+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/18/2018 12:48 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.444 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/17/2006 07:58 PM ID: 54390 Permalink   

Missouri Town May Evict Families Unmarried with Children


The City Council of Black Jack, MO, has rejected 5-3 a measure to change a current law prohibiting 3 people from living together unless related by "blood, marriage, or adoption" to one including unmarried couples having two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt said in a statement that residents like Fondrey Loving and Olivia Shelltrack may soon face eviction - they do not meet the town's definition of a family. They were denied an occupancy permit because they are not married and have 3 kids.

"I'm just shocked...I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives," said Shelltrack. Mayor McCourt declined an interview and Black Jack's special counsel would not say if such families will be removed from their homes.

    WebReporter: MomentOfClarity Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  US of A...  
freest country in the world...bullsh!t!
  by: StarShadow     05/17/2006 08:44 PM     
  Slight correction...  
Missouri is MO, not MS. MS is Mississippi
  by: kcking05     05/17/2006 10:19 PM     
Missouri is abbreviated MO, MS is Mississippi. =) This is happening not that far from where I live.

(Source) I actually am starting to think that the people on the council have a issue with these people personally.
  by: thegreatgonzo     05/17/2006 10:21 PM     
  married or unmarried?  
should read " because they are not married" right?
  by: nic142   05/17/2006 10:44 PM     
  You're both right...  
...hopefully a nice moderator will come along and correct that little typo.

Here's another link I just found on the story. It's not too much more enlightening, except perhaps to provide some insight into what kind of people passed and support a law like this:

"Black Jack resident Rose Curtis, 65, said she thought the council made the right decision. 'As a woman, I'm not going to let a man have babies by me and not marry me,' Curtis said. 'I think it was a fair decision. It's cut and dried.'"

In other words, "That little harlot oughta be living in the streets, by cracky!" See the reasons for the law given earlier in the article - this woman has no idea what she's talking about, which is "cut and dried." If the rest of the town is as clueless about the fact that laws are not supposed to be used as punishment for moral condemnation, then it is no wonder this is happening.
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/17/2006 10:44 PM     
You're right, too...bah, what is wrong with me today?

1) MS -> MO
2) "...because they are married with 3 kids" to "unmarried"
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/17/2006 10:46 PM     
  Fixed it......  
  by: lurker     05/17/2006 10:53 PM     
all i can type
  by: hotrock11     05/17/2006 10:56 PM     
a town in the US upholding conservative values.
  by: candeaz   05/18/2006 12:04 AM     
  I heard that next week...  
they will be reinstating the black and white water fountains, but this time label them "Christian" and "Godless Heathen".
  by: tellgar     05/18/2006 12:44 AM     
...A town in the US upholding ridiculous conservative values. This whole thing is a joke.
  by: cbuilding   05/18/2006 12:47 AM     
If they don't like it they can move.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     05/18/2006 12:54 AM     
anyone else hearing banjos?
  by: bane39   05/18/2006 12:56 AM     
  What about room mates?  
So your not allowed to move out with a few friends, if you can afford your own house? seems a good way to screw people out of a future, or keep them in a bad situation. IE a wife being beaten at home, she wants to move out with some friends so she can get a new start, oh no this is against what this community wants. So your all kicked out of town. Nice forward progressive thinking there. Stupid stupid people. Honestly even if I was living 'legally' by their standards, I would move out, get stuffed if I would support that community. They probably believe we should bring back the witch trials too and forbiding blacks and whites marrying.

The government/community should have no right to interfere in your personal life, when no one is hurt by your actions and you are not infringing on anyone elses rights. As someone else said, land of the free indeed. I understand this is not 99% of the US. But this is something the US should be embarresed about. IMHO mind you.
  by: ssxxxssssss   05/18/2006 12:57 AM     
  The irony...  
I thought that the value of marriage is that it is a cornerstone of society in providing for social stability. Here, it has been made to create instability - families are broken up and made HOMELESS because parents aren't married. Great conservative values - what it really tells us is that such "values" are not about family or society, but marginalization. It's about keeping the tradition of putting someone else down so others can feel superior.

They can move? Why should they have to move? What have such people done to deserve losing their homes? They have raised a family, as well as anyone else, simply without a piece of paper. This town is a disgrace, and I do not care that they may not represent 99% of Americans because they have done this within our borders and shamed us all. Now other nations can look at us and say, "Look, this sort of thing still goes on in the USA."

Will this injustice stand? They came first, it seems, for the homosexuals, and now they've moved on to the unwed. Who else can be relegated to second-class citizenship in the good ol' US of A?
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/18/2006 01:46 AM     
"Who else can be relegated to second-class citizenship in the good ol' US of A?"

I'd say the poor, but 2nd class would be a step up for them...
  by: StarShadow     05/18/2006 01:56 AM     
Nice comment, agree completely!

She's a witch, burn her...burn her!!
  by: biohazard   05/18/2006 03:16 AM     
  Prime Example...  
This is a prime example of a law meant to prevent one thing affecting an entirely different group of people because politicians for the most part don't think before they pass a law and then another group of people siezes onto it to force their moral views onto everyone.

This law was originally meant to prevent a number of families over crowding apartments to the point that it is a health hazard. (at least that was the intent of the law where I went to school in Florida). It pissed me off because myself and 3 of my friends couldn't rent a 4 bedroom house together because we weren't related. We got around it by 2 of them got married; they were already engaged, just moved up the wedding date.
  by: testeng     05/18/2006 04:21 AM     
Oh I so agree with you..
  by: hershey_45654   05/18/2006 10:13 AM     
  idiots and stupid conservatives  
candeaz and Tetsuru Uzuki : STUPID COMMENTS

im glad i don't live in usa
  by: sergelac2   05/18/2006 11:48 AM     
You were on the right track, you just needed to put 2 and 2 together.

