Here is yet another story of utter ridiculousness, this time from a St. Louis (Missouri) suburb; an unmarried couple with three children are being threatened with eviction due to a dumbass ordinance that prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption."
"I'm just shocked," said Olivia Shelltrack, the unwed mother of three. "I really thought this [the city council's decision] would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."
Hrm. I suppose it would be alright if this couple (and their kids) lived together without getting married if they were related by blood .. ?
- Log in to post comments
When does "common law" marriage take effect?
The thing is, there are two overlapping sets of four people; in each set, all of the people ARE related by blood. But there is no set of three in which all are unrelated by blood. So as far as I am concerned, they are in full compliance with the law.
It's still a stupid law, though.
"But I suppose it would be alright if this couple (and their kids) lived together without getting married if they were related by blood "
lol
However while they could live together in Missouri they still could not get an abortion in many states since incest is not a sufficnet reason. Asshats everywhere these days.
As I posted at "Respectful Insolence" laws like this have been enacted all over the place. The purpose of these laws (at least in both municipalities where I have seen them debated) are not to punish unmarried couples but rather to reduce uncontrolled increases in local population density and to provide a bylaw that will allow municipalities a means to prevent the proliferation of illegal suites.
When a municipality plans its services (sewers/water/parking) it does so using density calculations based on single-family homes being used as homes to single families. The proliferation of "in-law suites" that are rented out illegally has resulted in a dramatic increase in population density which can over-stress sewer and water services and overwhelms available parking.
As for its use to enforce rigid socio-political dogma...what is that they say about "unintended consequences"?
Like Joseph, I don't see how these people are breaking the law. Aren't there only two people (the parents) who are unrelated?
To answer Pablo's question: Missouri, like most states, doesn't recognize "common law" marriage.
i guess the mayor and city council are products of the American public schools because their math skills are sorely lacking.
I did a little more research, and it turns out the law in Black Jack, MO actually says that in a household with three or more residents each resident has to be related to every other resident by blood, marriage, or adoption. The law is more than 20 years old and apparently the original intent was to prevent people from running a boarding house in a residential neighborhood.
Good old cowstate Texas still recognizes common-law marriage. The test is whether the couple holds out that they are married. Of course neither the male nor female can be under a disability, i.e., not an infant, already married to someone else and the like. Yee-hah!
... reduce uncontrolled increases in local population density and to provide a bylaw that will allow municipalities a means to prevent the proliferation of illegal suites.
If that's really their goal, the city ought to invest in affordable housing rather than ridiculous rules that interfere with non-trad families taking care of themselves.