get married or move out of your home

[lynx]

They said they were told that because there are more than three people in their house, and not all are related by blood or marriage, they don't meet Black Jack's definition of a family.

The ordinances are designed to eliminate boarding houses and illegal renting of rooms

Surely these two statements are incongruous. In any case, the civil authorities at Black Jack are clearly not responsible for determining the definition of family, so I can't see how they can impose their own limited interpretation.

[vidcc]

states rights do not overrule constitutional rights, and this is not a states rights issue

Please quote for me the relevant Constitutional clause/amendment bearing on this situation, specifically that which relieves the state/locale of it's authority on such issues, and any which bear precisely on living arrangements, keeping in mind that any cited must have the specific effect of sanctioning this living arrangement.

No weasel-posting, either.

Good night.

IMO. the 14th ammendment.

However this "ordinance" was designed to do something different. It was designed for safety reasons...for example to prevent 20 people living in a 3 bedroom house. Personally I feel even that goes too far. However the local puritans decided they could use the rule to enforce their personal moral agenda.
A 5 bedroom house with 5 occupants hardly meets this "safety" concern.
The council can make exceptions upon application, would they reject 5 students sharing the house?


They said that the occupants were not related and therefore not a family. Yet 2 of the 3 children were born of the 2 parents. So they are denying those children the right to live with both their natural parents because they are not married.
Edit: 3 children blood related to the mother, 2 of these to the father but the 3rd is related by blood to the children of the father of the other 2. yet this is not a family because the parents who have lived together for 13 years are not married? This is not about rules (which are not set in stone) it is about the personal moral agenda of the local councilors.

We have a freedom of religion right in the USA, well if the parents religious beliefs (or even lack of) don't require marriage to raise children or live as a family (which is quite obviously what they are) then this ruling goes against that right.
I hear the argument againts gay people raising children because "children need a mother and father".....is a religious ceremony needed to be a mother and father?..... I say a religious ceremony because marriage has been hijacked as a possesion of religion.... gay people can't marry "because god wanted it to be between a man and a woman"

Would they have a problem with a husband and wife fostering children?


We condemn places like china for interference in private lives........don't we?


Hilary clinton wrote a book called "it takes a village".... instantly conservatives mocked her while praising Rick Santorum for his "it takes a family" book. Yet it seems conservatives believe the village should be involved.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Please quote for me the relevant Constitutional clause/amendment bearing on this situation, specifically that which relieves the state/locale of it's authority on such issues, and any which bear precisely on living arrangements, keeping in mind that any cited must have the specific effect of sanctioning this living arrangement.

No weasel-posting, either.

Good night.

IMO. the 14th ammendment.

However this "ordinance" was designed to do something different. It was designed for safety reasons...for example to prevent 20 people living in a 3 bedroom house. Personally I feel even that goes too far. However the local puritans decided they could use the rule to enforce their personal moral agenda.
A 5 bedroom house with 5 occupants hardly meets this "safety" concern.
The council can make exceptions upon application, would they reject 5 students sharing the house?


They said that the occupants were not related and therefore not a family. Yet 2 of the 3 children were born of the 2 parents. So they are denying those children the right to live with both their natural parents because they are not married.
Edit: 3 children blood related to the mother, 2 of these to the father but the 3rd is related by blood to the children of the father of the other 2. yet this is not a family because the parents who have lived together for 13 years are not married? This is not about rules (which are not set in stone) it is about the personal moral agenda of the local councilors.

We have a freedom of religion right in the USA, well if the parents religious beliefs (or even lack of) don't require marriage to raise children or live as a family (which is quite obviously what they are) then this ruling goes against that right.
I hear the argument againts gay people raising children because "children need a mother and father".....is a religious ceremony needed to be a mother and father?..... I say a religious ceremony because marriage has been hijacked as a possesion of religion.... gay people can't marry "because god wanted it to be between a man and a woman"

Would they have a problem with a husband and wife fostering children?


We condemn places like china for interference in private lives........don't we?


Hilary clinton wrote a book called "it takes a village".... instantly conservatives mocked her while praising Rick Santorum for his "it takes a family" book. Yet it seems conservatives believe the village should be involved.

Puritans, conservatives, freedom of religion, blah, blah.

Here is a much simpler way of saying it without having to call names, bring up conservative/liberal stances, or throw in useless things like freedom of religion in a non religious topic:

The 14th amendment section 1 states that federal law trumps state law.

[Everose]

Puritans, conservatives, freedom of religion, blah, blah.

Here is a much simpler way of saying it without having to call names, bring up conservative/liberal stances, or throw in useless things like freedom of religion in a non religious topic:

The 14th amendment section 1 states that federal law trumps state law.[/QUOTE]


Yes, like you said. Thanks.

[vidcc]

Puritans, conservatives, freedom of religion, blah, blah.

Here is a much simpler way of saying it without having to call names, bring up conservative/liberal stances, or throw in useless things like freedom of religion in a non religious topic:

The 14th amendment section 1 states that federal law trumps state law.

did you miss the first line?

IMO. the 14th ammendment.

It is fine just saying "The 14th amendment section 1 states that federal law trumps state law." but without suggesting which federal law or laws then surely it's an empty statement in relation to any specific subject.

as to the rest, what would you suggest the basis of such rules or interpretation is if none of the above? Perhaps you just like scratching the surface of a subject but I like to dig deeper. How can you understand something if you don't look at why it that way?

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

as to the rest, what would you suggest the basis of such rules or interpretation is if none of the above? Perhaps you just like scratching the surface of a subject but I like to dig deeper. How can you understand something if you don't look at why it that way?

As I posted, I whittled your post down, took out the name calling, the conservative/liberal stances, and took out the whole of the freedom of religion thing as it was completely useless when replying to someone asking you to point out a particular part of the constitution.

Dig all you like, it was still "weasle-posting"

[vidcc]

then answer my question

what would you suggest the basis of such rules or interpretation is if none of the above?

feel free to ignore anything I post but it's not up to you to dictate the rules of how anyone posts

[What'spunk.]

as to the rest, what would you suggest the basis of such rules or interpretation is if none of the above? Perhaps you just like scratching the surface of a subject but I like to dig deeper. How can you understand something if you don't look at why it that way?

As I posted, I whittled your post down, took out the name calling, the conservative/liberal stances, and took out the whole of the freedom of religion thing as it was completely useless when replying to someone asking you to point out a particular part of the constitution.

I think you did a very good whittling job. An agendaectomy almost.

[ilw]

i really hate all this talk of agendas, i just don't think its realistic to think that anyone on this board has one. Seeing things in a certain way and posting about it, is called a point of view not an agenda.
Imo its only a small step up from calling someone a liar.

[What'spunk.]

i really hate all this talk of agendas, i just don't think its realistic to think that anyone on this board has one.

That's sweet.