Since gays are being prevented from marrying this law will prevent gays from living together in their town. The Christians are really trying to push their agenda in this arena. They want control of the definition Marriage and they want only married people living together. Sounds like they want their cake and to eat it too. This is a prime example of religion sticking its nose into government in a very immoral way.

I saw this couple on the news this morning and they are interracial and that could be another part of why they are being persecuted.

Oh yea, I hear banjo music.
  by: valkyrie123     05/18/2006 02:55 PM     
  @candeaz and Tetsuru Uzuki  
Its always funny how inconsiderate people can be when their way of life isn't effected by an idiotic injustice such as this one.


I very much agree with you. With this couple being interracial, Black Jack is probably not as accepting as a bigger town would be.
  by: kcking05     05/18/2006 03:00 PM     
  beggers belief  
I find this hard, nay... impossible to comprehend... how can such outdated and draconian laws be allowed to exist in 2006 America?

What possible reason could they have to deny unmarried couples with kids homes, you arent welcome in this town because you ain't married to the father of your children?

This borders on insanity

  by: koultunami     05/18/2006 03:35 PM     
  omg tir  
all I have to say is BOHICA
  by: kasper5150   05/18/2006 03:37 PM     
  Holy crap  
They can do that? Really?

Family values, eh?
  by: Mister crank     05/18/2006 03:58 PM     
"You were on the right track, you just needed to put 2 and 2 together."

I thought it better to leave them apart, actually. There is more than enough to be outraged about without turning it into yet another gay debate, so I just hinted at it.
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/18/2006 06:31 PM     
  This city ordinance is unconstitutional  
Draconian measures like this have been thrown out of court time after time. When will the Bible thumping geetar strummin' faux conservatives learn that you can't infringe on a person's privacy. I guess a homeless shelter would be out of the question in this Podunk Missouri town. Even better, the Red Cross wouldn't be able to set up a shelter if a natural disaster occurred. In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"
  by: tomblik     05/18/2006 07:56 PM     
Actually, it has nothing to do with stupidity. Since you are so smart, why don't you explain how to read emotions in script 100% of the time without being wrong? Can you tell whether or not i am mad? Happy? Do you know whether I think your an idiot or not? This is the last post on this thread that I will put out that isn't on topic, because I think that doing so is in poor taste. You should do the same.
  by: kcking05     05/18/2006 08:24 PM     
  i wonder  
what this town would do about gay couples moving in with kids? Man that would be anepic uproar.
  by: hunt3r   05/18/2006 08:38 PM     
I dunno man... seemed pretty obvious to me.
  by: burgs   05/18/2006 10:18 PM     
Anybody up to going to the town <no threats, even in jest---admin>
  by: sb_   05/19/2006 01:07 AM     
  I Am So Glad...  
...that I was born a Canadian. Honestly. Up here we don't really give a flying <explative deleted> what or who you want to do. As long as you aren't hurting anyone, have a good time.
Its so bittersweet that America was founded by a bunch of people fleeing religious persecution and has now become a country almost ruled by the same kind of opression the pilgrams fled from.
The fact that homosexuals still can't get married there blows me away! What the hell is the issue? I've heard all kinds of crap, but my favorite is that it would destroy the institution of marrage. Look at the divorce rate and then tell me the straight people aren't doing a good enough job at that already.

America is not a land of freedom. It is a land of tribal superstitions that is so high on itself it can't actually see its flaws. You don't destroy countries, you rebuild them. Patriotism is the stupidest thing on earth. If you really love something, you don't let it self-destruct. A real patriot questions their country and challenges it to improve as opposed to just rolling over and yelling about how fantastic everything is.

I realize not all Americans are like this. Its just a very vocal group in power that pushes their own agenda. Look at your president. A man who sends thousands of youths to die in a oil/land grab, yet decries the use of dead fetuses that could develop cures to almost every conceivable ailment.

Whats going on in Missouri is discrimination and religious persecution. Plain and simple. Its no different then what happens in the middle east, just a little more polite.

Jesus was black, God is dead, and Darwin was right.
  by: drewmcgowan   05/19/2006 02:36 AM     
poor bastards j/k
  by: zmethod     05/19/2006 03:21 AM     
a town in the US upholding conservative values."

read the constitution then look up the word conconstitutional.
  by: HAVOC666     05/19/2006 03:51 AM     
  all i can say is  
wow that is one backwards ass law in quite possibly one backwards ass town.
  by: JOCKSTEELUK   05/19/2006 04:37 AM     
I believe candeaz was being sarcastic, but you are right about this law being unconstitutional. One loophole in the law seems to indicate that 3 or more people cannot live together if they are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption. If this couple has children, it could be effectively argued that since they have kids together that they are related by blood through each of their kinship with the children despite the absence of a marriage license. It is the same as if your younger cousins came to live with you. You wouldn't have a direct blood kinship, but they would still be considered related family by law. Another possible loophole would be the concept of common law marriage. I don't know how common law marriage works in MO, but in NC if you "live in sin" (colloquialism not actual legal terminology) for more than 7 years you are considered by law to be married under common law. If the MO common marriage law is similar and they have been together for more than 7 years then they are married and the city would have been wrong to deny the residency permit.
  by: tomblik     05/19/2006 05:47 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: