population. It's so you don't have multiple families in houses. It keeps (from) overcrowding in the houses, it keeps overcrowding in the schools down."

    McCourt said Shelltrack and Loving failed to get an occupancy permit "because they don't match the definition of family." But when pressed to ask how, McCourt hesitated.

    "I don't want to comment on it because I don't really know," he said, adding that city officials will be examining the issue over the next few days.


    The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination involving race, religion, color, national origin, gender, disability and families with children. Most states include additional protected classes, such as marital status. Illinois is one such state. Missouri is not.

    Former Black Jack resident Amy Madison said she had been told several times that she and her fiance were denied an occupancy permit because they weren't married.

    Beginning in July 2004, the couple for a year leased the same house that Shelltrack later purchased. She said when the city's housing director, Debra Irvin, came for the building inspection, Irvin made it clear the family would not be allowed to live there.

    "She was telling us that we weren't going to be able to get an occupancy permit because we weren't married and said, in God's eyes, we weren't considered a family," said Madison, who now lives in Atlanta with her fiance and their five children.

    Irvin did not return calls seeking comment. Earlier this week, she referred all calls about the matter to McCourt.

    Madison said both she and her fiance were previously married to other people in courthouses and were not interested in rushing and repeating a civil ceremony just to live in their home. They're planning a more formal wedding for September.

    She said she understood the city's concerns about overcrowding, but her previous 2,300-square foot home provided "more space than we even needed, and there were seven of us."

    In 1985, the city of Ladue sued a couple for violating a city ordinance prohibiting an unmarried man and woman from living together if they were not related by blood, marriage or adoption. A year later, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the ruling against the couple, who had lived in the home since 1981.

    But Ladue now allows unmarried couples, changing its ordinances in September 1998.

    Black Jack has drawn similar attention before. In 1999, the unwed parents of triplets challenged the city's denial of an occupancy permit. The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri defended the couple in municipal court, but the case was never resolved, said Tony Rothert, the agency's legal director.

    Duane Carpenter, the father of the triplets, said he had laughed when he heard about Shelltrack and Loving. "I guess nothing's changed in Black Jack," he said.

    Carpenter and his now-wife eventually moved out of the city more than a year after the legal battle because of unrelated financial reasons, he said.

    He advised Shelltrack and Loving, who have filed a complaint with the U.S. Housing and Urban Department, to stick it out.

    "Why move unless they're going to offer to buy their house?" he said.

    Some community definitions of family:

    Black Jack: An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group of not more than three persons who need not be related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.

    Clayton: An individual or married couple and the children thereof (by blood, marriage or adoption) and no more than one other person related directly to the individual or married couple by blood or marriage; a group of three or fewer individuals residing together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit; except in living units with four or more bedrooms (bedrooms as defined by the applicable city code), four or fewer unrelated individuals.

    Creve Coeur: An individual or married couple and the children thereof and no more than two other persons related directly to the individual or married couple by blood or marriage, or a group of not more than three persons (excluding servants) not related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.

    Florissant: Two individuals or married couple and the children thereof, including grandchildren and foster children, and no more than two other persons related directly to the individuals or married couple by blood or marriage, or a group of not more than four persons not related by blood or marriage living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit as distinguished from a boardinghouse.

    Olivette: One or more persons occupying a dwelling and maintaining a common household therein, all of whom, or all but two of whom, excluding servants, are related to each other by birth, adoption or marriage, and expressly excluding the occupation of the premises by one or more persons where meals, or lodging, or meals and lodging are made available in exchange for payment therefor in cash or for some other consideration.

    Maryland Heights: One or more persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption (including foster care), living together and occupying a single housekeeping unit, or a group of not more than three persons living together on a nonprofit cost-sharing basis, or up to eight individuals with disabilities with two caretakers.

    Post-Dispatch news researcher J. Stephen Bolhafner compiled this information.
    http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...B?OpenDocument

    Surur
  10. #290  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Disclaimers:
    1. I'm not gay
    2. I have only one wife
    3. I live in Utah, which is the only state to have a constitutional provision banning polygamy.
    4. I support the states having a right to ban or not ban polygamy and gay marriage.

    I have read with interest the recent posts regarding the public policy of gay marriage compared with polygamy. I wanted to understand the arguments about why gay marriage is good, but polygamist marriage is bad.

