...the oil that greases the axles of life

Quote :

"Published: Feb 22, 2006 12:30 AM Modified: Feb 22, 2006 07:54 AM Taking our cue from 1805 Rick Martinez, Correspondent Debora Lynn Hobbs wants the State of North Carolina out of her personal life. She thinks her living arrangement is none of the government's business. It shouldn't be too long before she gets to argue her case, once Hobbs v. Pender County gets a court date. Hobbs and the North Carolina chapter of the ACLU have sued the county for the express purpose of getting the state's 200-year-old anti-cohabitation law declared unconstitutional. Hobbs was a law enforcement dispatcher for the county until Sheriff Carson Smith, her boss, found out she was living with a man who wasn't her husband. He gave Hobbs several choices: get married, quit living with her boyfriend or find another job. Hobbs quit and headed to court instead. To her credit, she's suing on principle. She's not asking for gobs of money to soothe her emotional distress and repair her self-esteem. All she wants is enough cash to cover her legal expenses. Her case is essentially this: the government shouldn't dictate with whom she lives. The government in this case is not only her employer, but also you and me, since the General Assembly passed the anti-cohabitation law on our behalf in 1805. So is Hobbs' living arrangement any of my business? Absolutely. Cohabitation has a lousy track record that results in social problems which, as a taxpayer, cost me money. Simply put, cohabitation is bad public policy. Morality has little to do with this case. Social scientists -- not preachers, mind you -- David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead are directors of The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Their review of the social science led them to these stark conclusions: • Cohabitation increases the risk of domestic violence for women, and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children. • Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples. • Living together before marriage increases the risk of break-up after marriage. These outcomes are detrimental to public safety and health, and many of their consequences -- poverty, incarceration, physical, emotional and sexual abuse -- ultimately are problems the rest of us have to address. If for no other reason than to provide greater financial and physical protection for women and children, the anti-cohabitation law should stay on the books. Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the state unit of the ACLU, told me that the mere possession of a marriage license wouldn't prevent the social ills pointed out by Popenoe and Whitehead. True. But it's shortsighted to ignore that cohabitation is more common among the poor and less educated, the very populations that are most vulnerable to exploitation and abandonment that shacking up often leads to. Debora Lynn Hobbs also argues that enforcement of the cohabitation law is arbitrary, and thus unfair. Law enforcement usually is. The cops don't come close to catching every drunken driver. They collar only a few to send the message that drinking and driving is dangerous and costly. There was a time when the public and the criminal justice system considered drunken driving no big deal. Everyone was entitled to a few drinks at the end of the day or at a party before driving home. Mothers Against Drunk Driving changed all that. The group erased the misguided societal tolerance of drunken driving by exposing the physical and emotional carnage it causes. The ridicule directed at our anti-cohabitation and alienation of affection laws reveals a similar societal ignorance. Cohabitation and adultery rarely affect just the folks in the sack. If they did, I would be on Hobbs' side. But they don't. They often tear apart multiple families. Hardly a week goes by that we don't read about an assault or molestation committed by a live-in lover. For too long, we've shied from the physical and emotional abuse, reasoning that a person's marital conduct and living arrangements are personal, not societal concerns. By viewing these laws as an unjust imposition of morals, we've sabotaged the benefits they provide. The Census Bureau estimates that approximately 350,000 North Carolinians are cohabiting. I'm not advocating that these folks be thrown in jail. But the law should be kept in place to remind us that, as a society and as individuals, marriage is the far better, more stable and cheaper way to go. Contributing columnist Rick Martinez can be reached at rickjmartinez2@verizon.net"

2/22/2006 9:44:34 AM

Quote :

"God bless logical fallacies..."

This is deliciously funny.

2/22/2006 9:47:48 AM

I bet.

2/22/2006 9:55:14 AM

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*

*Some restrictions apply

2/22/2006 10:43:59 AM

i dont get why the us doesnt have some kinda health care system

i bet if we were communist and had a strong government we'd have a health care system for all citizens

2/22/2006 10:51:00 AM

the negatives related to cohabitation are correlative, I'm sure

but they are being presented as causal

goddamn you Rick Martinez

2/22/2006 11:19:07 AM

^
exactly.

it's shit like this that makes me resent being a Republican. esp. when we all know the only reason the argument is made is b/c "OMF if we let people live w/ other people before they're married... well... well... well we'll be that much closer to teh gh3ys marrying!!1"

2/22/2006 11:21:34 AM

Quote :

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness* *Some restrictions apply"

I know your quote was meant to poke fun at this particular law/viewpoint, and I agree with that, however that asterisk really should be there. I mean if your pursuit of happiness involves ass raping children, you don't get to play here.

2/22/2006 11:41:29 AM

Quote :

"i bet if we were communist and had a strong government we'd have a health care system for all citizens"

It takes more than a strong government for Communism to fly.

2/22/2006 11:52:50 AM

Yea

We need a fullblown pixie dust industry working faeries round the clock.

2/22/2006 12:01:24 PM

Quote :

"Living together before marriage increases the risk of break-up after marriage."

This always seemed to be a bizarre claim. I figure if you can't live with somebody, you might as well find out before you're legally bound to them.

2/22/2006 12:02:05 PM

Co-habitation is a personal agreement between consenting adults. It does not cause force or fraud upon any other citizen. Therefore the state should have no interest.

Cohabitation may, as Rick points out, cause some social problems that cause taxpayers money. But the real problem is that the go'vt meddling in everything is so convoluted that almost any problem causes the taxpayer money. If the state didn't have its fingers in everybodys pocket and life so much, problems associated with these types of social concerns wouldn't affect the rest of us.

Quote :

"Cohabitation increases the risk of domestic violence for women, and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children."

So does marriage. I would bet there are many more cases of abuse in marriages than cohabitations. This is sort of the same argument for gun control. If we don't have any cohabitating going on, the few bad things that could happen will be eliminated.

Quote :

"Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples. "

I can't find in my copies of the US and NC constitution that it's the responsibility of the gov't to make sure everybody is "happy."

Quote :

"Living together before marriage increases the risk of break-up after marriage."

Again, that shouldn't be the concern of a properly restrained government.

2/22/2006 12:09:14 PM

Quote :

"Yea We need a fullblown pixie dust industry working faeries round the clock."

Or a reconditioned populace.

I'm not going to take your bait, Engin. Troll me on AIM or something. You know I love it .

2/22/2006 12:13:04 PM

..... words don't exist to describe how dumb this argument is.

2/22/2006 12:15:52 PM

Quote :

"It does not cause force or fraud upon any other citizen. Therefore the state should have no interest."

Bingo

2/22/2006 12:52:15 PM

It's just another item in the long list of these cases with the religious right.

They simply believe that what they think is right should = law. They don't believe people should be able to make their own calls when it comes to morality in their personal lives, that is, when it "does not cause force or fraud upon any other citizen."

Just more bullshit, nobody should really be surprised. These people will always push this shit until their antiquated ideology becomes extinct.

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2006 12:59:07 PM

I have heard that the NC HW Patrol attempts to enforce this anticohabitation on their troopers. A friend of mine whose fiance is in the academy, or whatever its called, are getting married early due to the Patrol's disdain for single troopers.

2/22/2006 1:15:05 PM

So where does common law marraige fall in all of this?

2/22/2006 2:04:09 PM

it doesn't. there's no such thing in the state of north carolina.

2/22/2006 2:16:00 PM

I think TGD is closer to the reality of the situation:

Quote :

"it's shit like this that makes me resent being a Republican. esp. when we all know the only reason the argument is made is b/c "OMF if we let people live w/ other people before they're married... well... well... well we'll be that much closer to teh gh3ys marrying!!1""

There has to be some other reason that Rick Martinez would write this bullshit, and TGD may be going in the right direction with his thinking. I don't think that this is all about his belief that "cohabitation is bad public policy." And I don't know what he's getting at with the conclusion either. It's bad public policy, but we shouldn't enforce the law against it? We should just have it on the books to "take our cue" from?

You guys shoulda seen me reading this shit. I anxiously smoked that cig down in record time.

