Quote :

"It's legal to play house in North Carolina Judge lifts state's cohabitation ban, calls it unconstitutional RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- A state judge has ruled that North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union sued last year to overturn the rarely enforced law on behalf of a former sheriff's dispatcher who says she had to quit her job because she wouldn't marry her live-in boyfriend. Deborah Hobbs, 41, says her boss, Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, near Wilmington, told her to get married, move out or find another job after he found out she and her boyfriend had been living together for three years. The couple did not want to get married, so Hobbs quit in 2004. State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling late Wednesday, saying the law violated Hobbs' constitutional right to liberty. He cited a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law. That ruling showed that "the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home," Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a statement. She added that "the idea that the government would criminalize people's choice to live together out of wedlock in this day and age defies logic and common sense." The suit named Smith, the state and Attorney General Roy Cooper as defendants. Cooper had argued that Hobbs couldn't challenge the law because she wasn't charged with a crime. A Cooper spokeswoman said Thursday that lawyers had not decided whether to appeal. Hobbs said Thursday she was "very happy for myself and for everyone else this law has affected." She added that she hasn't thought about applying for another job with the sheriff's office. Rudinger said that since 1997, the law has spawned about 36 criminal cases in North Carolina. State officials have said the number of people actually convicted under the law -- formally known as the fornication and adultery statute -- is not clear. The law also has been used to deny compensation to crime victims, child custody, health benefits, probation and parole, Rudinger said. The law states, in part: "If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor." About 144,000 unmarried couples live together in North Carolina, according to the 2000 census. The ACLU says along with North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi and North Dakota have laws that prohibit cohabitation."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/20/cohabitation.law.ap/index.html

This is the type of liberal nonsense that is destroying the american family and threatening the institution of marriage.

7/20/2006 7:46:01 PM

Well I suppose it is good that they finally got around to getting this one taken off the books. I'd be very pissed if I was charged with a crime under it.

7/20/2006 7:49:16 PM

But Wolfpack2K told me it was my right to infringe upon other poeples' rights

7/20/2006 9:32:50 PM

Yeah, this law was ripe to be overturned. Now, if we could only throw out the old oral sex and sodomy ban.

7/20/2006 9:35:15 PM

If someone had proposed a bill to lift this ban, would anyone have voted against it?

7/20/2006 10:47:50 PM

Can someone please explain to me what an activist judge is? I mean we have an independant judiciary for a reason. From what I can tell an activist judge is just a judge that makes decisions that you dont agree with.

7/20/2006 10:54:29 PM

^ Ding Ding Ding

7/20/2006 11:07:52 PM

IMPEACH WARREN

7/20/2006 11:18:10 PM

well, if you've got no problem with the judiciary taking on the role of the legislature, then I guess an "activist judge" is no concern. Other people actually like checks and balances.

Someone else put it perfectly: would anyone in the legislature have actually voted against lifting this ban? Why didn't we run that through the legislature if it was such a problem? Why not put our legislature to work doing important shit, instead of worrying about useless shit like online gambling and the RIAA and gay marraige?

7/20/2006 11:19:07 PM

Quote :

"Why didn't we run that through the legislature if it was such a problem?"

Why bother when the law is in such clear violation of the constitution?


You and I were about to debate judicial review a few days back in some other thread, but you never responded. Step, B.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

7/21/2006 12:04:14 AM

Quote :

"Why didn't we run that through the legislature if it was such a problem?"

Why indeed?

Oh, because it won't win them points with anybody that matters, so they don't give a shit.

7/21/2006 1:00:43 AM

Quote :

"This is the type of liberal nonsense that is destroying the american family and threatening the institution of marriage"

ROFL

you're really a cariacature, arent you Mr. Josh?

7/21/2006 1:12:21 AM

Quote :

"Other people actually like checks and balances."

Yes, because the legislature could never impeach or reform the judiciary if they wanted to.

Take the federal courts as an example: the Republicans have a majority in both houses and they are in the White House. Why do they wait for justices to retire instead of impeaching the ones they don't like for "bad behavior?" If it's such a dire Constitutional crisis and all ...

Quote :

"Why didn't we run that through the legislature if it was such a problem?"

What a bunch of crap. It'd never make it to the floor. The committee chairperson would decide that this isn't a good year to argue over the stupid cohabitation law, because it's an issue noone cares about and wants to take a political risk on, and he'd table it forever.

Why else do you think the law has been on the books forever? The legislature is not an expedient body, it is not self-reviewing, and the amount of effort required to push it in a general direction is huge. It has many of its own internal checks and balances against forward movement, not to mention it's joined at the hip to the political party apparati.

The judiciary exists to review law, otherwise noone will. That's not activism, it's logic.

