It just gets weirder and more draconian

[National Acrobat]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/17/national/main1625059.shtml

A town in Missouri has decided that they know what constitutes a family, and is attempting to change the zoning laws for residents in order to enforce that. Current residents could be evicted if they do not meet the definition of 'family' as the town sees it.

Unbelievable.

[alahendra]

Under that law, three  people couldn't live together as roommates in order to save on rent!  :o

[Swedish Steel]

No...because being roommates are just an excuse, they are all after filthy deviant sex, every last one of them!
Seriously, your contry never stop amazing me, I should be used to it by now but gosh darn it, you did it again. :)

[National Acrobat]

Under that law, three  people couldn't live together as roommates in order to save on rent!  :o

I guess there isn't a college nearby then...

Seriously, this is just nuts. I mean it's a fundamental right to life, liberty and happiness that you can choose who to live with, and whether you want to get married or not.

[alahendra]

Well, my comment was half in jest, but on a more serious note, besides the implications with regard to civil liberties, I know plenty of people who aren't in college who live together as roommates because their economic situations require it.  I wonder how many people like that would be hurt by this (not to mention those who are just trying to live their lives in peace and not bother anyone).  This is just so bizarre and outrageous, I still can't wrap my mind around it.


Swedish--Living in the US, I don't think anything can surprise me anymore, and yet, here's an example of something that did.

[National Acrobat]

Yeah, I assumed it was partly in jest. I was just commenting that if there was a college in the vicinity this type of legislation and ordinance wouldn't even have a snoball's chance in hell of making it past a committee to get a vote.

I happen to be a person that at one time had roomates for the very reasons you describe, and it really annoys me that someone would dictate to me that wasn't acceptable.

[alahendra]

Well, let's see, I am getting to move in with my fiance, but right now I (bisexual female) live with two roommates: 1 straight male, and 1 gay.  They'd probably not only want to evict us but have us shot too! 

What I wonder though, (and I'm no expert on law type stuff)  is how could this possibly be constitutional?  It seems to me that if they actually try to enforce this thing, there will be legal action in no time.

[Hunter]

It's by the people, so don't expect the people to be what you might think as rational.  After all, they think you're nuts too.   ;)

[Elvi]

Well apart from this being ludicrous, I tell you my relationship with Strangely is far more stable that my marriage ever was, I am a little confused.
Are they saying that these people are to be evicted from their town?
(And not the equivalent of our 'council houses', sort of state owned housing I suppose it would be there?)

[alahendra]

I think if it were state-owned housing, that would have been specifically stated in the article.  It sounds to me like they want to make it illegal for people to live together like that within the boundaries of the town itself.  Which gets into another aspect of the issue--personal property rights.  I just don't see how this can stand.

And Hunter, if anyone called me nuts,  I'd have to agree. :p

[Lyria]

From what I understand it's all private housing, but the zoning has defined that only occupants meeting a certain definition of 'family' are allowed to live there. The current family in question that may be evicted moved into the area after the zoning ordinance was already in place. I'm not saying I agree with the zoning, I don't, but the family moved into an area that was already defined in this way. Given that, they can be cited for breaking the zoning laws and be forced to move from what I understand.

And fortunately this town is an exception, not a rule. That's why it's in the news. Most of us Americans in my experience are not closed minded and bigoted like this. Yes, they are out there, though. The things that get in the media are the extereme, things we are shocked at ourselves. Something like this would never fly in my state.

[National Acrobat]

From what I understand it's all private housing, but the zoning has defined that only occupants meeting a certain definition of 'family' are allowed to live there. The current family in question that may be evicted moved into the area after the zoning ordinance was already in place. I'm not saying I agree with the zoning, I don't, but the family moved into an area that was already defined in this way. Given that, they can be cited for breaking the zoning laws and be forced to move from what I understand.

And fortunately this town is an exception, not a rule. That's why it's in the news. Most of us Americans in my experience are not closed minded and bigoted like this. Yes, they are out there, though. The things that get in the media are the extereme, things we are shocked at ourselves. Something like this would never fly in my state.

That's how I read it also. The zoning was in place before they moved to the town.

