living in sin in n.d.

April 3, 2003 8:53 PM

Remind me never to cohabit heterosexually, "openly and notoriously," in North Dakota.
posted by artifex (39 comments total)

bit late for april fools, huh?
posted by mcsweetie at 9:00 PM on April 3, 2003

Would it be uncharitable and schadenfreudelich of me, on behalf of homos everywhere, to say "ha ha"?

Eh, it would. Also, that law is bizarre and insane and crazy and all kinds of makes-me-want-to-move-to-Canada.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:35 PM on April 3, 2003

Again with the Handmaid's Tale crap. This is one scary motherfucking country sometimes.
posted by padraigin at 9:36 PM on April 3, 2003

Just live wantonly and you won't have to worry.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:39 PM on April 3, 2003

"Remind me never to cohabit heterosexually, "openly and notoriously," in North Dakota."

Hey, artifex? Don't ever cohabit heterosexually, "openly and notoriously," in North Dakota.

You're welcome.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:52 PM on April 3, 2003

makes-me-want-to-move-to-Canada.

Were talking about North Dakota here.

It's like what, two blocks from Canada?
posted by hama7 at 10:00 PM on April 3, 2003

Oh well, North Dakota is making some progress; at least you can get your bikini area waxed now.
posted by RylandDotNet at 10:05 PM on April 3, 2003

What the hell?

Does the law actually say "as if they were married," or is that just an assumption? Like, if a man and woman live together and don't act like they're married, is that okay? Is sex the only thing that means they're acting as if they're married? This is not a point of contention for me, it would just help to understand what's in the minds of these people.

According to this law, if my former roommates were women, would I have been guilty of "co-habitation?" Is "homosexual co-habitation" technically required of every college freshman?

Because the authorities could only be certain of actual sexual intercourse if they had cameras inside the residence. Is that why these bastards admit the law is unenforceable?

There are serious questions this law is begging.

Bear in mind, I am not a homosexual, nor have I ever engaged in homosexual activities. I'm asking this because I question the reasoning of these people. While I may believe faulty reasoning is okay, I do not believe it should be made into law.
posted by son_of_minya at 10:10 PM on April 3, 2003

They can have my co-habitating girlfriend when they pry her from my cold dead fingers.
posted by moonbiter at 10:28 PM on April 3, 2003

"Bear in mind, I am not a homosexual, nor have I ever engaged in homosexual activities. I'm asking this because I question the reasoning of these people. While I may believe faulty reasoning is okay, I do not believe it should be made into law."

Thank you for clearing that up. For a second, I was deathly afraid that you were one of them. You don't think they hang around here, do you? ;)
posted by The God Complex at 10:38 PM on April 3, 2003

Well I know where I live we have a very liberal definition of common law. Here if you "purport" yourselves as married you are. An example of that would be if you recieved mail at the same address. I believe it goes if a male and female live at the same residence for one month, in this state you are considered married. So I guess whether or not said couple are having sex is not necessarily part of the equation. Very odd.
posted by SweetIceT at 10:50 PM on April 3, 2003

"Not that there's anything wrong with that."

I'm on year 18 of co-habitating. Senator John Andrist can lick my balls -- betcha my co-habitation lasts longer than any of his kid's marriages.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:53 PM on April 3, 2003

The God Complex: Thank you for clearing that up. For a second, I was deathly afraid that you were one of them. You don't think they hang around here, do you? ;)

I know, I am a little paranoid. I have just been accused of all kinds of things, from all sides, any time I mention homosexuality. It's a major thread de-railer.

I think it is an important question, on this subject, because I want to know how these legislators view it as compared to "heterosexual co-habitation." Do they even think of it with the same tools, i.e. reason?

"A man and woman just shouldn't live together unless they're married -- it ain't right! Oughta be a law 'gainst it!" That don't make no sense. I want to know the exact rules behind this.

With the laws against (or exempting) homosexual marriage, I can understanding the reasoning. Governmental acknowledgement of marriage is 1) a religious tradition, and 2) a governmental incentive for creating stable families. Marriage is a contract issue, though. It's not a behavioral issue, in my book.

With this, I can not understand why two men can (and should) live together, but a woman and a man should not.
posted by son_of_minya at 11:14 PM on April 3, 2003

It stands as a reminder that there is right, and there is wrong," said Sen. John Andrist, a Republican.

Ah, the warmth and hospitality of North Dakotans is truly stunning.

Would oil have anything to do with keeping up appearances and such backwards type "thinking"?

Will it lead to a further population drop ? Some of them think people are leaving for wages...

