The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina today applauded a state court decision declaring the state’s 201-year-old ban on cohabitation to be unconstitutional.
The ACLU had filed the case on behalf of Debora Hobbs, an unmarried woman who lost her job as a 911 dispatcher with the Pender County Sheriff’s Office simply because she chose to live with her unmarried boyfriend.
“I am absolutely thrilled with the court’s decision,” said Hobbs. “I just didn’t think it was any of my employer’s business whether I was married or not, as long as I was good at my job, and I am happy that no one else will ever have to be subjected to this law. I couldn’t believe that I was being given this ultimatum to choose between my boyfriend or my livelihood because the Sheriff was enforcing a 201-year-old law that clearly violates my civil rights.”
In February 2004, shortly after starting her job as a dispatcher for the Pender County Sheriff’s Office, Hobbs was told that she would be required to marry her partner, move out of the house they shared together, or leave her job.
Ignorant voters who leave laws like this on the books — are as useless as the demagogues who try to keep them in place.
I have suggested that All laws should be brought to the Citizans and re-evaluated every 20 years. To see if they are worth keeping.
state Federal, and All the rest…
“Ignorant voters who leave laws like this on the books ..”
I bet most voters were not even aware of this law. ECA’s idea of periodic review of all laws sounds good to me.
There should be a STRONG GROUP of grass roots lobbiests fighting to remove hurtful wasteful laws from our society. All laws passed should have some kind of expiration date, (infinity for capital offenses, and maybe five years for technology that changes with new equipment generations)
It’s always enjoyable to see the federal constitution used as rationale for overturning a state law which would seem to clearly fall under the “…nor prohibited by it to the States…” part of the 10th Amendment.
I’d be much more interested in what the state constitution has to say about the matter.
Hmmmm, did we all miss the part where the live-in was also her brother and first cousin? And they shared more than a bed… they also had a set of teeth in common!
It’s so refreshing to come across someone who has taken the time to understand all their own laws.
RBG
Mike:
“It’s always enjoyable to see the federal constitution used as rationale for overturning a state law which would seem to clearly fall under the “…nor prohibited by it to the States…” part of the 10th Amendment.
I’d be much more interested in what the state constitution has to say about the matter.”
You should read the 14th Amendment. In part:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
You can waive certain rights as a condition of employment, if you agree to the contract. If a morals clause was added this contact, based on community standards, they may be able enforce the cohabitation ban. For example many law enforcement agencies require employees to live within the municipality or district. Move a few feet outside of the city and you can be terminated. It’s also common for law enforcement personnel and officers of the court to be held to a higher standard of behavior. I’m familiar with this area. It is rural, very conservative, and politicians wear their religion as a badge of office. It’s one of the reddest part of a red state.
That’s terrible. They should not allow cohabitation. They should get married. Next thing you know, they’re going to let men live together. After that who knows? They may even let people live with (gasp) animals!
“Ignorant voters who leave laws like this on the books — are as useless as the demagogues who try to keep them in place.”
you gotta be kidding me… how many people even knew this was here?
what amuses me is that cohabitation is probably more rampant than marriage, and no one knew it was illegal.
what tickles me the most is “aw that clearly violates my civil rights.” if there was a law against her action, then it was not her civil right…. no?
Yes, Abram Cove, I am well aware of the 14th Amendment. Is there a federal law that grants a privilege which would contradict this particular state law? Where is the loss of due processes? Where is the equal protection violation (all married couples can live together, all unmarried couples cannot)?
I’m certainly not arguing in favor of such a silly and outdated law as this, but I do tend to give great deference to the power of the citizens of a particular state to govern their own affairs as they see fit. And that is my only objection.
“…but I do tend to give great deference to the power of the citizens of a particular state to govern their own affairs as they see fit.” — – Ahhh… nothing like mob rule.
Whoever decided to fire her on these grounds should be sent to prison for a very, very long time. It was probably some over zealous psychotic religious nut who cannot tolerate the thought of premarital sex.
“Ahhh… nothing like mob rule.”
Last time I checked, the states have republican governments, just like the one that sits in the District of Columbia. And they also have heir own Constitutions to say what they can and cannot do.
If you want to rail against “mob rule” take a look at the whole ballot initiative process that many states have enacted.
Miss Hobbs is just fortunate that the fine Christian folks of Pender County didn’t stone her to death. The judge sided with Satan in deciding this case, but God’s wrath has not been quenched.
Gary Marks’ ungodly comments make me chuckle 🙂
It’s even more effective if you see me shake my fist 😉
Most voters are unaware of stupid, outdated laws since they never get enforced. Do a “dumb laws” search on your favorite search engine…
The most amazing part of this story is that it appears it was used not only in this case but others as well.
Unbelievable!
Gary M, don’t tell me you got saliva on your keyboard too !!!
Where is the equal protection violation (all married couples can live together, all unmarried couples cannot)?
Because if you read your own argument you will see the inequality this statue creates. If you are married, then you may live in the same house, but if you are not married then you may not live in that house. This obviously is creating a greater benefit for married people then for single people.
Marriage is a personal choice, so what if you changed the married status to a religious status? All Christians may live in a house but Non Christians may not.
Mike:
In Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The North Carolina judge cited this case, although his decision has not yet been published.
#11 – Mike Wrote:
“I’m certainly not arguing in favor of such a silly and outdated law as this, but I do tend to give great deference to the power of the citizens of a particular state to govern their own affairs as they see fit. And that is my only objection.”
But where do you draw the line for states rights? Race discrimination? Slavery? Witch burning? These were all valid state laws at one time.
Steve
17 It’s even more effective if you see me shake my fist
Post it on youTube!
Then I could replay it whenever I read any of your “ungodly” posts… [grin]
Mike Voice, your suggestion reminds me of when I got my very first answering machine. I made an outgoing message as “Rev. Gary Marks for Dial-A-Prayer,” complete with a solicitation for donations. No plans yet for YouTube, but I really miss the good old days of legitimate telephone theater 😉
24 …but I really miss the good old days of legitimate telephone theater
Yes.
Reminds me of when my parents bought one of those hokey “celebrity” tapes – and had a “Casablanca”-themed message on their machine… by a guy who did a pretty-good Humphrey Bogart.
They didn’t think much of it until the Walgreens photo-developing clerks would call to say my Dad’s pictures was ready to be picked-up…
My folks would then get a few calls in a row, as the clerk would call back to listen to it a 2nd time, then call again so that their co-workers could listen to it… [grin]
[totally off-topic]
And just the other day, while at my local movie theatre, I noticed the request to silence cell phones does not include pagers…
Pagers were everywhere 5 years ago, but who needs one when everybody has a cellphone?