Yay! Family values!

May 17, 2006 2:36 PM

Loving v. Missouri: In February, Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit because they have three children and are not married. "This ordinance is outdated. We are a family," says Shelltrack, 31. "There's a mom, there's a dad, there's three children. We are a family." Whether Shelltrack, a stay-at-home mom, and Loving, 33, who works for a payroll-administration company, are married "should not be anybody's business, if I pay my taxes, if I'm able to buy the house," she says.
posted by dash_slot- (50 comments total)

Black Jack resident Rose Curtis, 65, said she thought the council made the right decision.
"As a woman, I'm not going to let a man have babies by me and not marry me," Curtis said. "I think it was a fair decision. It's cut and dried."

I suspect Ms. Curtis is talking about her genitalia here, not the council's decision.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:40 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

Those Lovings just can't stay out of trouble!
posted by jewzilla at 2:43 PM on May 17, 2006

Black Jack resident Rose Curtis, 65, said she thought the council made the right decision.

"As a woman, I'm not going to let a man have babies by me and not marry me," Curtis said. "I think it was a fair decision. It's cut and dried."

What the hell? First of all I doubt anyone's having babies "by you" grannie. Secondly, just because you don't want to have kids out of wedlock dosn't mean you should be allowed to kick other people out of their homes if they choose too.
posted by delmoi at 2:45 PM on May 17, 2006

N.B., dash_slot is referencing Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage. The more relevant legal precedent is probably Lawrence v. Texas.
posted by dhartung at 2:45 PM on May 17, 2006

These people are undermining the sanctity of traditional living-in-sin.
posted by uosuaq at 2:47 PM on May 17, 2006

How did anyone find out they weren't married? And is there any suggestion that their race is a factor?
Just asking, not accusing.
posted by etaoin at 2:48 PM on May 17, 2006

Compare Moore v. City of East Cleveland with Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:53 PM on May 17, 2006

Is this at all distinguishable from Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:54 PM on May 17, 2006

jinx.

The rational basis in Belle Terre was prevention of increased traffic and noise. More unrelated people means more cars, more visitors, more transiency. It doesn't apply here.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:56 PM on May 17, 2006

Hey, where's the posting go about the presidential memo and the telcos?
posted by etaoin at 2:57 PM on May 17, 2006

I agree, Saucy. The only reason I included Belle Terre at all is that it is pretty much the only leg the city has to stand on. It's an awfully weak leg, though. Indeed, the Court in Belle Terre expressly avoided addressing a case with privacy rights implications.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:01 PM on May 17, 2006

Test cases are awesome.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:09 PM on May 17, 2006

Having grown up in Missouri, and more specifically St. Louis (of which this is a part), this story doesn't surprise me a bit.

Legislating morality is so much fun. It only harms the sinners.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:59 PM on May 17, 2006

But the house is in Black Jack, Mo., where anyone moving into a house must get a permit of occupancy. When Shelltrack and Loving went to get theirs, the city said no.

In 1999, an unmarried couple with 3-year-old triplets, Duane Carpenter and Doris McKinney, were denied an occupancy permit in the town. "The easiest resolution to cure the situation would be for them to get married," McCourt wrote to the ACLU at the time. "Our community believes this is the appropriate way to raise a family."

WTF!? There is so much bullshit going on her, I just want to smack somebody (and when I say "somebody" I mean McCourt and anybody else on the city council.) If this happened to me, I would be livid.

"It was, 'Get married or move out,' " says Horn, who later served in Congress in 1991 and 1992. "We were both pretty appalled." The couple married in 1987 — on their own timetable, Horn says. They divorced in 1999

So the city said get married or move out of your own home and the result is...the couple end up getting divorced. Thank goodness the city has no power to insist that couples don't get married for life.

And this: "They've gotten into a situation and it doesn't fit them," longtime resident Corliss Bonner says. "So their solution is, change the situation. That's not an adult approach."