    I was most surprised with the lack of any meaningful argument explaining how the government should allow gay marriage but deny polygamists the same marriage right. I really thought that gay marriage supporters had better arguments than I have read here. The reasons I have read are basically:

    a. It's a red herring argument which doesn't merit a response, so quit talking about it (typical response when there is no good response);
    b. People in polygamist relationships are unhappy, and that is what distinguishes it from gay marriage (this argument has more holes than swiss cheese); and
    c. Only gays should be in a protected class, but not polygamists (this isn't really an argument, but only a conclusion without any supporting reasons).

    I have to admit that I am surprised at the lack of distinction between gay marriage (ok?) and polygamy (not ok?). While I don't agree with many of the arguments the left wing posters make (Bush is a liar, Iraq war is wrong, media bias, etc), I can at least understand their arguments and reasoning.

    On this issue, however, it seems embarrassing for gay marriage supporters when they struggle in finding a single, cogent argument explaining how the right to gay marriage is different from the right to polygamist marriage. It seems to me a huge inconsistancy. Either support anyone's right to marry anyone (or more than one) they want, or support the state's right to ban all marriages except between one man and one woman.

    I could be missing something, but I doubt it.
    Actually the argument against polygamy versus the arguments FOR gay marriage are exclusionary as the rights/privelages denied gay couples involve an exclusive relationship between two people and cannot be applied to a relationship with mnore than two people.

    That's why it does not apply.
  11. #291  
    I wanted to share this short animated message:


    Born Different
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #292  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Actually the argument against polygamy versus the arguments FOR gay marriage are exclusionary as the rights/privelages denied gay couples involve an exclusive relationship between two people and cannot be applied to a relationship with mnore than two people.

    That's why it does not apply.
    Wait a minute now, the the rights/privaleges that are supposedly denied gay couples involve an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman so in your analogy they would not apply to two people of the same sex.

    That is why they should apply across the board or be left as is.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #293  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Wait a minute now, the the rights/privaleges that are supposedly denied gay couples involve an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman so in your analogy they would not apply to two people of the same sex.

    That is why they should apply across the board or be left as is.
    huh ?
  14. #294  
    ok, type it again for the slow folks. I womder when the survival of the fittest will kick in.
  15. #295  
    I haven't read the whole thread yet so I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with the current direction of the discussion or if my ideas have already been presented. I just felt the strong urge to "put pen to paper" right away.

    There has been much discussion as to whether homosexuality is a choice or if it is a genetic characteristic. Please allow me to submit a theory. It is a fact that many people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, drug addiction, as well as other behavioral addictions such as gambling, viewing pornography, etc. These conditions and practices are generally viewed as harmful to the body and mind as well as to others in society. Most people in these situations try to overcome them at some point. No matter how ensnared a person may be by these problems, it ultimately is the choice of the individual whether or not they relieve themselves of their burdens. Any addiction can be overcome.

    I have my own beliefs about the moral correctnes of homosexuality (and you can probably guess what it is), but I think that it (homosexuality) is something that one can be genetically predisposed to and yet overcome.

    If you don't think homosexuality is wrong I still think you can leave room for the argument that it is genetic but you can still make a choice.
    "If you think a weakness can be turned into a strength, I hate to tell you this, but that's another weakness." - Jack Handey
  16. #296  
    Quote Originally Posted by leadtrumpetdave
    I have my own beliefs about the moral correctnes of homosexuality (and you can probably guess what it is), but I think that it (homosexuality) is something that one can be genetically predisposed to and yet overcome.

    If you don't think homosexuality is wrong I still think you can leave room for the argument that it is genetic but you can still make a choice.
    I dont think one can change one's sexual preferences. I'm sure one can suppress them, and that probably what you are talking about. On that side you are absolutely right - some-one who is gay does not have to practice it. They could either not engage in a relationships, or get involved in heterosexual relationships, even get married and have children. For large segments of the population that is the way it has always been for centuries.

    The second part is comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. Its quite fair to say some people have a genetic predisposition to alcoholisms, and to being gay. Again i think you are right, in the same way some people are predisposed to blond hair and being tall. The question is, is being gay harmful to the person and society? This is of course the crux of the issue. If its harmful like alcoholism it needs to be treated. If its just a trait like being tall, it does not have to be treated, and we even have to make accommodations for people with that normal trait. We dont go around shortening the legs of tall people do we? Why should we ask gay people to suffer in the closet when they could be happier being able to express their preference.

    In short, your argument hinges on whether being gay is harmful to the person ad society or not. I would say suppressing their instincts would certainly be harmful to the person, and the furtive behavior of people practicing under the cloak of secrecy is harmful to society (e.g. people being blackmailed, relationships breaking up because the gay partner can no longer continue the charade etc).

    So prove your case regarding the harm gayness cause, and I'm sure you will get a full hearing.

