Unmarried Missouri couple and children face eviction
Categories: Media
I lived in Missouri, so I regarded this story with great interest. Several readers have given us tips about this today. Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving have three children together, and they are facing eviction because of a city ordinance that prohibits more than three people from living together if they are unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption. Shelltrack and Loving applied for a permit that would allow them to live together. It was denied. The city council tried to overturn the ordinance. The motion failed. As a Missourian, and as a United States citizen, this story alarms me greatly. I lived with my partner and my three children, before we were married, for over three years before we did marry. College students in my town live together, four to six students to an apartment, and so far as I know, they are not married. Even if this ordinance does exist in my town, it is not enforced.
It is the combination of enforcement and the ordinance's existence that make me largely suspicious here about what is going on with this particular family. I don't think it is a coincidence that the couple are two different skin colors. This is not an issue of morality: Shouldn't we, in our increasing conservative climate, be encouraging two parents to co-raise their children? OH, but WAIT. They aren't MARRIED. And somehow we could maybe ignore that-- but THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE EACH OTHER. He is black, she is white. They live together. They have children. Hmmm... how can we punish them for that? Ahhh, they aren't married and we have this convenient ordinance here...
Again. I live in a college town. The ordinance may exist to prevent fraternity and sorority houses from springing up in residential neighborhoods. But to enforce an eviction for a FAMILY wherein three MINOR children are related by blood, but the parents are unmarried? Well, it smacks of racism in this case, but in ANY case, it just plain stinks.
Please spare me the morality of, "Why don't they just get married." I know exactly why they don't get married: Because that is not right for their relationship. And they shouldn't be forced into a relationship just so they can exercise what should be a given right to live together. They are a FAMILY.
How long are we, as US citizens, going to continue to let our government into our bedrooms? Would it really be better for anyone in this society if one of those parents were forced to move out? Or if the family is NOT legally allowed to live together because they cannot buy a house?
*Update: Apparently I am not the only one who thinks race played a role here...
Recent Posts
- Teen Birth Rates Increase in 26 States (1/08/2009)
- Big Butts a Sign of Good Health! (1/08/2009)
- Supergirl - Britain's Strongest Girl Can Lift 375 Pounds (1/08/2009)
- Resale Shops May Be Hit By New Federal Law (1/08/2009)
- Playground News - Girls are Less Active Than Boys (1/08/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Karen Walrond 5-17-2006 @ 3:31PM
Hear, hear, Jen. As a woman in an interracial marriage, this story hit me the exact same way it did you.
This nonsense in 2006. Amazing.
K.
Reply
Marcia 5-17-2006 @ 3:40PM
That is completely ridiculous! How can they do that to people? My boyfriend and I are not married, we've lived together for nearly 4 years and our first child is due in September. They really need to reorganize their ordinances and put the welfare of the children first.
Reply
Bluepaintred 5-17-2006 @ 3:45PM
wow , thats sick. i thought that the goverment wanted family values? well gosh darn it a mom and a dad together raising kids - thats family values! who cares if they are not married, it is quite obvious they are committed to eachother.. shame on whoever let that bylow stay in the books!
Reply
Cary 5-17-2006 @ 3:48PM
Couple of things:
1) Is there no such thing as common law in Missouri? If so, they would be partners by law because they have children together and I imagine they have lived together for a while (since they have three kids).
And
2) Technically, since the kids are related to one another and they are related to each of their parents then aren't there only two people who don't share the same blood? The Mom shares the same blood as the kids and so does the Dad so it's just the two parents that don't?
In any case, I am astounded that this could even be happening and that neighbouring citizens are allowing it to happen. If it were my neighbourhood I would be signing a petition or doing something to let City Hall know I wasn't impressed by their ordinance.
Reply
Nicole 5-17-2006 @ 3:55PM
I am of the mindset that those who live together and choose to have children TOGETHER should be married. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the deterioration of our society is due to the laxation of these moral values. Children out of wedlock? This should not happen - and to allow the situation to get better, they should get married - IMHO. It has nothing to do with race - I am in an interracial relationship, but it has everything to do with traditional morals and beliefs. A family that includesmarried (or, in the case of alternative lifestyles, at least a civil partnership or registered domestic partnership) parents will generally be more stable.
Reply
Christina 5-17-2006 @ 4:04PM
I just wrote a post on this very topic on my blog as well.
It's crazy that some antiquated law may be forcing people out of their homes. Just because they don't have that official title of "married" doesn't mean they aren't a loving, committed couple who will raise their children well. Maybe they aren't religious and don't feel like paying the state to declare them a civil union?
With today's divorce rate, married couples are no more stable than unmarried ones in committed relationships. You can't guarantee a couple's relationship success on if they're married or not.
I had never considered the racist point of view, but now that you bring it up, I can see it being a possible cause of all of this as well.
Reply
elsimom 5-17-2006 @ 4:13PM
Just a note, Jen, that you are probably right about the source of the law. In St. Paul MN a similar ordinance was put in place to combat "college houses" where a bunch of individuals rent a room in a big, old (usually run-down) house - and every person has their own car, parking on the street, etc. The neighbors hate it - BUT - this is clearly not that situation.
I think the person who mentioned the blood relationships is right. If none of the children are from a previous relationship, then there are only two people in this household who are not related by blood, not three.
Also, there probably wouldn't be any eviction but for the landlord wanting to enforce the ordinance. My bet is that a landlord dispute is behind this thing to begin with.
Very sad.
Reply
Dana 5-17-2006 @ 4:29PM
This is one reason that even straight couples should be very wary of supporting "anti-gay-marriage" legislation. In some states, it is worded such that it would legally deny recognition to *any* unmarried couple, straight or gay. For example, the Kansas constitution now reads:
"No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.?
(http://tinyurl.com/f8ptp)
Reply
LB 5-17-2006 @ 4:32PM
be sure to read this longer story
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-15-unmarried-family_x.htm
They wanted to purchase the house. The town has rejected others in the past.
I totally think race plays a role here. But I'm also just grossed out by the-holy roller everyone get married crap- that is at work here too.
Reply
Neener 5-17-2006 @ 4:41PM
While personally I may think that it's best for children to have married/civil union parents (not for the paper you sign but for the commitment it requires for life) this case is just wrong on so many levels. I do think race is a factor. How many other unmarried couples live in this town that are not facing eviction?
Reply
thordora 5-17-2006 @ 5:00PM
Whatever happened to people keeping their noses OUT of the bedroom? Because this smacks of infringing on civil liberties to me. SOMETHING is terribly wrong here.
Reply
sosiesmama 5-17-2006 @ 5:05PM
I agree that this is completely ridiculous and unfair and,in my view, racially motivated. I would not be surprised to see the ACLU taking their case any minute now.
Reply
Jane Doe 5-17-2006 @ 5:16PM
Nicole,
You can believe what you want to believe, but to discriminate based on marital status is absurd.
Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the deterioration of our society is due to poor education. Laxation is not a word.
Reply
ann adams 5-17-2006 @ 5:20PM
Thanks for hte update. I wondered what the outcome was.
This is so wrong. I don't think the article I read mentioned race but now I wonder if that didn't upset their WASP sensibilities as much or more as the living arrangement.
They're entirely too genteel to burn a cross on the lawn so they twist a law which was never intended for that purpose to rid of anyone who doesn't conform?
Shame on them. I'm glad the ACLU has weighed in. Knew I was paying for something.
Reply
ann adams 5-17-2006 @ 5:21PM
When Im angry my typing skills disappear. Read what I meant, not what I said.
Reply
Nicole 5-17-2006 @ 6:09PM
Jane-
Thanks a lot for that grammar update. I am so glad you are paying attention to the important themes associated with this post.
TC,
Nicole
Reply
karrie 5-17-2006 @ 6:10PM
Laxation? Is that one of them new-fangled, neo-con terms like misunderestimate? Eeek.
Its absolutely disgusting that this couple has been put in this situation.
One of my younger sisters is constantly assumed to be her son's nanny because she's white and her son is multiracial and dark-skinned. (Her boyfriend is from Haiti) When she explains she's his mother, she gets some kind of weird remark and/or vibe most of the time. I did not want to believe, really believe that racism is alive and well, but it is. And that's so obviously what this couple in Missouri is being subjected to. Disgusting.
Reply
Angie 5-17-2006 @ 6:13PM
As a black woman, my racial feelers went up when I first saw the picture and read the story. But I think race is irrelevant here. Morality is the issue. When people behave immorally as this couple has, they can run into various issues with the law. To then turn around and blame race is irresponsible. It is saying that 'we should be expected to be immoral, because of our race, or in this case, interracial relationship.'
Give me a break. They can solve this problem by getting married. If they're going to stay together as a family anyway, then marriage won't break them up.
Reply
Jane Doe 5-17-2006 @ 7:00PM
You may not believe in couples who live together without marrying, and you can call it "living in sin" if you like. But discrimination is discrimination. There is nothing illegal about the choices this couple has made.
What civil rights era did you live through, Angie? Civil rights are civil rights.
You would do well to remember that fascism doesn't come overnight, but in bits and doses with good people standing by and doing nothing.
"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Jewish.
Then they came for the trade unionist,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant,
Then they came for the homosexuals,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual,
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
--Rev. Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran Pastor
Reply
Uncle Roger 5-17-2006 @ 7:26PM
Nicole... They've been together for 13 years. How stable do they need to be?
Angie... How have they behaved immorally? They have been together in a stable, committed relationship for 13 years, raising children in a family. Yes, they thought it more important to work towards providing a good home for their children then to spend money on a wedding, but surely you're not calling a selfless act of providing for their children immoral?
Whether the issue is with their race or their marital status, what is being done to them should be something only read of in history books at this point.
That's why I am glad that I don't live in Missouri.
Reply