Black Jack Takes Marriage Seriously
The town of Black Jack, Missouri is upholding a ban preventing unmarried couples with children from living together. According to a CBS/AP report, at least one couple faces a possible eviction after a measure designed to change the definition of family to include unmarried couples was defeated. The ordinance prevents more than three people from living together who are not "related by blood, marriage or adoption."
I applaud their efforts to uphold the standards of marriage, but fail to see how this is the way to do it.
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.When questioned about the actions, the mayor stood firm:
The town's planning and zoning commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the city council in a 5-3 vote.
"The city provides information about its occupancy permit requirements to anyone who requests it. ... As mayor, I am required by state law to uphold the laws of the city of Black Jack."I will be very surprised if this holds up over the long haul. The bottom line is that it is impossible to legislate morality. If you notice, the current law allows for unmarried couples with one child to live together, therefore, the ordinance does not work.
I applaud their efforts to uphold the standards of marriage, but fail to see how this is the way to do it.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 5/19/2006 08:55:00 AM
|
3 Comments:
We have lost, as Christians, the view that the way to change the status quo is to use God's church, not the state and government.
If we expect that we can legislate morality then we are really not any better then the Taliban and other such theocratic governments. Forced morality is no morality at all.
Well said. I believe there are certain issues that we must stand for (especially issues of justice), but I agree, it must be done as the Church not some special interest group or government agency.
Wow! An issue where we agree, sort of. I would oppose this ordinance for other reasons.
Certainly they are not, "uphold[ing] the standards of marriage," since unmarried couples with one child are not prohibited.
That was not prohibited because the city leaders knew that type of measure could not possibly stand up to court challenge. So they couch it in terms of controlling "overcrowding." Five people living in a 2400 sq.ft. house are not crowded.
I don't expect that this ordinance will survive (at least not as its being enforced in this case) in the long term.
When asked why she would give up the right to be married to the man she is living with, Shelltrack replied: “I have the right to not be married.” Simple, but some seem to have forgotten.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home