    Surur
  17. #297  
    The whole question of whether being gay is a choice is a very complex issue. I believe there are probably several answers because there are different situations. A trait and a predisposition are different. Blonde hair is not a disposition. Being tall is not a disposition. Those are in fact manifested traits you have that you cannot change. A predispostion to develpoing skin cancer means if you avoid risks factors you may not develop it. On the other hand, if you have a predisposition to skin cancer and you also expose yourself to risks, then you greatly increase your chances of manifesting the result. Being gay might be like that for some people. There might be a spectrum of bisexuality for some people where they can choose to to "turn on" that gene with the right exposure. But there are other people who are clearly different who are 100% gay and always have been. Just ask them.The people here who say being gay is a choice are people who are not gay. Ask a hard core gay person if it is a choice and you won't find one to say it is a choice. Since it is their lives involved you have to take them at there word.

    Regarding those people though who could potentially go either way, I am reminded of studies done on the social behavior of rats. if you have a given popluation of rats in a cage you get a ceratin stable environoment. As you incease the population of rats in the same size cage however the stress of the rats goes up and the start to exhibit different behavior. They start to fight and the incidence of homosexual activity increases. Maybe it is a population control mechanism. A way for to reduce the population and therefore the stress on the animals. Our world wide population is quickly approaching the six billion mark. Maybe we don't need too many more people and this is one of many biological control mechanisms coming into play to check our population. Plagues could be another.

    Me personally, as an average-looking straight man, I am grateful to gay people.
    First as a rule many gay guys seem to be a lot more handsomse than the average guy. Them being gay is a godsend. It just takes them out of the competition with women. It increased my oppportunities with women many times over I think. I am happy that my wife is both probably smarter and (certainly) better looking than I am. It is so common here in NYC to here women complain "He is so cute but he's gay...." I certainly used the fact that there are less straight guys in NYC to my advantage when dating women. Now on the other hand, it has also been my personal experience that purely gay women tend to be on the less attractive side of the spectrum, so once again I thank god for that. They are effectively removed from the game for straight men. And while there are beautiful women who are gay, they are often bisexaul. And once again, as a healthy striaght male, I thank god for that too. It is truly a loss to men when you have a beautiful woman who is exclusively gay. Makes a straight man want to cry. I am happy it isn't so common.

    Point is, hey, straight guys: Think about it logically. The exclusively gay population ain't bad for us. Plus, by and large, demographically gay folks tend to earn more money, and so pay higher taxes (since they aren't married and usually don't have kids). their taxes benefit the overall population. They never hurt me. As I said, I'm grateful to them.

    I don't see what the big deal is. Anyway, let 'em marry. Once they try it I don't think they will like it too much. Fifty percent of straight folks wind up divorced these days anyway. Lot's of married folks often stay together primarily for the kids. For the poeple who don't want to let them marry, I say, let them marry. Once they try it, most won't want to do it.

    Just my two cents.
    Last edited by southbound747; 08/04/2006 at 01:48 AM. Reason: typos
    Sprint Treo 700p, Sony UX/TX, u720,
    Edirol R-09, Mitsu PK 20, Mimio
  18. #298  
    The logical progression is manifest: http://www.beyondmarriage.org
  19. #299  
    Quote Originally Posted by leadtrumpetdave
    I haven't read the whole thread yet so I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with the current direction of the discussion or if my ideas have already been presented. I just felt the strong urge to "put pen to paper" right away.

    There has been much discussion as to whether homosexuality is a choice or if it is a genetic characteristic. Please allow me to submit a theory. It is a fact that many people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, drug addiction, as well as other behavioral addictions such as gambling, viewing pornography, etc. These conditions and practices are generally viewed as harmful to the body and mind as well as to others in society. Most people in these situations try to overcome them at some point. No matter how ensnared a person may be by these problems, it ultimately is the choice of the individual whether or not they relieve themselves of their burdens. Any addiction can be overcome.

    I have my own beliefs about the moral correctnes of homosexuality (and you can probably guess what it is), but I think that it (homosexuality) is something that one can be genetically predisposed to and yet overcome.

    If you don't think homosexuality is wrong I still think you can leave room for the argument that it is genetic but you can still make a choice.
    First, being gay is not an "addiction" and to even attempt to equate it with such is insulting.

    Second, it is not a choice. However, per your statment about it being genetic and still being able to make a choice, I would say that it's possible. The same way "straight" men in prison can engage in gay sex - under duress, no other options, and in a repressive atmosphere.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5101112131415

Posting Permissions