Unlawful Cohabitation

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Unlawful Cohabitation: Many states still have laws on their books that making it unlawful (criminal) for unmarried persons of the opposite sex to live together.

ACLU Fights For Right To Shack Up

Quote:

There are some 144,000 unmarried couples living together in North Carolina, and they are all breaking the law - a statute that has been on the books since 1805.

The law against cohabitation is rarely enforced. But now the American Civil Liberties Union is suing to overturn it altogether, 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, 40, 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.

Her lawsuit, filed in March in state court, seeks to have the cohabitation law declared unconstitutional.

"Certainly the government has no business regulating relationships between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes," said Jennifer Rudinger, state executive director of the ACLU. "This law is 200 years old and a lot of people are very surprised that we even have it on the books."

The sheriff told the Star-News of Wilmington last year that Hobbs' employment was a moral issue as well as a legal question. He said that he tries to avoid hiring people who openly live together, but he doesn't send out deputies to enforce the law. . . .

The unlawful cohabitation statute at issue is found under North Carolina General Statutes; Chapter 14, Criminal Law; Article 26, Offenses against Public Morality and Decency:

Quote:

NCGS § 14‑184.

Fornication and adultery.

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: Provided, that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other.

Was it proper for the Sheriff to order his employee to get married, move out or find another job? If she was engaged in "criminal activity," why didn't the Sheriff have her arrested rather than give her an ultimatum that threatens her livelihood?

Is it within the power of the majority, through their elected representatives, to declare that living and sleeping together without being married is lewd and lascivious conduct -- an offense against public morality and decency -- subject to criminal penalities?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,436 • Replies: 11

No top replies

I'll just have to be a lawbreaker then.

0 Replies

Re: Unlawful Cohabitation

Debra_Law wrote:

Unlawful Cohabitation: Many states still have laws on their books that making it unlawful (criminal) for unmarried persons of the opposite sex to live together.

ACLU Fights For Right To Shack Up

Quote:
There are some 144,000 unmarried couples living together in North Carolina, and they are all breaking the law - a statute that has been on the books since 1805.

The law against cohabitation is rarely enforced. But now the American Civil Liberties Union is suing to overturn it altogether, 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, 40, 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.

Her lawsuit, filed in March in state court, seeks to have the cohabitation law declared unconstitutional.

"Certainly the government has no business regulating relationships between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes," said Jennifer Rudinger, state executive director of the ACLU. "This law is 200 years old and a lot of people are very surprised that we even have it on the books."

The sheriff told the Star-News of Wilmington last year that Hobbs' employment was a moral issue as well as a legal question. He said that he tries to avoid hiring people who openly live together, but he doesn't send out deputies to enforce the law. . . .

The unlawful cohabitation statute at issue is found under North Carolina General Statutes; Chapter 14, Criminal Law; Article 26, Offenses against Public Morality and Decency:

Quote:
NCGS § 14‑184.

Fornication and adultery.

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: Provided, that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other.

Was it proper for the Sheriff to order his employee to get married, move out or find another job? If she was engaged in "criminal activity," why didn't the Sheriff have her arrested rather than give her an ultimatum that threatens her livelihood?

Is it within the power of the majority, through their elected representatives, to declare that living and sleeping together without being married is lewd and lascivious conduct -- an offense against public morality and decency -- subject to criminal penalities?

Seeing as how this law is over 200 years old I don't see an issue with taking it off the books.

Why is the ACLU trying to subvert the voting process and go to the courts when all people have to do is write their elected officials and have them remove the laws thought a true democratic process.

This is what makes people not like the ACLU, they don't believe in Democracy, they believe in law through the courts. They did the same thing with Lawrence vs. Texas. It was an old law on the books that should have been removed the real way, not through the courts.

0 Replies

Re: Unlawful Cohabitation

Debra_Law wrote:

If she was engaged in "criminal activity," why didn't the Sheriff have her arrested rather than give her an ultimatum that threatens her livelihood?

If he had arrested her she still would have lost her job so either way is an ultimatum.

0 Replies

It's funny, people tend to assume that men and women living together are dating. In this day and age it's quite possible for people to just share a household and be nothing more than housemates.

For example I might be moving shortly into a house where I'd be living with a female friend of mine. She has her own boyfriend and we certainly wouldn't be sleeping with one another, but people would be likely to assume that by living together we would be sleeping with one another.

0 Replies

A simple google search of "stupid laws" woudl reveal a plethora of, well, stupid laws.
This seems like one that should be repealed, like many others.

0 Replies

The whole point, I think, is that the sheriff gave the woman a choice. As has already been said, if she were in violation of a criminal statute, it was the sheriff's responsibility to arrest her and charge her with a crime, not to admonish her. If it had come to trial, I suspect the judge would have questioned the legal validity of that ancient law and, in due course, the law would have been rescinded, as Baldimo suggests should be done. The sheriff wanted to avoid that publicity. This puts him in the position of having been in dereliction of his duty. Now it's the sheriff that should be charged and forced to forfeit his job.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

The whole point, I think, is that the sheriff gave the woman a choice. As has already been said, if she were in violation of a criminal statute, it was the sheriff's responsibility to arrest her and charge her with a crime, not to admonish her.

As a law enforcement officer AND employment supervisor he had both responsibilities.

Quote:

The sheriff wanted to avoid that publicity.

Since public employees generally have the right to appeal any dismissal it's up to her to make it as public as she chooses to.

Quote:

This puts him in the position of having been in dereliction of his duty. Now it's the sheriff that should be charged and forced to forfeit his job.

Deriliction of duty? Police are given pretty wide lattitude and discression in deciding if someone will be arrested (or not) for victimless crimes.

It''s still illegal for a native american to enter the City of Boston yet I don't recall ever hearing about any BPD officers getting in trouble for not arresting them if they do. Are they all derelict in their duties?

0 Replies

Good point re: that 17th century law, passed by the selectmen of the town of Boston back in Colonial days, barring native Americans entry. As you yourself note, fishin', that law is honored in its breech, rather than its observance. By analogy, then, shouldn't the antiquated N. Calonia law be regarded in the same light?

0 Replies

If it were me I'd have ignored it but maybe there is a more to this than we've heard so far too. Maybe he was looking for a way to fire her and this was the easiest he could come up with? Who knows. Weirder things have happened.

I suppose he has 3 possible alternatives:

1. The sherriff does nothing which has the effect of law enforcement condoning the breaking of a law.

2. He arrests her for violating an antiquated law.

or 3. He termintes her employment without an arrest and aviods both a & b.

0 Replies

i read a year or so back that my home commonwealth, kentucky, still has a law on the books that states;

"no woman shall walk on the road side in a bathing suit unless she is accompanied by two men or carries a club".

things may have changed since i lived there, but thankfully that's one they never inforced that i know of... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

As a law enforcement officer the sheriff still has the ability to exercise his discretion and not enforce the law where in his opinion it would breach the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex - it's just too minor to bother with.

There is also the issue of disuetude. I mean when was the last time someone in that state was prosecuted for this?

As for using this law to get rid of an employee. I'm not sure but North Carolina might well be an "at will" state which means that the Sheriff could dismiss her without cause (as I said I'm not sure).

Given all those - and if they're accurate of course - this stinks.

0 Replies

Unlawful Cohabitation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know