Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parents

Anyone who understands federal vs state powers as provided by the US Constitution would know that a person as long as he or she is a citizen not in trouble with the law, can live where he or she chooses, that is not a state or local power. Your argument is flawed.

 

So it is illegitimate for this community to tell its residents what they can and can't do... but perfectly legitimate for the Federal gov't to tell the all the other individuals in the community what they can and cannot do, right? So the other parents in this community do not have a right to protect their children from the influence of children from this home? IOW's, if they don't agree with your idea of what should be permitted, you have a right to stuff your opinion down their throats, right?

I'm not even saying this community is right... but they like everyone else should have a right to be wrong.

From a pragmatic standpoint, this is justifiable. Statistically, unmarried couples have more domestic disputes, higher police costs. They and their children are generally more costly to the communities in which they live.

 

No you can't. Please cite the section of the Constitution that says you can live where you want. Zoning laws have been upheld as have "no children" communities, seniors only communities, etc.

Further, please cite the section of the US Constitution that empowers the Federal gov't to dictate or limit the laws a local gov't can adopt for itself.

Unless you have a section of the constitution empowering the feds to govern it... the 10th Amendment says it is a state or local power.

 

The US Constitution guarantees all citizens rights such as equal protection which localities are not at liberty to override. </font>[/QUOTE]The Constitution was not intended to govern localities. Even when this was wrongly overturned, the 10th Amendment was still valid. This is not a power given to the Federal gov't therefore it is a power reserved to the states and people.

 

BTW, the state or local gov't's have just as much right to make this law as they do any other law pertaining to marriage.

 

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! </font>[/QUOTE]That would be no fun... then liberals couldn't use the power of the Federal gov't to dictate their moral convictions to the rest of us under the guise of preventing us from dictating our moral convictions to others.

 

Thank you for your in depth analysis of the seperation of federal, state, and local powers as provided by the US Constitution. Maybe this can be put in power point to teach the local government classes.

 

No. Thank you for this smart aleck acknowledgement that you don't have anything to back up your assertion.

 

The US Constitution guarantees all citizens rights such as equal protection which localities are not at liberty to override. </font>[/QUOTE]Mind pointing out in the Constitution where a local government cannot make such a law?

 

Cameras are used in pornography on the internet now.

The US can monitor every move you make outside of your home with video surveillance from thousands of feet above and take pictures in such a way that you are clearly indentifiable. It is already being done to monitor people movement in conjunction with GPS and GIS.

It is not the honest people I am concerned about. It is the terrorists and evil people I want monitored.

 

The pot just called the kettle black!

 

The pot just called the kettle black! </font>[/QUOTE]Please point to my post where I responded to you and didn't employ facts and logic. Rarely do I make assertions here that I can't back up because usually someone will challenge you on them... and I don't like to be caught in that compromising situation.

 

I'm talking about you criticizing saturneptune for being a "smart aleck." To make it more simplistic, you are being hypocritical for making such a statement considering many of your responses toward others with whom you disagree.

 

SN has made a habit of responding to my posts in various forums like this. He is intentionally being a smart aleck and would probably admit it assuming he's honest. He is apparently trying to make a point but I don't know what it is.

If you've perceived me as being a smart aleck with you, I can assure you that it wasn't just for the sake of being a smart aleck.

In case you think any different, I think you have a right to your opinion even though I think you are wrong and present unsound opinions on most political issues. You think I am wrong as well which is all well and good and part of the nature of places like this. But as far as I am aware, I haven't responded to you with just a snide remark absent any real response at all, have I?

 

I am not complaining about this, just pointing it out. Many here are good at giving jabs and barbs on occasion. Since people online are restricted to only typed words with no tone inflection, facial expression or body english, it is often difficult to understand all the nuances of interpersonal communication. It's just part of being on a message board.

 

Initially, these laws were created to eliminate boarding housing and illegal renting of rooms.

The federal fair housing act, signed in 1968 prohibits the discrimination in the sale of housing by familial status, making the current interpretation of the city ordinance by Black Jack a federally illegal one.

 

GD, that is what I was wondering about. I seemed to remember that the Fair Housing Act would override such a law.

 

Waht about the freedom of association? Why is it (or why should it be illegal) to plan a community of like-minded people?

I'm all for grandfathering it in: If you currently live there, it won't affect you, neither will it affect those to whom you sell it. But, if you plan it and say, "These are our requirements", then you should have to abide by it. Much like agreeing to homeowner association rules regulating the color of paint, display of flags, where you park, etc.

 

I wasn't aware of that act.
I lived with a boyfriend when I was a teen and not a believer. Even then, where we were, most places wouldn't rent to an unmarried couple. Most lied. Not only that, but the stigma was enough to prick our conscious and make us feel ashamed to the point where we'd present ourselves as married.

Making it socially acceptable certainly hasn't done anyone any spiritual favors.

 

Same reason you can't have a community that excludes blacks. It's illegal.