Illegal Cohabitation

[CBL4]

Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, North Carolina, recently relied on a 1805 law banning the cohabitation of unmarried persons to give one of his employees an ultimatum.

He told Deborah Hobbs she could either marry her boyfriend, move out of the house they were living in together or get fired. Hobbs, 40, quit and went to the American Civil Liberties Union, which launched a legal challenge to the law.

"This is not a dead-letter law in North Carolina. We have found this statute has been used 36 times since 1997 to charge people with a crime. At least seven have been convicted," said Jennifer Rudinger, the ACLU's North Carolina director.
...
"The good news is most of these laws are not enforced, as far as we know," said Solot. "They occasionally come up when a prosecutor is already looking into an individual and may decide to throw another charge at them."

The ACLU argues all these statutes are unconstitutional, citing a 2003 Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law, which established a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/24/weird.laws.reut/index.html

 

[LostAngeles]

Yeah, that was flash-in-the-pan news a while ago. I'd like to know how that is coming along, but it was just, "OMG! WACKY LAW!" before the media moved on.

 

[Tony]

What is the constitutional basis for these kind of laws?

 

[toddjh]

What is the constitutional basis for these kind of laws?

It's a state law, so it doesn't need one. However, it's likely that this law (and others like it) will be overturned by the rationale set up by Lawrence v. Texas a couple years ago, which declared that sexual privacy is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" clause.

Jeremy

 

[cbish]

Careful.....If we kill this law.....it......it could lead to beastiality!!

Better call Sean Hannity

 

[Bikewer]

We had a similar blow-up here in a local affluent municipality.

They accused two people of "cohabiting", and demanded that they either marry or that one move out. Claimed it was a zoning matter.
After about a year of legal actions, the couple caved and got married.

This same municipality took a woman to court for displaying an anti-war sign on her lawn during the Gulf War. She fought the action all the way to the Supreme Court, and won. Althought the municipal officials wouldn't mention the amount they spent, "inside sources" said it was several hundred thousand dollars.

 

[cbish]

Bikewer wrote:

Althought the municipal officials wouldn't mention the amount they spent, "inside sources" said it was several hundred thousand dollars.

Yes, isn't that lovely!?! It's on par with what Gov. Schartzneggar (sp?) is doing to Calif. right now. We have no money, yet he wants a special election (of a cost of $80 million) to push his agenda that has less than 50% support.

The big question we have now; Why go out of state to raise money for a cause that most of the people reject?

The governator is falling down.

 

[The idea]

They accused two people of "cohabiting", and demanded that they either marry or that one move out. Claimed it was a zoning matter.

Erogenous zoning?

 

[Art Vandelay]

from the article:

According to Chris Edwards of the conservative Cato Institute, all this argues for increased use of "sunsetting clauses" when passing new laws and regulations.

Huh? We should include sunset clauses to limit the effect of stupid laws? How about just not passing stupid laws to begin with?

It's a state law, so it doesn't need one. However, it's likely that this law (and others like it) will be overturned by the rationale set up by Lawrence v. Texas a couple years ago, which declared that sexual privacy is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" clause.

I'd like to see the actual wording. Does it apply to same sex couples? It sounds like it doesn't actually involve sexual activity, so I don't see how Lawrence is relevant. "Freedom of association", however, seems to be implicated.

What's really absurd is that for many people, not cohabitating is an expensive alternative. What's next: not allowing unmarried people to use the same car?

cbish

Yes, isn't that lovely!?! It's on par with what Gov. Schartzneggar (sp?) is doing to Calif. right now.

Violating the constitution is on par with calling a special election?