Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parents

Seems to me that they are related by blood - parents & children share.

 

This is where a lawsuit should happen. It is not the town's business. They purchased the property, they should have occupancy. This is what happens when religion and government mingle. Looks to me like their civil rights were violated.

 

As long as the ordinance is on the books , the city has the right to enforce it.

 

But carpo it looks like they are going against their own ordinance.

I thought the same thing as Daisy when I first heard this story months ago.

I think we need the actual ordinance because how does an unmarried couple with children together make up 3 unrelated persons? Or can not more than 2 people in this town live together if any 2 are unrelated?

 

Well, this law is destined to be struck down, thank God!

 

The mother and father are unrelated and unmarried. Maybe they've adopted each other.

From a legal standpoint, it's a no brainer. They are in violation of the ordinance.

 

"The town's planning and zoning commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday (5/16) by the city council in a 5-3 vote.

<snip>

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children."

LINK

 

Why occupancy permits & inspections are required, here’s how to apply (in Black Jack)

"Who needs an occupancy permit?

Anyone who is moving into City of Black Jack must apply for and receive an occupancy permit before moving in."

 

The ordinance says: "related by blood". Each parent and all siblings are related by blood to the kids. Hence, no violation.

If you want to say that only one parent can occupy the house with the kids, which parent is more related by blood?

 

The ordinance says: "related by blood". Each parent and all siblings are related by blood to the kids. Hence, no violation.

If you want to say that only one parent can occupy the house with the kids, which parent is more related by blood? </font>[/QUOTE]Either parent could live in the house with the kids, but not both.

I agreee it's poorly written and a stupid ordinance, but they are still in violation of it.

 

Which one? Why not both as they are both related to the kids?

If the ordinance states that adult occupants must be related to each other, and so far I have not seen the wording of the ordinance, then you are right....Would that mean that unmarried cousins who have children together could live together in that town?

I expect that if the town evicts them, that will cost it a bundle.

 

Here are their ordinances

Someone else can filter thru it and find where it talks about unrelated people living together.

 

Under Appendix C, Section 030 they define family as:
(27) Family: An individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group of not more than three (3) persons who need not be related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single non-profit housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.

 

As long as existing citizens are grandfathered in, why can a town not make whatever ordinances it wants?

There's a town in FL (if I remember the location correctly) that is being built as a planned community. One of the regulations is that pharmacies cannot carry the abortion pill, and other things such as that.

What's wrong with that? If you don't like it, don't move there!

 

Which one? Why not both as they are both related to the kids?

</font>[/QUOTE]Take your pick. Doesn't matter.

Mother and father are unrelated and unmarried and connot live together in the house with their kids...according to the ordinance.

 

Only in America, the so-called defender of freedom. Invade a foreign country and force one's own form of government, then invade the homes of its own citizens. Shame! Shame!

What is next? Cameras in every room.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The US Constitution guarantees all citizens rights such as equal protection which localities are not at liberty to override.

 

This is also the problem of applying the Constitution beyond its intended bounds.

I agree with your view if we are talking about the federal gov't. But the Constitution left the "states and people" with alot of power to control what happened in "their own neighborhood". Some states even adopted a state religion early on and had religious requirements for holding office. The Federal gov't didn't try to intervene as it was "state's business".