Go back to homepageWatch PubDef VideosAdvertise on PubDef.netA D French & Associates LLCContact Us
 

Watch PubDef.TV


"Best Blogger"
St. Louis Magazine

Featured on
Meet the Press and Fox News

Watch our Meet the Press moment

"One of the Most
Influential People
in Local Media."

STL Business Journal


SUPPORT PUBDEF.NET

Your $7.00 monthly contribution will go a long way to helping us expand the coverage and services you enjoy.


GET THE LATEST PUBDEF NEWS 24/7:

Name:
E-mail:




ABOUT PUB DEF

PUB DEF is a non-partisan, independent political blog based in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Our goal is to cast a critical eye on lawmakers, their policies, and those that have influence upon them, and to educate our readers about legislation and the political processes that affect our daily lives.

CONTACT US

Do you have a press release, news tip or rumor to share?

editor@pubdef.net
Fax (314) 367-3429
Call (314) 779-9958

Tips are always 100% Confidential


Subscribe to our RSS feed

Creative Commons License


 

 

 

 

 

Black Jack craziness tops Drudge

By Antonio D. French

Filed Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at 1:40 AM

The controversy in the town of Black Jack involving the local government denying a couple an occupancy permit because they are unmarried and don't fit the town's definition of "family" has made the top of the Drudge Report.



Here's the story it links to.

Labels:

Link to this story


1 Comments:

Blogger Doug Duckworth said...

Although the right to marry, or not marry is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is implicit. This type of discrimination is illegal. Discrimination on the basis of marital status falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In this case, the state is violating the equal protection rights of non-married individuals; the state is discriminating against their right to marry, but also their right to not marry. This type of issue would come under the strictest scrutiny, which I am not going to get into, however the courts should rule this action unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th. The town's argument that their relationship does not fit the traditional definition of the family is not a compelling interest. State enforcement of historical ideals is not rational justification for 14th amendment violation. I would expect this issue to get to court.

Missouri laws have been in the Courts many times. I doubt this will reach the US SC, since it is pretty clear that this law violates the EPC of the 14th. Lower courts would probably strike it down, assuming the cause of action is the 14th.

Refer to Dread Scott v Sanford, Turner v Safley, City of Ladue v Gilleo

5/24/2006 7:48 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

The 23rd Annual Wine and Roses Ball

The 23rd Annual Wine and Roses Ball

PubDef.net is looking for cameramen.



The Royale Foods & Spirits

Visit the PUB DEF Store



Advertise on Pub Def

 

 

 

Google
 
Web www.pubdef.net