Also, even thought I don't agree with it, I actually find it repugnant, the town council states that all new potential occupants of the town are told about the requirements for living it the town. In other words, the article states that these folks tried to get the ordinance changed, because they moved to the town, and failed.

I think something like this can be challenged in court, and potentially overturned.

Were this a neighborhood association however, that would be different.

[Elvi]

*blinks*

So I'm sitting in my house in 'somewhere town', I own the house and suddenly someone can come along and say "you can't live in your own property any more because you're not married to the man you've lived with for twenty years and you have two children?"

Am I actually reading this right?

[Moondazed]

I read in a book (I think it was Collapse by Jared Diamond, but I can't remember for sure), that originally when America was settled people purposely segregated themselves and the mentality about it was quite a bit different from what it is now.  Not that I think segregation is right by any stretch, but it's an interesting thing to consider.  It's funny, the older I get the more I understand that kind of thinking... especially as they clear cut the 11 acres across our little dirt road to develop it *sigh*

[Lyria]

*blinks*

So I'm sitting in my house in 'somewhere town', I own the house and suddenly someone can come along and say "you can't live in your own property any more because you're not married to the man you've lived with for twenty years and you have two children?"

Am I actually reading this right?

Not really. You would want to move to 'somewhere town', and they would tell you your family doesn't fit their zoning requirements. You move there anyway, and then get mad when they want to remove you. Granted they shouldn't have such zoning requirements in place to beging with.... but they were there already.

[alahendra]

What I wonder is...how long has that ordinance been in place, and how would it affect people who lived there before it came into existance?  Are they 'grandfathered in'?

[Elvi]

Hmmmmmm.........

OK, we live in a rented house, so we had to negotiate having our dog there when the lease said no animals and also asked if we could have rats when we were asked to foster some.
Which means that we abide by the lease that we have.

So in one way I would say that if you can't live within that ruling and thats the way it's done in that town, then don't move there.
However, if they have moved boundries or just brought this ruling in, then I would be fighting them every step of the way.

Mind you, such an arbitory type rule smells nasty to me whichever way you look at it, just one step up from no muslims/blacks/people with odd eye colours for me.....

[Lyria]

I agree, the rule is closed minded and bigoted, but, it was in place prior to their moving there. I think it needs to be changed, but the rule was there and should be abided by until it is changed through proper means.

[Moondazed]

I couldn't believe the sheer quantity of ordinances in the little town my parent's lived in for a few years.  They had horses and there were three conflicting ordinances about having them, from which the code enforcement officer chose the one that they were violating.  My mom researched the ordinances and it was downright scary, let me tell you.  The majority went unenforced, but it only takes one person knowing it's there to make it enforcable and cost the person violating it a damned fortune in court costs.

[Celestial Goblin]

If Americans won't remember they were supposed to be living in a free country, i don't know what will happen. Of course it's just some states, but they're going right into third-world standarts.
I can't believe in such things.

[Lyria]

Yeah, there are bad things like that, but it's not all that way. It's just what makes it into the media. There are a lot of wonderful things here in America, and the majority will move to stand behind that family if need arises.

I know that America's reputation is partly deserved, but the many wonderful people here are getting short-changed and not given the benefit of the doubt.

[Moondazed]

What scares me is people's lethargy regarding all of the laws that are passed, seeming to only take an interest if it affects them personally.  Although it is nearly impossible to keep track of all of the laws and ordinances that are passed unless that's all that one does!

[National Acrobat]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/srlinks.nsf/0/50985687E04F7F4786257139007F9EA5?OpenDocument

Here's another link that examines the history a bit deeper.

It seems to go back to 1977 at least, maybe further, and apparently isn't the only place.

It seems as if the original intent was to keep properties from becoming giant flop-houses and having more than an ideal amount of people living in them.

If you read that closely.

[Elvi]

*nods*
An old law twisted by some who are 'disgusted' by others life styles......not surprising.

[National Acrobat]

*nods*
An old law twisted by some who are 'disgusted' by others life styles......not surprising.

Not uncommon in parts of the U.S.

They won't repeal the laws here in Virginia against oral and anal sex, for instance, because they can be used against people for those very reasons.

They rarely are enforced, unless someone has a grudge or wants to smear someone publicly.

