Charlotte Judge Says Get Married Or Move Out
April 11, 2001 4:33 PM   Subscribe

Charlotte Judge Says Get Married Or Move Out If you want to be released on bond in U.S. Magistrate Judge Carl Horn's court, you've got to stop breaking that 1805 law against shacking up. He doesn't release habitual lawbreakers! Note that he's a federal judge, enforcing a North Carolina Class 2 misdemeanor.
posted by BT (13 comments total)
"These conditions are all in their best interest," Horn said.

Having been divorced twice, I don't think having a judge pressure people to get married is a good idea. I'd like to see some stats on how many of these couples end up back in court getting divorced.

I'm still waiting for the good news about our current judicial system. I know that many really good judges go unnoticed while loons get all the press, but it just seems like it's been a while since I read a story that reassured me about how great our system is.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:53 PM on April 11, 2001

At last we are getting standards and decency bak in our country. See, for example:
posted by Postroad at 5:08 PM on April 11, 2001

Yep, gotta love our good old government imposing proper, Christian values on anyone who walks through their court.

Yep, finally, some common sense in our court systems.

I wonder what else is on the books down their? Witchcraft, perhaps. "Oh you believe in wicca, sorry, no go for you." Maybe sodomy? "have you or your wife convorted non-vaginally? Yep? Oh well, to jail with ya."

I think this country needs to take about 6 months, go through every single law one by one, and figure out if it actually makes any sense.
posted by benjh at 5:53 PM on April 11, 2001

I know it was just a typo, benjh, but I really wish that "convorted" was a word. Sounds like fun.
posted by BT at 6:15 PM on April 11, 2001

Dang-I LIVE in North Carolina and had never heard of that law.......

posted by bunnyfire at 6:36 PM on April 11, 2001

Since when is committment a Christian-owned concept? I thought that was why there was the institution of marriage in the first place. If your choice of partner consistently dogs you y6 perhaps you should get some professional therapy. If it's the law, regardless of the inspiration, the judge has every right to exercise his discretion as he sees fit, and who is benjh to say otherwise? Perhaps you could qualify your obtuse comments a little bit to lend them some credibility and make them less insulting to anyone of average (or better) intelligence? I'm asking: Please.
posted by greyscale at 6:42 PM on April 11, 2001

I meant to say, I thought there were other reasons that marriage was an institution. While I'm no history major aren't there examples of pre-Christian marriage? I thought it was simply a sound biological idea that you don't have lots of partners....and if you have problems with that it was usually a thing for which you typically needed some sort of [professional psycho-medical] help.
posted by greyscale at 6:53 PM on April 11, 2001

Hopefully this gets enough coverage and the legislature takes a look at some of those old laws they still have on the books, and either repeal them or change them. There's nothing more dangerous than laws that are arbitrarily enforced.
posted by Witold at 6:59 PM on April 11, 2001

Marriage is, in essence, a religious principle. And while, yes, there some commitment ceremonies in pre-Christian times, they weren't what they were today.

People coupling is one thing. That is exactly what they are doing when they are "shacking up", but marriage is about a commitment to god, more than anything. And is a diverse world, you can't just doctrine the concept of marriage to people. Its inappropriate. What about people who don't have a religion at all, atheists, for example? Should they be forced into a ceremony and commitment ritual based on a religious belief(s) that they do not believe in, just because there is a law, or just because people think it is better that way.

We're not talking about commitment. These people already have commitment, that's why they are living together. We're talking about marriage.
posted by benjh at 7:29 PM on April 11, 2001

We did the religion and marriage thing back when we were talking about crazy mary. It continued here and Steven Den Beste put up a nice summary of his feelings here. Personally, I'm with benjh - if you feel you're committed, you're committed (also a synonym for institutionalized, coincidence?) - no need to bring religion into it if you're not religious.
posted by OneBallJay at 7:44 PM on April 11, 2001

wasn't it margaret mead who named the idea of serial monogamy? just because someone's your proper partner at age 20 doesn't mean that they will be at age 40. it happens, i know (my parents being one example) but lots of times it doesn't happen. so why does forcing the issue make sense?

posted by sugarfish at 8:37 PM on April 11, 2001

Wait a minute here.

When a same-sex couple wants to get married, people start yelling and screaming - oh no, we couldn't possibly let that happen, because marriage is sacred and mystical and letting same-sex couples marry would bring the whole institution down in flames.

But this judge can just order people to get married or go to jail, and that DOESN'T make a joke out of the entire thing?

Marry, break up, or go back to your cell - what a choice. Sure, this is going to produce a lot of stable, long-lasting unions.

posted by Mars Saxman at 11:57 AM on April 12, 2001

Mars, you make a great point. Unfortunately, the self-righteous tend to be the least likely to reexamine their position when their hypocrisy is pointed out.
posted by gimli at 1:10 PM on April 12, 2001

« Older Kozmo is dead.   |   Themestream Sinks Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments