This story is a wee old but too infuriating not to bring attention to.
The city council of Black Jack, MO is currently directing the city’s planning and zoning commission to review a law that prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.�
The review was called by the council after couple Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving were denied an occupancy permit because Fondray is not the biological father of one of their three children. In response, they filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, who is also investigating the case.
Black Jack’s Mayor Norman McCourt insists the law has nothing to do with marital status and is merely used to prevent overcrowding, including fraternities, sororities and group homes. (Gots to keep those dirty brothels out of our town!)
In February, Black Jack sent their city attorney to review a number of other St. Louis communities’ definition of “family.� Many have similar laws as Black Jack, but also have broader definitions of the term.
There's something wrong when the term “family� even has to be defined in the first place, let alone who's allowed to be one and whom isn't.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The politics of family in St. Louis..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3112
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
That's bonkers. Does that mean four friends can't share a house?
What it means is that a dozen Mexicans can't share a 2-bedroom apartment.
And...it also means four friends can't share a house.
The story explicitly stated that this family was denied a housing permit. The law is being enforced as it's written, not just for some imaginary and racist extreme.
wow. it actually means both of those things. i'll blog about this soon. for now i need to collect my thoughts a bit... but wow. this is bad.
I think this law might be more common than we think. After a tragic house fire in a mostly-student community in Minneapolis, where I live, they started enforcing this law as well.
These kind of laws are generally meant to keep out young people and people who can't afford to own their own houses, not gays, especially in college towns. The property owners want to keep out "undesirables" who might bring their property values down. The marriage issue might bring more attention to it, but this kind of thing has been going on for years.
The point is that queer people are undesirable, young people are undesirable, "mexicans" are undesirable... the labeling of populations as undesirable is pernicious, problematic. the regulation of family structure will not be solved by letting gays and lesbians get married -- queer families (in a more expansive meaning of that word) will exist forever and having them be regulated is not in the best interest of everyone... see more if you click on my bloglink.
Corinne, you've got one heck of a blog! I'm adding it to my Bloglines account right now...
Cheers,
TH
um... thanks, feeling a bit sheepish right now, and blushing in my cubicle... always a good sign for noon on friday.
It's still new, but I have a feeling that when it gets expanded, it'll be one of the best arguments in favor of expanding those Top 10 blog lists. Meanwhile, here's a hat tip to you and Feministing on this very important civil liberties story...
I look forward to keeping up with your blog! :o)
Cheers,
TH
Thanky!
What it means is that a dozen Mexicans can't share a 2-bedroom apartment.
Actually, as long as they're related, it doesn't.
Family Values anyone?
This is really just homophobia. What they are really scared of is two people living together with a family if they are of the same sex.
ick. VA did somthing similar, prohibiting two people of the same sex from entering into contracts with one another, screwing sisters and mother/daughters from owning homes together. People are so f***ing stupid.
It's actually not "just" homophobia; it's also a way to legalise discrimination against unmarried couples who want to cohabitate.
We think that times would have changed since 1974. In Belle Terre v. Boraas, a constitutional challenge to similar municipal zoning laws, Justice Thurgood Marshall was in dissent. It seems he still is:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/416/1/case.html
The instant ordinance discriminates on the basis of just such a personal lifestyle choice as to household companions. It permits any number of persons related by blood or marriage, be it two or twenty, to live in a single household, but it limits to two the number of unrelated persons bound by profession, love, friendship, religious or political affiliation, or mere economics who can occupy a single home. Belle Terre imposes upon those who deviate from the community norm in their choice of living companions significantly greater restrictions than are applied to residential groups who are related by blood or marriage, and compose the established order within the community. 4 The village has, in effect, acted to fence out those individuals whose choice of lifestyle differs from that of its current residents. ... By limiting unrelated households to two person while placing no limitation on households of related individuals, the village has embarked upon its commendable course in a constitutionally faulty vessel.
I really disagree that it is about homophobia (not that that means the city isn't using this law to discriminate against gays, mind you). I went to school in Williamsburg, VA, a notoriously snobby town that hated us, though we were *far* from a party school (they passed a law last year that went something like no more than five people were allowed outside a place of residence - we joked about calling in children's birthday parties). The law was basically enforced, in our case, to keep students from living off-campus. I agree with Corrinne; laws like this are popular because they are flexible and can be applied to any number of situations to keep any kind of "undesirables" out. They're disgusting and the worst kind of gentrification.