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 2:19 PM. Reason : sss]

2/22/2006 2:18:51 PM

"found out she was living with a man who wasn't her husband"

If only she had been a lesbian... they get all the special rights... they can even have sleep overs on campus together when heterosexuals of the opposite sex get kicked out. /hot-lesbian-action

2/22/2006 2:19:19 PM

ahhh, Guess my uncle's been breakin the law for a while now. Yet cohabitation would be the least of his charges.

2/22/2006 2:20:26 PM

I've always disliked Rick Martinez, but this puts him right up there with Caulton Tudor. Fuck 'em both.

2/22/2006 2:24:13 PM

The funny thing is, there really isn't any difference between anti-cohabitation and anti-homosexual marriage policies.

2/22/2006 2:49:28 PM

Quote :

"Contributing columnist Rick Martinez can be reached at rickjmartinez2@verizon.net"

Someone should e-mail him this thread.

2/22/2006 3:31:23 PM

I'll do it, but I'm sure he's already gotten dozens of e-mails already today.

2/22/2006 3:35:02 PM

this obviously should be unconstitutional

I'm loving the fact that my living arrangement is illegal. jesus.

2/22/2006 3:36:49 PM

Land of the Chains...
What? Land of the Free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy.

2/22/2006 3:39:44 PM

2/22/2006 3:40:05 PM

when was this lawsuit initiatied? im pretty sur ei heard about this or something insanely similar years ago.

2/22/2006 4:16:03 PM

I'm not sure which is more outrageous, that somebody is enforcing this or that a writer is defending it.

2/22/2006 4:37:53 PM

Quote :

"Hobbs and the North Carolina chapter of the ACLU have sued the county for the express purpose of getting the state's 200-year-old anti-cohabitation law declared unconstitutional."

It's about time. Hobbs is a hero.

Quote :

"it's shit like this that makes me resent being a Republican"

Go libertarian. (You don't have to go all the way to the big 'L' though....)

Quote :

"Co-habitation is a personal agreement between consenting adults. It does not cause force or fraud upon any other citizen. Therefore the state should have no interest"

Well put.

Quote :

"..... words don't exist to describe how dumb this argument is."

That's why I'll just use

Quote :

"These people will always push this shit until their antiquated ideology becomes extinct."

Damn, I can't wait. My lifetime, plz?

Quote :

"this obviously should be unconstitutional"

Agreed.

Anyone actually disagree?

Quote :

"Land of the Chains... What? Land of the Free? Whoever told you that is your enemy."

Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are american dreams
All of which are american dreams
All of which are american dreams
All of which are american dreams
All of which are american dreams
All of which are american dreams
All of which are american dreams
All of which...
....are american dreams

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ]

2/22/2006 4:56:24 PM

I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I'm sort of free...

2/22/2006 5:19:49 PM

Quote :

"i dont get why the us doesnt have some kinda health care system"

i'm perfectly fine with it remaining privatized. i don't see any need for that sort of socialism.

2/22/2006 5:22:15 PM

Watch that. Then say you don't see any need.

NOTE: any != enough

2/22/2006 5:24:02 PM

summary?

2/22/2006 5:25:21 PM

i'm torn on the whole national health care issue: i hate poor people and wish they would die but i also hate sick people

2/22/2006 5:25:40 PM

Quote :

"John Quincy Archibald's son Michael collapses while playing baseball as a result of a heart failure. Immediately, John Q. rushes Michael to the hospital's emergency room for a transplant. Unfortunately, the insurance would not cover his son's transplant. So in order for Michael's quick and complete recovery, John takes the emergency room hostage until the doctors agree to get the transplant successful."

2/22/2006 5:26:13 PM

yeah healthcare is one of those areas where you either go full-tilt left or full-tilt right, but this "let's find something in the middle" just fucks it all up. (Gamecat and I actually had this debate...right before he puked from drinking a lil bit too much )

---

Quote :

"hempster: Go libertarian. (You don't have to go all the way to the big 'L' though....)"

