No.. No.. Notorious. At least living together in North Dakota

By -
The Aberdeen American news has a story on our neighbors to the north who live in that Artic wasteland known as North Dakota. Apparently it's illegal to "openly and notoriously" live together, despite the need to huddle together for warmth:

Legislators are again being asked to do away with a state law that forbids unmarried couples to "openly and notoriously" live together as if they were married.
Freshman state Sen. Tracy Potter, D-Bismarck, said he will sponsor a bill in the 2007 Legislature to repeal the cohabitation law, which officials say is rarely enforced.

Efforts to repeal the law have failed in the last two sessions. Before that, the most recent effort to abolish it was in 1991, when the House voted down a repeal measure by almost a 3-to-1 margin.

and...

"I just don't understand - if nobody's going to enforce it, why do we have it on the books?" he said. "It clearly steps on the toes of freedom of association. We should be able to lead our lives the way we want to."

and...

Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, said he does not believe the law prohibits heterosexual couples from living together and opposes a repeal. He believes the law only bars couples from living together in a way that fraudulently leads others to believe they are legally married. The state Supreme Court rejected that view in 2001.

Mathern said he would vote against a repeal again "if it's the exact same bill and the exact same argument" as before.
Read it here. Anyone notice that both the proponent and the opposition are democratic? (and that I slyly inserted a duran duran reference in there?)

Even conservative me recognizes that the whole measure is silly.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why don't we have an anti-cohabitation law in SD??????????? Let's get on this LEXREX.
7:45 AM
Anonymous said…
Don't give LEXREX ideas. He's likely to push for this on his way out. With our legislature it'll probably pass.
8:24 AM
Anonymous said…
Maybe they can just export the law to SD. I'm sure we'd jump all over it.
9:09 AM
Anonymous said…
Well, it should pass in South Dakota! If any of you believed in family values or good moral character, you would understand!

What true Christian wouldn't support a law that forbids unmarried couples to "openly and notoriously" live together as if they were married!

You just can't talk of being a Christian! Sorry, it takes a little more than that!

I’m sure the Democrats and probably some members of the Main Stream Coalition Surrender Group would not be in favor of this law.

Good Christians don’t condone sin! It’s as simple as that!
9:16 AM
Anonymous said…
Study results on CNN yesterday: 38,000 people of all ages were interviewed (33,000 of them women) and 95% had premarital sex.

While we're at it, let's ban premarital sex too. We need more puritanical, unenforceable laws on the books, right VJ?

Let's just throw everyone in prison who cohabitates without being married and who has premarital sex. The new prison wall will roughly correspond to SD's borders.
9:40 AM
Anonymous said…
VJ and GFP are going to be looking through your window.
10:01 AM
Anonymous said…
Is that what Jesus was doing? Going to government to pass laws preventing sin? If he wasn't pushing government for a change in the laws, was Jesus a good Christian?
10:07 AM
Anonymous said…
I'm glad to see that SD is not the only state run by loonies.
12:42 PM
Bob Newland said…
So, VJ, you think that there should be a law prohibiting and punishing whatever the legislature decides is a sin? Just so God will know South Dakotans don't condone sin?

Or are you God?
3:16 PM
Anonymous said…
I simply noticed that you misspelled ARCTIC.
8:03 PM
Anonymous said…
Speaking as a North Dakotan i can say, yes, the democrats here are loonies! Please help by sending some young republicans our way!

Rock on PP!
2:37 PM
Anonymous said…
gman, you can have all of our young republicans. They are eager to provide reinforcements to your senator from Fargo who wants to continue the ridiculous, unenforceable "cohabitation ban". They can even help you take a run at banning premarital sex, banning birth control, banning abortion, banning divorce, and banning megachurch pastors.

Good luck banning all sin!
2:49 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A note from Benedict Ar... Sorry. A note from Stan Adelstein why he thinks you should vote Democrat this year.

By -
Image
(Click on letter to enlarge) And while it may not be printed at taxpayer expense, I don't see a disclaimer, either. When they hold the special session (supposedly at the end of November) , since he's left them already, I think his colleagues should expel him from the caucus. Sure. At that point it's only going to be symbolic. But since he's already said he's running again in the near future, sometimes symbolism is enough.
Read more

Corson County information on Klaudt Rape Charges

By -
Here's some of the information on the Corson County Charges: COUNT I That on or about December of 2005, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT II That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT III That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration, separate and distinct from the act alleged in Count II, with...
Read more

It's about health, not potential promiscuity.

By -
As the only South Dakota blogger out with 5 daughters, I feel I need to weigh in on the whole discussion that's occurring with regards to the HPV vaccine, and Governor Rounds' proposal to make it available. My family (including my three oldest girls) watched my mom, their grandmother, succumb slowly and painfully to cancer which spread throughout her body. If a similar fate from a different type of cancer was preventable through a simple shot, why wouldn't anyone advocate for it? At the age most of my kids are going to be getting it, they're still playing with barbies, and negative influences such as most of the programming on MTV, and other assorted trashy television is verboten in my house. All they're going to know about this vaccination is that it's a shot, just like for teatnus or measles. They'll go "Ow, I don't want a shot," and that will be it. Just another mark on their vaccination record. One check box for DPT, one for HPV, and so on...
Read more