Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Couple sues town over rules prohibiting them from living together...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 12:34 PM
Original message
Couple sues town over rules prohibiting them from living together...
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.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-08-11T122956Z_01_N10171145_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-MARRIAGE.xml

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. More "Morality Police" crap
Obviously they are a family, just because they're not married doesn't make it any less so. And if they are their children, then they are related by blood. What a crock!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's called "smaller government"
In Repubspeak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. What the hell is an "occupancy permit?"
Are you saying that there are places that I have to get a permit to live in my own house?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It keeps undesireables out of the community.
Like blacks, Asians, Mexicans, basically anybody non-caucasion. Like Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christian believers. Like Democrats, socialists, commies, and other seditionists.

Occupancy permits are the only weapon we have to protect the essense of purity of our community.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It's a new weapon in the war against immigrants
These ordinances prevent more than one family from living in a house together.

They are also common in college towns - you can't have a bunch of college kids renting a house in a nice residential area, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Hmm...
Even if the people are joint owners of the property? Sounds like a ripe area for some civil rights action; unless we guarantee affordable housing within range of job, school, etc., I don't see how we can limit who "occupies" any residence; not that we should be, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Apparently it is becoming more common
Sad, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Sad, but I guess it fits the current direction.
The world is becoming unrecognizable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. The state of Missouri recognizes commonlaw marriages
doesn't it? Is that town in violation of state law, like the towns which kept "sundown" laws on the books after the civil rights legislation was passed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pugee Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. No, commonlaw marriages do not count here.
If you live with a significant other, in the state of Missouri common law marriage does not exist. If the relationship began in another state where common law marriages are recognized, Missouri law might recognize a common law marriage.

http://mobar.com/pamphlet/marriage.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. So how are these folks NOT "related by blood", exactly?
They are BOTH BioParents of the two youngest children,
and the oldest child is Shelltrack's BioDaughter.

EVERYONE in that house is a DIRECT "BLOOD RELATIVE" of an owner.

The only "non-blood" connection is the oldest Girl's connection to Mr. Loving;
by that criteria, everyone with a stepchild they have not formally adopted
would be in violation of this ordinance.

We ALL know what this is really about. And it's pretty damn sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. That immoral and horrible interracial relationships
Missouri was one of the big "Sundown Town" states... and, alot of Klan activity is still around in that area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-13-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. You are correct
There are still a lot of ignorant racists in MO. Here in KC, we still deal with KS/MO rivalry that goes back to the Civil War and even before, when KS was a free state and MO was not. John Brown and the passion surrounding his work is still very much alive and well here in the heartland.

There are also several very active KKK groups in southern MO. I prefer to think of them as stupid hillbillies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
11. They're gonna lose...this happens ALL THE TIME
College towns do this all over the country...the ostensible reason is to keep a bunch of college kids from renting a house and throwing loud parties/annoying the neigbors/lowering property values. These laws are upheld all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-11-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. college kids are usually RENTERS.. These people BOUGHT their house
That's the difference I see.. They can prove through tax records that they have lived together for 13 years, and if missouri accepts common-law-marriages, it's all a moot point anyway..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC