BETTER DEAD THAN WED
Nothing stops the moralizers. They just keep going and going and going......
Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parent
May 23 9:20 PM US/Eastern
A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family.
The brewing controversy in Black Jack, a town of 6,800 in the central state of Missouri, began unfolding earlier this year when Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a four-bedroom house they had purchased.
Local officials told the couple that the fact they were not married and had three children, one from Shelltrack's previous relationship, did not fit the town's definition of "family".
A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".
The couple were then left with the option of getting married, packing their bags and leaving town, or putting up a fight, which is what they decided to do.
"I think the city wants to send a clear message that they don't want children born out of wedlock," Shelltrack told AFP in a phone interview. "It has become a moral issue for them.
"They see family in a certain way and that's the only acceptable way."
Shelltrack, 31, said she and Loving, her partner of 13 years, never imagined when they moved to Black Jack from Minnesota in January that a legal nightmare awaited them.
"We though the occupancy permit was a housing code issue, that an inspector would come by and check the house," Shelltrack said. "But we figured something was wrong when they asked for the children's birth certificates and a marriage certificate."
She said the family has received a lot of support from neighbors and local residents, many of whom are baffled by what they consider an archaic law.
Sheldon Stock, the town's attorney, told AFP there were no plans to evict the couple after the City Council earlier this month rejected a measure that would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.
Nonetheless, he said, Shelltrack and Loving would have to abide by the law or face fines and a court battle.
"The city intends to enforce its ordinances and we think under the current state of the law that we have every right to do so," he said.
Stock noted that numerous other cities in Missouri have similar occupancy codes, but he acknowledged that the majority don't enforce them.
"Everybody in their occupancy codes has a definition of family," he said. "Somewhere you draw a line and unfortunately in this case they (Shelltrack and Loving) don't fall on the right side of the line."
The couple have taken their case to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is considering filing a lawsuit against the city on their behalf.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development is also conducting an investigation.
Anthony Rothert, the legal director for the ACLU in eastern Missouri, told AFP that some 10 unmarried couples with children had been denied occupancy permits in recent years in Black Jack and were essentially driven out of town.
One unmarried couple that owns a house in the mainly Catholic town and that recently had a second child is facing the same fate, Rothert said.
"I find this ordinance very bizarre," he said, adding that the city's argument that the law, adopted in 1985, was aimed at preventing overcrowding did not hold up.
"If Olivia and Fondray were married and had 20 kids they could live in the house," he said. "I think this is all about the city trying to impose its moral values on its citizens."
*******************************************************************************
In Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977), the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance under which it was a crime for a homeowner to have a grandchild living with her. The Court indicated that such an ordinance violated due process, and held that the city's claimed rationale for the ordinance, namely that the ordinance was needed to prevent "overcrowding," to minimize traffic, to avoid undue financial burden on the city's school system, and parking congestion, was insufficient reason to justify the ordinance in light of the liberty interests at stake. In 1977, there was no such concept, at the Supreme Court level, as the "rational basis test," but the Court was in effect saying all the same that the legitimate state interests of minimization of traffic and so on were not rationally related to the ordinance. When a governmental body states its interest at such a high level of generality that its alleged factual claim can really never be proven (or disproven), past, present or future, the Supreme Court is, all other things being equal, more likely to find that a statute fails the rational basis test than in a scenario when the body states its interest with a greater degree of concreteness - a concreteness that allows for some kind of empirical testing. "Limited use of government funds" was the rationale asserted in Romer v. Evans and in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center - two cases in which the legislation at issue also failed the rational basis test. The piece of legislation used by the Missouri town is rationalized by the city's desire to avoid "overcrowding." Moore pretty much held that this interest one that is stated at too high a level of generality.
The Court in Moore held that the "constitutional protection of the sanctity of the family" extended to family choice -i.e. the grandmother's desire to live with the grandchild; the Court further noted that this protection was not confined within an arbitrary boundary drawn at the limits of the "nuclear family," consisting of a couple and its dependent children.
Notice the word "couple." The Court did not say "husband and wife." The Missouri familly qualifies as a "nuclear family" - there is a couple and children who are dependent on it. The Court took for granted that such a living arrangement deserves constitutional protection. Therefore, it is hard to see Missouri getting past first base. Its most plausible, so to speak, argument, would be that the Court, without saying so, meant "couple" to mean "husband and wife." Yet, this argument does not help Missouri in light of what the state's alleged interest - prevention of "overcrowding" claims to be. Assuming the couple married and then a formal adoption ceremony was carried out, the arrangement would be fine. Requiring people to pay the expenses associated with doing these things implicates their equal protection rights, though. Specifically, the rights of non-adoptive parents (vs. adoptive parents) to raise children in a dwelling. The state must show what legitimate interest it has denying the equal protection of the laws to the former. "Overcrowding" doesn't cut it, especially given the "best interests of the child" standard, and the implicit right the Supreme Court found in Troxel v. Granville, of parents, to have a monopoly on child-rearing.
Missouri, go away and die. Lose. By the way, there's also a takings clause issue here. And last of all, now that Missouri is poised to make Christianity its official religion, it must ask itself: who would Jesus evict?
Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parent
May 23 9:20 PM US/Eastern
A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family.
The brewing controversy in Black Jack, a town of 6,800 in the central state of Missouri, began unfolding earlier this year when Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a four-bedroom house they had purchased.
Local officials told the couple that the fact they were not married and had three children, one from Shelltrack's previous relationship, did not fit the town's definition of "family".
A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".
The couple were then left with the option of getting married, packing their bags and leaving town, or putting up a fight, which is what they decided to do.
"I think the city wants to send a clear message that they don't want children born out of wedlock," Shelltrack told AFP in a phone interview. "It has become a moral issue for them.
"They see family in a certain way and that's the only acceptable way."
Shelltrack, 31, said she and Loving, her partner of 13 years, never imagined when they moved to Black Jack from Minnesota in January that a legal nightmare awaited them.
"We though the occupancy permit was a housing code issue, that an inspector would come by and check the house," Shelltrack said. "But we figured something was wrong when they asked for the children's birth certificates and a marriage certificate."
She said the family has received a lot of support from neighbors and local residents, many of whom are baffled by what they consider an archaic law.
Sheldon Stock, the town's attorney, told AFP there were no plans to evict the couple after the City Council earlier this month rejected a measure that would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.
Nonetheless, he said, Shelltrack and Loving would have to abide by the law or face fines and a court battle.
"The city intends to enforce its ordinances and we think under the current state of the law that we have every right to do so," he said.
Stock noted that numerous other cities in Missouri have similar occupancy codes, but he acknowledged that the majority don't enforce them.
"Everybody in their occupancy codes has a definition of family," he said. "Somewhere you draw a line and unfortunately in this case they (Shelltrack and Loving) don't fall on the right side of the line."
The couple have taken their case to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is considering filing a lawsuit against the city on their behalf.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development is also conducting an investigation.
Anthony Rothert, the legal director for the ACLU in eastern Missouri, told AFP that some 10 unmarried couples with children had been denied occupancy permits in recent years in Black Jack and were essentially driven out of town.
One unmarried couple that owns a house in the mainly Catholic town and that recently had a second child is facing the same fate, Rothert said.
"I find this ordinance very bizarre," he said, adding that the city's argument that the law, adopted in 1985, was aimed at preventing overcrowding did not hold up.
"If Olivia and Fondray were married and had 20 kids they could live in the house," he said. "I think this is all about the city trying to impose its moral values on its citizens."
*******************************************************************************
In Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977), the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance under which it was a crime for a homeowner to have a grandchild living with her. The Court indicated that such an ordinance violated due process, and held that the city's claimed rationale for the ordinance, namely that the ordinance was needed to prevent "overcrowding," to minimize traffic, to avoid undue financial burden on the city's school system, and parking congestion, was insufficient reason to justify the ordinance in light of the liberty interests at stake. In 1977, there was no such concept, at the Supreme Court level, as the "rational basis test," but the Court was in effect saying all the same that the legitimate state interests of minimization of traffic and so on were not rationally related to the ordinance. When a governmental body states its interest at such a high level of generality that its alleged factual claim can really never be proven (or disproven), past, present or future, the Supreme Court is, all other things being equal, more likely to find that a statute fails the rational basis test than in a scenario when the body states its interest with a greater degree of concreteness - a concreteness that allows for some kind of empirical testing. "Limited use of government funds" was the rationale asserted in Romer v. Evans and in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center - two cases in which the legislation at issue also failed the rational basis test. The piece of legislation used by the Missouri town is rationalized by the city's desire to avoid "overcrowding." Moore pretty much held that this interest one that is stated at too high a level of generality.
The Court in Moore held that the "constitutional protection of the sanctity of the family" extended to family choice -i.e. the grandmother's desire to live with the grandchild; the Court further noted that this protection was not confined within an arbitrary boundary drawn at the limits of the "nuclear family," consisting of a couple and its dependent children.
Notice the word "couple." The Court did not say "husband and wife." The Missouri familly qualifies as a "nuclear family" - there is a couple and children who are dependent on it. The Court took for granted that such a living arrangement deserves constitutional protection. Therefore, it is hard to see Missouri getting past first base. Its most plausible, so to speak, argument, would be that the Court, without saying so, meant "couple" to mean "husband and wife." Yet, this argument does not help Missouri in light of what the state's alleged interest - prevention of "overcrowding" claims to be. Assuming the couple married and then a formal adoption ceremony was carried out, the arrangement would be fine. Requiring people to pay the expenses associated with doing these things implicates their equal protection rights, though. Specifically, the rights of non-adoptive parents (vs. adoptive parents) to raise children in a dwelling. The state must show what legitimate interest it has denying the equal protection of the laws to the former. "Overcrowding" doesn't cut it, especially given the "best interests of the child" standard, and the implicit right the Supreme Court found in Troxel v. Granville, of parents, to have a monopoly on child-rearing.
Missouri, go away and die. Lose. By the way, there's also a takings clause issue here. And last of all, now that Missouri is poised to make Christianity its official religion, it must ask itself: who would Jesus evict?
posted by EnterCenter at 4:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home