7/21/2006 5:43:07 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, this law was ripe to be overturned. Now, if we could only throw out the old oral sex and sodomy ban."

as far as i know sodomy laws were struck down in the past couple years by the supreme court. the laws might still be on our books, but if anyone is charged with a crime from them, they could easily fight it and the law would have to be removed.

7/21/2006 8:36:47 AM

Quote :

"Why bother when the law is in such clear violation of the constitution?"

It is evidently not such a clear violation if it has been on the books for 201 years. These judges had better explain very hard why a hundred earlier judges figured the law to be perfectly constitutional.

Quote :

"The legislature is not an expedient body, it is not self-reviewing, and the amount of effort required to push it in a general direction is huge. It has many of its own internal checks and balances against forward movement, not to mention it's joined at the hip to the political party apparati."

A stronger argument against parliamentary democracy has rarely been made. Either way, like you said, the law was largely unenforced so no one cared about it, because it didn't matter. If cops ever started actually enforcing it people would quickly begin carring and democracy would leap to action. We don't need to scap the democratic process for "rule by judiciary" just because "the people" are slow. Hell, government needs to be slow.

All that said, as a libertarian I appreciate anything that gets more laws off the books. I just wish judges would stick to striking down laws instead of building up new ones.

7/21/2006 8:52:26 AM

Quote :

"It is evidently not such a clear violation if it has been on the books for 201 years. These judges had better explain very hard why a hundred earlier judges figured the law to be perfectly constitutional. "

i dont think we can actually say this unless its been challenged and upheld before. its quite possible that no one has questioned the law until Hobbs was put in her situation.



[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 8:54 AM. Reason : df]

7/21/2006 8:54:19 AM

^^well it mattered to one person, because she got threatened with losing her job because of it.

^yes

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 8:55 AM. Reason : ^^^^^^^^^]

7/21/2006 8:55:06 AM

The attorney for the case spoke to my class at Campbell. Basically, there have been numerous attempts to remove this law in the legislature and they all fail. She spoke with numerous legislatures that admitted it was unconstitutional, bum law. They told her to go ahead and sue because the church vote prevents them from really touching the law.

Under the new constitutional analysis given in Laurence, there is more deference for consenting adults in private situations than the governments interest in morality. The law just does not relate well to the interest or justify why that government needs the protect this interest. Its hard to tell what the new standard of review is, because its just developing. Privacy as a fundamental right developed in the late 20th century. The standard for consenting adults and sex is totally new and still being played out in the courts to shape the case law. Thats why this law could have been upheld pre laurence.

This is not judicial activism because they applied the current analysis and the law did not fit. Judicial review allows bad laws to be overturned, even if passed by a legislature.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 9:34 AM. Reason : k]

7/21/2006 9:31:39 AM

interesting.

7/21/2006 9:51:12 AM

Quote :

"All that said, as a libertarian I appreciate anything that gets more laws off the books. I just wish judges would stick to striking down laws instead of building up new ones."

7/21/2006 10:43:23 AM

Quote :

"This is not judicial activism because they applied the current analysis and the law did not fit."

The thread title was pure sarcasm.

Now get back in the kitchen.

7/21/2006 10:46:21 AM

i guess this is cool and all

although me and my girl wouldnt have had a problem with telling whatever authorities that we were just friends/roomates....I mean come on

7/21/2006 11:04:33 AM

Clinton got blowjobs in the Oval Office

7/21/2006 11:51:08 AM

Quote :

"The judiciary exists to review law, otherwise noone will."

soooooo, we should just ignore the judciary's actual purpose in order to deal w/ a malfunctioning system thereby possibly leading to another malfunctioning system, instead of just FIXING the original problem in the first fucking place. that's sheer brilliance, I tell ya

7/22/2006 9:11:18 PM

Quote :

"although me and my girl wouldnt have had a problem with telling whatever authorities that we were just friends"

so not only do you scoff at traditional morality, but you think its okay to lie.

do you think it's okay to mock God?

whats next for you? gays getting married? John Kerry bumperstickers?





[Edited on July 23, 2006 at 3:34 AM. Reason : ]

7/23/2006 3:29:18 AM

Quote :

"so not only do you scoff at traditional morality, but you think its okay to lie."

Sounds like typical republican morality. It only applies to other people. If it's self serving, it's ok.

I wonder what Rush Limbaugh, who is unmarried (and 3 times divorced...), needs with Viagara on vacation in the Dominican Republic?

This law was being selectively (and indirectly enforced), which is what makes it particularly vile. It is being used to justify discrimination. This woman lost her job because of it. Some judges will deny a plea bargain or PJC if you are in violation.

As mentioned above, it was being applied successfully, preventing the public discourse necessary to repeal the law. Although this law is technically still on the books (if the state doesn't appeal), it has been effectively neutered.

[Edited on July 23, 2006 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ?]

7/23/2006 4:48:29 PM