But that is exactly what thinking adults do, turnipbrain-- they change the situation, they challange the status quo or look for new solutions. Besides, moving your family out of your new home is also "changing the situation."

Christ, the inbred stupidity of these Black Jackasses.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:01 PM on May 17, 2006

skrew'em, if my state won't allow gays to get married why the hell should we allow two people to live in sin
posted by killyb at 4:06 PM on May 17, 2006

Thank goodness the city has no power to insist that couples don't get married for life.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:07 PM on May 17, 2006

Apparently Kanab, UT is angling to become Black Jack's sister city.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:16 PM on May 17, 2006

Un-fucking-believable.

This sort of stunning shit would never be allowed to fly in Canada. For that matter, I wager it would never be allowed to happen in any other first-world nation.

Yet more evidence that (a) the USA is a very strange, foreign country; (b) the USA may not actually be a first-world nation.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:33 PM on May 17, 2006

more side effects of the great unwashed masses who want us all to live our lives based on their interpretation of some 2000 year old collection of bullshit.
posted by Megafly at 4:39 PM on May 17, 2006

This sort of stunning shit would never be allowed to fly in Canada.

1. Pick out happenings in the most rural, backward part of a country.

2. Generalize it to the entire country.

Well, I can see at least that Canadians are just as willing as the U.S. to make lazy generalizations.
posted by vacapinta at 4:44 PM on May 17, 2006

"This sort of stunning shit would never be allowed to fly in Canada" is, in fact, not a generalization at all, but rather a statement of fact. I believe our Constitution would bitchslap a town like BJ into the next century.

I am appalled that your national laws — surely it is illegal to discriminate like this! — can be so easily overridden by a bunch of backwater dipshits like those in BJ.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:55 PM on May 17, 2006

I believe our Constitution would bitchslap a town like BJ into the next century.

I believe ours will, too. What makes you think it won't?

I am appalled that your national laws — surely it is illegal to discriminate like this! — can be so easily overridden by a bunch of backwater dipshits like those in BJ.

I could be mistaken, but it's my understanding that Canadian laws protecting tenants, for example, from marital status discrimination are privincial statutes, and not national, and that even the nationwide anti-discrimination laws in Canada are statutory, and not part of the Constitution. I may be wrong. Am I? Do you actually know what Canadian law, if any, would apply?

Furthermore, the local laws of the U.S. don't "override" federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:01 PM on May 17, 2006

@vacapinta

1. Pick out happenings in the most rural, backward part of a country.

2. Generalize it to the entire country.

While I will grant you that St. Louis is one of the most backward places that I've ever lived, it is by no means rural.

Black Jack, MO Google Map
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 5:24 PM on May 17, 2006

It's not exactly the same case but in Miron v. Trudel (Wiki Summary) the Canadian courts have held that discrimination on the basis of marital status was in violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Which means that f^3 is correct hypothetical Canadian town trying to deny residency permits to unmarried couples would be shot down immediately by the courts. AFAIK the only way that a town could do that would be to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, and hope that the Justices make the nearly unprecedented decision to strip marital status of protection.
posted by Grimgrin at 5:32 PM on May 17, 2006

I am appalled that your national laws — surely it is illegal to discriminate like this! — can be so easily overridden by a bunch of backwater dipshits like those in BJ.

If you haven't heard, it isn't just the backwater dipshits.
posted by odinsdream at 5:35 PM on May 17, 2006

I heart Section 15.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

posted by five fresh fish at 5:43 PM on May 17, 2006

§ 14‑184. Fornication and adultery.

If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor: Provided, that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other. (1805, c. 684, P.R.; R.C., c. 34, s. 45; Code, s. 1041; Rev., s. 3350; C.S., s. 4343; 1969, c. 1224, s. 9; 1993, c. 539, s. 119; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)


Yes, it is illegal for a man and a woman who are not married to live together in North Carolina. That would be the entire state of North Carolina, not some town.
posted by flarbuse at 5:49 PM on May 17, 2006

I heart Section 15.

Yeah. It amazes me that it didn't come about until 1980.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:49 PM on May 17, 2006

JekPorkins: They do until somebody challenges them. Any idiot towncouncil can pass anything they like, and unless local law-enforcement are really strict on the constitution it'll get enforced until somebody doesn't like the situation and hires a lawyer to drag it to court ...
posted by kaemaril at 5:50 PM on May 17, 2006

Provided, that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other.

Is this saying that if the man and the woman just tell on eachother, that's not enough, but a third party is required?

Could someone clarify? Is this a loophole?
posted by odinsdream at 5:51 PM on May 17, 2006

hypothetical Canadian town trying to deny residency permits to unmarried couples would be shot down immediately by the courts.

Yes, and this will be shot down as well, once they sue. Courts don't act instantly, however, and don't act before the fact, and to think that this is somehow different in Canada is just plain silly, unless Canada's judicial system has radically changed in recent times.
posted by oaf at 5:56 PM on May 17, 2006

How do they prove they 'lewdly and lasciviously associate'? How do they prove they 'bed' together? Install cameras in the bedroom? Just living together can't be the rule (or can it?) else what if parents die, and adult siblings decide to keep the house and stay there while they're at the local university, or something like that? In such a case, would they be evicted? :)
posted by kaemaril at 5:57 PM on May 17, 2006

(As in, if some backwater town in Canada tried to do this, you wouldn't have the Supreme Court of Canada issuing rulings about it the next day.)
posted by oaf at 5:58 PM on May 17, 2006

Yeah. It amazes me that it didn't come about until 1980.

Better late than never.

Prior to 1980 we had the Canadian Bill of Rights, dated 1960; and earlier, the Constitution Act. It's not like we were just floating along without a set of rules.

What is truly terrific about our Charter (I mistakenly called it our Constitution) is that we learned from all the mistakes of the past. We got to start with a fairly clean slate. We did it right this time.

Or, at least, more right. Next time maybe it'll be just perfect. :-)
posted by five fresh fish at 6:20 PM on May 17, 2006

I believe our Constitution would bitchslap a town like BJ into the next century.

I believe ours will, too. What makes you think it won't?

Well, the U.S. Constitution hasn't been faring so well against the current executive branch, the republican congress, and the 1/4-1/3 of the nation that is obviously totally brain-dead.

Still, maybe there's a few rounds left in the fight.
posted by namespan at 6:23 PM on May 17, 2006

Well, the U.S. Constitution hasn't been faring so well against the current executive branch, the republican congress, and the 1/4-1/3 of the nation that is obviously totally brain-dead.

Yeah, that's what I keep hearing, but I don't really buy it.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:27 PM on May 17, 2006

permit of occupancy

?

wtf?
posted by 3.2.3 at 7:09 PM on May 17, 2006

For a town full of a bunch of squares they sure do have a pretty badass name. Why the hell does a town called Black Jack need a court? This is something that is settled with a gunfight on the dirt street. Frontier justice man. Frontier justice in a suburb of St. Lous. Coincidentally, that's not all that different from what they're getting in East St. Lous if what I've been hearing is right.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 7:13 PM on May 17, 2006

Barmy. And sad.
posted by jamesonandwater at 7:30 PM on May 17, 2006

3.2.3 writes "permit of occupancy

"?

"wtf?"

It's a zoning thing. Lots of towns have separate zoning categories for single-family residences and duplexes/apartment buildings.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:40 PM on May 17, 2006

This sort of stunning shit would never be allowed to fly in Canada.

Don't be too complacent, FFF. Lots of things are being quietly changed or axed by the Harper government.
posted by Zinger at 7:45 PM on May 17, 2006

I was shocked when I moved to St. Louis by these "occupancy permits." In StL proper, they are just about safety inspections, but in many of the suburbs they're used as a way to keep people out.
In Ladue, one of the high-end suburbs of St. Louis a friend of mine was denied a housing permit because he wanted to live there with his boyfriend. Just two gay men and a cat, but they were denied an occupancy permit.
In Kirkwood, another St. Louis suburb, when i moved there i was given a brochure to read before I applied for an occupancy permit that explained the "kirkwood way of life." I wasn't sure if I was renting an apartment or joining a cult.
posted by muddylemon at 8:50 PM on May 17, 2006

How do they prove they 'lewdly and lasciviously associate'? How do they prove they 'bed' together?

They don't, of course, because this never makes it to court. I can assure that the ACLU is poised and waiting for some DA stupid enough to prosecute. Instead, it's used more insiduously; a couple years ago the Brunswick County sheriff used this law as an excuse to fire a cohabiting 911 dispatcher.

At the time, I edited a small publication in North Carolina and asked one of our writers to attempt to turn himself in for violating this statute and write about it. He visited the magistrate, the police, and the sheriff's office; no one took the bait, because it's obvious even to the most inbred redneck that the law would be struck down by the first court to hear the case. These laws are far more useful when they're not enforced, but remain on the books to be used as a threat.

For this reason I would bet folding cash that if the individuals mentioned in this story call the city's bluff and fail to move the city will make reactionary noises as long as it's in the news, then quietly drop the matter once it's no longer the story du jour.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:04 PM on May 17, 2006

So, uh, how exactly does this law not promote convenience marriage?

We have to destroy the family to save it! We have to kill marriage to keep it!

Why are people so in love with marriage as a state institution? If two people get married in the eyes of God, but don't do the paperwork, are they living in sin? Will God send you to Hell for not filing? There's state marriage and there's spiritual marriage. Assign whatever nutty moral condemnations to marriage as a spiritual institution as you like, but keep it out of state marriage. Tada. Problem solved.

You don't want the state intertwined with your religion, okay? Separation of Church and State exists to protect your fucking church as much as it protects the atheists and pagans that you get your panties in a wad about, mm'kay?
posted by Skwirl at 9:53 PM on May 17, 2006

WHY oh WHY must every thread about anything going on in the US that might be of ANY interest turn into "Well, Canada is so much better." Or "You couldn't invade Canada."

LEAVE CANADA ALONE. It's NOT happening in Canada, ok? So, don't say "Oh, this could never happen in Canada." This could probably never happen in CUBA either and no one is getting into the hypothetical legality there.

I get it that my country is sucking in many unusual ways, but that's no reason to have it smeared all over the internets by self-important Canadians. Our dollar is still worth more than yours. And when we need the mounties to go invade Mexico, we'll call you.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:13 PM on May 17, 2006

WHY oh WHY must every thread about anything going on in the US that might be of ANY interest turn into "Well, Canada is so much better." Or "You couldn't invade Canada."

Self-absorbed snowbacks, that's why.
posted by yerfatma at 10:05 AM on May 18, 2006

I guess gfm is right. We Canucks should export our better ways through invasion and violence, like the Americans do, instead of merely suggesting that things would be better if our ways were emulated more often.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:15 PM on May 18, 2006

LEAVE CANADA ALONE.

Our dollar is still worth more than yours.

These words were made by the same person, in the same comment. Hmmm.

Anyway, my main point here is that Ithink that the US constitution is broken. It seems that there needs to be serious wrong done by the legislators (if that's the correct term for these tinpot councillors in 2 bit towns), before redress is granted.

Any real protection of civil rights would require the powerful to adhere to the principles of equal treatment with swift and effective redress without requiring the ACLU or fancy lawyers.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:52 PM on May 18, 2006

Wait...isn't the bigger issue here that there are *residency permits* period?

What. The. Hell?
posted by dejah420 at 8:30 PM on May 18, 2006

Any real protection of civil rights would require the powerful to adhere to the principles of equal treatment with swift and effective redress without requiring the ACLU or fancy lawyers.

So what's your plan for protection of civil rights, if laws and courts can't be involved? Superheroes?
posted by JekPorkins at 8:41 PM on May 18, 2006