The same senator dissented on a telemarketing bill, which would allow North Dakotans who don't want to be pestered by sales calls to sign up for a free "do-not-call" list. Sen. John Andrist, R-Crosby, wondered if the legislation was an infringement on free speech [paragraph 6].

Wonders never cease. What a think tank!
posted by alicesshoe at 11:41 PM on April 3, 2003

More on North Dakota: The buffalo roam again.
posted by homunculus at 12:24 AM on April 4, 2003

five fresh fish: We're on year 12 together now. (Or is it 13?)

This issue fascinates me. Quite a few of the people we work with (almost invariably women, interestingly) were totally shocked to learn that a couple could be together for over a decade and live together without being married. It's amazing -- we're both constantly interrogated about it ("When are you guys gonna get married?"; "Why aren't you guys married?").

The usual assumption is that Emily must be dying to get married (assumption: as a female this must be her #1 priority in life) and I must be unwilling to make any kind of commitment to her (assumption: men are just overgrown adolescents who are incapable of attachment and who avoid responsibility at all costs), or that neither of us is committed to the other (hilarious assumption: marriage provides some kind of assurance of the monogamy and relationship stability that they prize so much -- sorry, but if roughly half the married population eventually divorces, then you might as well just flip a coin if this is where your sense of relationship security comes from). As if our commitment or lack thereof is something I'm obliged to prove or justify or explain to people I hardly know.

I just don't understand the reality some people live in. Calling it a "reality" is probably charitable.

I can't believe how alienated I've been feeling lately. It seems everyone thinks this war is a great idea and thinks marriage is something more than an arbitrary social construct and believes in some kind of god and worries that others will think they're gay...I'm from the fucking moon, aren't I?
posted by boredomjockey at 1:02 AM on April 4, 2003

boredomjockey:

I was not drawn away from my thoughts about this issue by what you wrote. It seemed to be on-topic, even though it diverged somewhat. I think it may have hit at the heart of the issue.

It seems everyone thinks this war is a great idea and thinks marriage is something more than an arbitrary social construct and believes in some kind of god and worries that others will think they're gay...I'm from the fucking moon, aren't I?

I completely identify with you. I'm afraid to talk these days. I don't even understand how it happened, because I used to want to provoke people. I still want to get into fights, but I can't do anything to provoke it anymore. I just feel like I'm paralyzed.

I feel like, if I do get in a fight, I'm wrong. I have to explain everything. In case the person is stupid, I have to talk very slowly.

If you mean that you are from another planet because you feel no insecurity right now, maybe we need you. It is possible that you're just evil, but I don't know how to feel good without drawing fire right now.
posted by son_of_minya at 1:31 AM on April 4, 2003

When reality feels threatened, it shrinks - much like an anus.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:13 AM on April 4, 2003

I can't believe how alienated I've been feeling lately. It seems everyone thinks this war is a great idea and thinks marriage is something more than an arbitrary social construct and believes in some kind of god and worries that others will think they're gay...I'm from the fucking moon, aren't I?

Come and live in London, we're all like you. I can't speak for the rest of the country though.
posted by Summer at 2:24 AM on April 4, 2003

I think I'm right in saying marriage for all is pretty much a victorian thing. Basically, if you don't have anything of value then there was no point in getting married. You found a partner, you settled down, you shagged like rabbits, you rased your baby rabbits. Simple.
posted by twine42 at 3:06 AM on April 4, 2003

north dakota sounds like it's running the risk of drying up and blowing away.

the 2 most successful relationships i've ever witnessed were "unmarried" couples, one straight and one gay, 60 and 65 years together, respectively. you couldn't possibly have come across 4 wiser, more committed, loving and compassionate individuals, or people more responsible and charitable towards their community. and because of the eras they lived thru' they had some incredible stories to tell of truly being branded "notorious"...

my s/o and i are going on 9 years together, one year longer than my earlier "official" marriage and it's 1000% more of everything good and legitimate than the marriage was.
posted by t r a c y at 3:22 AM on April 4, 2003

"Marry yourself to beliefs, not a person, unless you have no interesting beliefs, in which case please marry a person so that the metaphor still makes sense."

I'll never forget that as long as I live. Some people are just born to say great things. That's the belief I'm married to.

(Did I stop making sense? I think I did.)
posted by The God Complex at 3:26 AM on April 4, 2003

"...sorry, but if roughly half the married population eventually divorces...". Nitpick: while roughly half of marriages end in divorce, I believe that significantly less than half of the married population ever divorces. This is because many (most?) divorces involve serial divorcers, whose multiple divorces pull the average up despite the zero divorces that most of us go through. I'm pretty sure that this is true, but I can't find it on the Web; everyone just takes the easy way out and divides number of marriages by number of divorces...
posted by davidchess at 4:23 AM on April 4, 2003

The law itself is Real Short: "12.1-20-10. Unlawful cohabitation. A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he or she lives openly and notoriously with a person of the opposite sex as a married couple without being married to the other person." I imagine there's case law that says something about what that means, but it'd have to be old case law (some news story said that it hasn't been applied since the 1930's some time).

Full sex-related laws of North Dakota available here.
posted by davidchess at 4:42 AM on April 4, 2003

(Entire state laws of North Dakota available here, for your bathroom reading pleasure.)
posted by davidchess at 4:43 AM on April 4, 2003

If it's never enforced why didn't they repeal it? I don't understand.
posted by Summer at 4:52 AM on April 4, 2003

Bathroom reading?
posted by ursus_comiter at 4:59 AM on April 4, 2003

Cohabititation before they marriage should be mandatory. All that dating stuff is just a front. After you move in and find out your real partner is a filthy underpants wearer, nose picker, and playstation addict, it's too late.
posted by dydecker at 5:11 AM on April 4, 2003

Remove "they" in first sentence above. Bad drugs.

Anyway, this law is good to keep in mind next time an American warbles on about how free they are.
posted by dydecker at 5:18 AM on April 4, 2003

11,000 cohabitating couples (let's say half are hetero) x $1,000 in fine = $5.5 million in state revenue.

I say enforce it and get the backers thrown out of the government for good.
posted by infowar at 5:25 AM on April 4, 2003

Back in the stone-age, when this law was originally passed, the formation of the law was understandable, since we were all primitive cave-men back then.

However, in this day and age, the year 2003, seeing it upheld is just unbelievable.

"It stands as a reminder that there is right, and there is wrong," said Sen. John Andrist, a Republican.

Just further proof that the Republican party has been completely overrun by religious zealots.
posted by eas98 at 6:41 AM on April 4, 2003

Sweeeeeeet, discrimination against straight people? :) Somehow, I'm on board.

JUST KIDDING!! Only kidding! It's sad that the neo-Puritans are invading y'all's bedrooms and tossing you in jail also. When they start telling doctors they can refuse you healthcare because of what you do in the bedroom, you call me back and we'll stage a rally. (I'm sooooo kidding)
posted by grrarrgh00 at 6:42 AM on April 4, 2003

son_of_minya: admit it. you're gay.
posted by jpoulos at 7:11 AM on April 4, 2003

On a dissenting note (and not even a religious one believe it or not)...If a cohabitating partner is seriously ill, for example, and the family disapproves of the partner, they can be banned from seeing their significant other. From what I understand gay couples run into this a lot. (subject for another day.) There are other legal ramifications of being unmarried as well...for example, if a cohabiting partner is in the military, and is killed, the loved one is shut out from a lot of benefits.

Of course I am for marriage for reasons of faith, but even those who are of no religious persuasion need to at least take some thought to these legal issues.
posted by konolia at 7:14 AM on April 4, 2003

jpoulos: Damnit! You see what I'm talking about?

I think jpoulos is being sarcastic, but that kind of shit frustrates me to no end.
posted by son_of_minya at 7:23 AM on April 4, 2003

From grrarrgh00's link re: the Colorado law making it legal for healthcare workers to refuse to treat gay people:

Rep. Shawn Mitchell, a Broomfield Republican, said ..... an ill or injured party could always file a lawsuit against a doctor or nurse who refused anyone care.

Uh yeah, if they're not DEAD by that time.

Man the ultra-, ultra-conservative, extreme right-wing, Christian Talibans (also now known as Republican moderates) are getting feistier by the second.

Why aren't more of the sheep protesting? Too cowed, I guess.

Or are there a lot of people who feel like me, that there are too many fronts to fight on, with so much abrogation of freedom coming from so many directions?
posted by NorthernLite at 7:57 AM on April 4, 2003

This law with its ban tailored to heterosexual cohabitation reminds me of England's nineteenth century anti-homosexual laws - Queen Victoria refused to outlaw lesbianism because she didn't believe it ever happened.
posted by orange swan at 10:26 AM on April 4, 2003

This law has been on the books since 1890 and doesn't now curtail anyone's freedom, so it's the not the law in itself that is so scary. It's the present day elected officials who have refused to strike it off the books that would scare the hell out of me. WHY are such people the ones at the wheel? Where are the good leaders? Where are the voters?
posted by orange swan at 10:52 AM on April 4, 2003

North Carolina has an almost two hundred year old anti-cohabitation law. Take that, North Dakota! We even have a wacko old fart judge in Charlotte who tries to enforce it every time it comes up.

Oral sex is illegal here too. That must be the most violated law in history.
posted by mark13 at 12:24 PM on April 4, 2003