Welcome to the 19th Century
In North Dakota, a man and woman who live together without being married are committing a sex crime. It’s right there in the law, a state senator says, alongside the prohibitions against adultery, incest and indecent exposure.
Tracy Potter, a freshman Democrat from Bismarck, is asking the state Legislature to end North Dakota’s status as one of seven states that have anti-cohabitation laws on the books. It has rejected three such attempts since 1990.
The state has prohibited opposite-sex couples from living “openly and notoriously” as if they were married since North Dakota became a state in 1889. Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia have similar laws.
Tom Freier, a spokesman for the North Dakota Family Alliance, said repealing North Dakota’s anti-cohabitation law would signal that the state doesn’t value marriage and the societal benefits it brings.
Politicians generally like to keep stupid laws on the books as long as they can — to continue getting a few more votes from the chronically ignorant.
As someone from the UK, I would only say that such as law seems almost unbelievable in the current day and age. It is only more bizarre where you consider this is supposedly from the “land of the free”???
In Michigan committing adultery is technically a life offense!
Seriously, how often do you think this law is enforced?
its hardly newsworthy.
Is it a Muslim state?
I would like to hear about some of these ‘societal benefits’. If politicians consider this another way of saying moral benefits then I hope they can figure out that a marriage contract does not guaranty any moral benefits. Financial benefits possibly.
Just another way for a politician to sound religious.
This makes me embarrassed to admit I live in the Midwest. Frakking Bible thumpers!
#6: Just be glad you don’t live in North Carolina like I do! It’s still in the state constitution that an atheist can not run for office. It’s true! Here’s proof.
I forgot to mention… Look in Section 8. First line. Pitiful.
I would like to see this enforced. They want the law on the books, now enforce! Then you would see action.
There are tons of old outdated laws on the books that aren’t enforced and nobody wants enforced. And if they were enforced would be thrown out on constitutional grounds.
But there are also lots of legislatures that don’t want to be seen voting FOR “Living in Sin.” Which would have to happen to get the law off the books.
Ok, well coming from the state myself (don’t worry, I’ve since relocated to a more progressive state) I can tell you they REALLY don’t enforce the law. 50% of the people I know that live there are “shacked up”. It’s a problem of a small population and the majority being very religious. Hopefully one of these years, it will actually reach the 21st century.
#10, I agree. I think Eideard said it best at the end of his comments,:
Politicians generally like to keep stupid laws on the books as long as they can — to continue getting a few more votes from the chronically ignorant.
I have lived in North Dakota all my life and this is never enforced. However, the police can’t do it. I assume this is the reason.
Religion retardation.
If the law is never enforced, why not remove it? Why keep unenforced laws on the books? How about passing a law that states that any offense that is not enforced in the last five years is stricken from the books.
It’s never been enforced? It’s unenforaceable?
This is law isn’t for John and Jane Q… It may have been when it was written, but someday real soon someone in North Dakota will stand up in favor of a progressive idea like “black people shouldn’t be randomly murdered” or “rednecks shouldn’t be allowed to rape their daughters” or something that flies in the face of the stalwart God Fearing pathology that rules the land…
If that brave should happen to co-habitate with someone they haven’t married… Problem solved.
No, I know ND isn’t quite as backward as I portrayed it… But I do think many laws like this remain as a contingency plan for a day when “authorities” need to resort to political arrests and incarceration. Morals violations are a handy way to deal with “troublemakers”.
Finally someone who considers that FOX’s drama series bad enough to ban fans for pretending they’re part of the show.
Such laws do placate those who like to posture about morality (that’s most pols). But #15 is right – having these laws on the books also gives Those Who Would Control another way to threaten the rest of us.
For those who think the state of American liberty will have an upswing under the Dems, take a look at what’s flying under the flag of “lobbyist reform” in the Senate now. Here’s an alarmist account, but oddly the major media don’t seem interested: http://tinyurl.com/2jpqmz .
It’s about power, and pols will never relinquish any of it unless they’re forced to. For that, people have to care.
#1…..never tell Americans they aren’t free. For one thing, they won’t believe you…..for another, your from the UK….and you have no idea what freedom is. Nor should you make fun of the weird, scary or dumb laws still on the books here…..have you looked at your laws lately? Especially the ones dealing with politicians and the Church of England, or those concerning political gatherings near Parliment, or those telling you what can and cannot be talked about in public(hint…muslim terrorists).
Very few of us live in glass houses without a lot of broken window panes.
What societal benefit does marriage bring? Divorce?
Mike T
A NC female deputy sheriff was living with her boyfriend and did not want to get married. She was given a choice: get married or get fired. She got fired. I think it went to court and her firing was upheld.