[Celestial Goblin]

It really seems that USA is in for changes. It's a country of contrasts. Some of most wonderful people i know, personally or not, are from there.
I really hope that common sense will prevail, or at worse, that the 'religious' folks will boil in their own sauce.

[Elvi]

Not uncommon in parts of the U.S.

They won't repeal the laws here in Virginia against oral and anal sex, for instance, because they can be used against people for those very reasons.

They rarely are enforced, unless someone has a grudge or wants to smear someone publicly.

A very old chestnut really, homosexuality is not illegal, but having anal sex or holding hands in public is.

Fortunately we have been there and done that in this country, at least the law is a damned sight less bigotted than it used to be.

[National Acrobat]

Yeah but I can guarantee you that just about everyone breaks the law as far as Oral Sex is concerned here in Virginia. Try asking a politician here if they've broken that law.

We had a radio host here a couple of years ago, a conservative named Michael Graham who actually had a show about the blue laws, and had several politicians call in, and he tried to get some answers out of them about that, and it was pretty funny hearing them hem and haw.

[Moondazed]

If more people in the rural town I live in in central Virginia were breaking that law I think they'd be a lot happier *giggle* 

*grumbling*  Damned religious zealots...

[Elvi]

Of course they have and I hazard a guess that anal sex isn't beyond them either, it is after all, not just a homosexual practice.

[National Acrobat]

If more people in the rural town I live in in central Virginia were breaking that law I think they'd be a lot happier *giggle* 

*grumbling*  Damned religious zealots...

Hehe, I agree. I think if more people would just enjoy it, everyone would be a hell of a lot happier.

8)

[Hunter]

*bats eyelashes*  I enjoy oral sex, thank you very much.   :P

[Elvi]

Well get out on the streets and demonstrate!

"What do we want?"

"Oral sex!"

"When do we want it?"

"NOW!"

If that doesn't bring it into the public eye, then what else will?

[Moondazed]

Of course they have and I hazard a guess that anal sex isn't beyond them either, it is after all, not just a homosexual practice.

It's not? *innocent fluttering of eyelashes*

[RogueJedi]

You know what the same-sex marriage amendment is looking to do here in Virginia, don't you?  I was talking to someone from Equality Virginia and they were saying that if the amendment passes, they would seek court action against every college in the state, on almost the same grounds as this.

Remember, the same-sex marriage bill will ban contracts between people of the same-sex living together (which can be taken as rent and such).

[National Acrobat]

You know what the same-sex marriage amendment is looking to do here in Virginia, don't you?  I was talking to someone from Equality Virginia and they were saying that if the amendment passes, they would seek court action against every college in the state, on almost the same grounds as this.

Remember, the same-sex marriage bill will ban contracts between people of the same-sex living together (which can be taken as rent and such).

I know, and it irritates me. No one should have the right to tell me I can't enter into contracts with people, or decide who I want to live with.

I really think the wording on this amendment goes too far. It hurts way too many people.

[Zakharra]

 It'll be challanged in court. Even if it passes the Virginia State Houses, it can't stand if it contradicts the US Constituion.

[RogueJedi]

Equality Virginia wants to make a point.  If it passes, expect them to press to declare all frats and sororities unconstitutional.  Also, probably all same-sex dorms and such.  They are adament that this proposed amendment needs to be defeated, or else EVERYONE will suffer.  Not just gay, lesbian, bi, and trans peoples.

[National Acrobat]

I don't think it will fail in the courts here. The Attorney General has worked very hard to ensure that the legal wording will pass scrutiny, and Courts here, both State and Federal are very conservative. Like most of the other states who have passed similar measures, it will pass with overwhelming support here. The test legally will encompass whether or not people who are not related by blood or marriage can still enter into legally binding arrangements for property, power of attorney, etc.

From what has been publicly said, this will not change, so if that is indeed the case as the AG has said, then it will pass the legal muster in the courts.

[RogueJedi]

I don't know if it will actually pass.  No other state had the extra wording in their amendments as Virginia does.  Remember, Virginia already forbids same-sex marriage in the state Constitution.  This is to prevent any stupid little judge from overturning that.

My feelings are, government has no rright to either promote or condemn any type of marriage.  Churches can do that, as they are outside of government (or supposed to be).  But Massachusetts was wrong to mandate same-sex marriage, and Virginia is wrong to outlaw it.

[Purple]

I know, and it irritates me. No one should have the right to tell me I can't enter into contracts with people, or decide who I want to live with.

But by the same token, no one should have the right to tell Mr. and Mrs. Smith that they MUST enter into contracts with people whom they fundamentally disagree with, even if Mr. and Mrs. S are in the wrong.  It is their right to believe what they choose and to live the way they desire.  This is where the problem lies.  Forcing more conservative people to accept lifestyles they disagree with will never solve the problem, they'll just cry out louder that their rights are being trampled upon, and they are.  Instead, leave them alone.  Either they'll change their minds or they won't.  If I owned a restaurant and decided that smoking was dangerous it is within my rights to refuse to allow smoking inside my restaurant.  Well these people truly believe, according to their faith and morals, that some of these things are wrong.  Are they right?  I won't know for sure until I die, it's a tough call for me.  But remember that I'm here with ya'll so I obviously have questions of my own.  But I live with these people.  This is happening in my very state.  I live in the Bible Belt.  These people are generally good, loving people who believe in God and believe in the Bible and just want everyone to go to heaven.  Do they go about it the wrong way?  Frequently they do.  But they're people and they also have the right to make mistakes, don't they?

And according to rights...according to our Constitution the local government is granted the right to decide such things, not the federal government.  So if the people of this town choose to live in such a manner, it's their rignt, it's their town.  Don't live there.  I sure won't.  Part of being an American is taking the good with the bad.  Allowing others to believe what they want to believe even if it might hurt us, even if we will argue against what they think with our dying breath.  That's what makes this country difficult to live in but great.  Think about the great melting pot of New York, for example.  What happened?  Like people lived together, they did not intermingle.  Right?  Wrong?  Who knows for sure, but it does make sense.  What I don't understand is why in this day and age we can't just leave each other alone and let our fellow Americans be.

[Zakharra]

My feelings are, government has no rright to either promote or condemn any type of marriage. Churches can do that, as they are outside of government (or supposed to be). But Massachusetts was wrong to mandate same-sex marriage, and Virginia is wrong to outlaw it.

That can't happen. As long as you need a licence to get married, then the government has the authority to intefere.  Now that being said, I don't think churches should be forced to marry a couple that they don't want to. It's not proper to force a church to marry a same sex couple if it's not in their belief system.

Massachutsetts put a qualifier in their same sex marriage law, that a same sex marriage in Massachutsettes is not legally binding out of state. That was put in to prevent couples from coming instate to get married, then going home to their original state and demanding that state recognize the marrriage thru the Equal Rights Act.

[National Acrobat]

But by the same token, no one should have the right to tell Mr. and Mrs. Smith that they MUST enter into contracts with people whom they fundamentally disagree with, even if Mr. and Mrs. S are in the wrong.

I agree, if that comment is directed towards the Missouri case.

I meant that comment to refer to the Virginia Gay Marriage Banning Amendment that is on the ballot here in the fall. Some people are saying that the amendment will forbid any sort of contracts by two people who aren't married, for any reason.

For instance, some are saying that if I and my best friend, who is a male, want to decide that he should have my power of attorney, or we want to buy a house together, that we won't be able to. I shouldn't have to only buy a house or piece of property with my wife.

As an American, I should have the right to decide those matters for myself, not the state.

[Zakharra]

 If that's how it is written, that could also include a divorced father and son from living together, or as has been said earlier, collages and universities. Or if someone wants to store some things at a storage place, or buy a car, or get insurance, cable, a driving licence, anything really that you have to put pen to paper to sign.  Hells, this could apply to joining the military!   :o

[Celestial Goblin]

The whole purpose of this laws seem to give the bigoted folks an opportunity of using them against anybody in sight that they want to. The way they work, everybody (accept hermits and paralytic people) is guilty of something.
It's like declaring open season on anybody that isn't a fundamentalist prude christian with deep pockets.

edit: any when somebody will care enough to sue everybody that breaks this kind of laws, it will be enough to show they make no sense. this is were USA needs a burst of civil activism, and probably will have it.

[Elvi]

Hermits - squatters

Paraplegics - loitering with intent?