I am mostly, even use to be registered as a big 'L' one for a time. But I'm unapologetic neocon on foreign policy and don't mind big government as much as I don't like big government (e.g. I'm not one of those Gamecat-style-but-not-liberal fatalists that thinks we're all going to die if we don't cut teh g0v right this very minute)

2/22/2006 8:24:42 PM

Quote :

"i don't see any need for that sort of socialism."

In terms that would make more sense to the Duke, we are projected to spend 20% of our GDP on health care by the year 2010, approximately half of that from the government. That is much more than any other developed nation. And yet our country ranks among the bottom of those nations in terms of health care coverage and quality.

Something needs to change.

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 8:47 PM. Reason : 2]

2/22/2006 8:46:19 PM

Quote :

"(Gamecat and I actually had this debate...right before he puked from drinking a lil bit too much)"

Debate?

I think it was probably the first time in 5 years that we agreed on something from the start.

Quote :

"I'm not one of those Gamecat-style-but-not-liberal fatalists that thinks we're all going to die if we don't cut teh g0v right this very minute"

?

2/22/2006 10:19:14 PM

oh don't post a "?", you know I always say you sound overly dour all the time. hence the "of course you don't care..." line, remember?

2/22/2006 10:42:23 PM

That's not what the ? is for. The ? is because I don't know what the fuck the sentence means. I'll get to the rest once you translate for me.

2/22/2006 10:44:34 PM

Wait, so you guys are drinking and having fun together?!? What the fuck? PM a playa yo.

2/22/2006 10:46:21 PM

^^
IMO your TWW rhetoric has a constant fatalist twinge to it ("omf we're all gonna die aiieeeee!!1 and oh btw there's no way to change it short of revolution"). that shouldn't require much translation.

most small-gov conservatives and libertarians are the same way, always talking about the inevitable march to destruction of American society.

I reject both views, put some faith in the American people and the government process we've got...and promptly go back to chanting "We're #1! We're #1!"


oh and Bridget yes it's possible for political polar opposites to drink and have fun, just make sure you get Gamecat cut off before he's had too many

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 10:51 PM. Reason : ---]

2/22/2006 10:50:46 PM

Having every man live alone, or without any women would remove most all chances for domestic violence. Is that a good idea, well it would save the taxpayer money.

2/22/2006 10:50:55 PM

Good grief TGD and Gamecat, quit the charades.

It's so obvious that you two are in love.

2/22/2006 11:02:41 PM

Quote :

"("omf we're all gonna die aiieeeee!!1 and oh btw there's no way to change it short of revolution")"

That'd explain why, at the end of the day, I vote and encourage others to do so, even attempt to persuade them to vote one way or the other...because I don't think there's a way to change it short of revolution...right?

Quote :

"most small-gov conservatives and libertarians are the same way, always talking about the inevitable march to destruction of American society."

Sort of like how you guys talked about the inevitable march to destruction of American society when the government was dominated by liberals. It's not true besides. You've never actually pressed me to talk about the direction I thought American society was going, so I'm guession this must've come straight from your ass.

Quote :

"I reject both views, put some faith in the American people and the government process we've got...and promptly go back to chanting "We're #1! We're #1!""

I'd probably say the same thing if I ever intended to run for an elected office.

2/22/2006 11:13:44 PM

^

Quote :

"Gamecat: I'd probably say the same thing if I ever intended to run for an elected office."

correlation != causation. my my my you've been working hard on those fallacies, haven't you?

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: Sort of like how you guys talked about the inevitable march to destruction of American society when the government was dominated by liberals."

And I did that...when, exactly?

2/22/2006 11:42:58 PM

Oh excuse me. I must be picking up your habits. I guess I mistakenly lumped you in with some group of nitwits that you only partially agree with and assumed you should answer for them. My mistake.

Quote :

"my my my you've been working hard on those fallacies, haven't you?"

I learned from the master!

"You are either with us or against us"

You'd better get working on them yourself, otherwise you'll never get elected.

Let's not pretend you're a stranger to fallacies. You've repeatedly insisted that I can't support troops and not support the Iraq war since it's inception. You can spot me one in exchange.

2/22/2006 11:58:56 PM