What does Lawrence have to do with ECONOMIC justice?
A colorable, though probably losing, argument could be made on the city's behalf. The city could argue this isn't about morality, but about zoning. That is, the city is trying to prevent a deflation in value of housing by preventing a massive collection of 20 unrelated people from living in one building (turning a house into a mini-apartment of sorts). To maintain the single-family nature of that zone, they require people living in a home (if there are more than 3 people in the home) to be related by marriage or blood. That seems to be the easiest line to draw becaue it's easy for people to lie about whether they are in a relationship.....much harder to lie about whether they are married or brother/sister (although, if they have kids, I hope it's not the latter). So, you see, it's not about the government making moral judgments on people's private lives at all. It's about zoning, maintaining the single-family nature of the area.....something that has long been considered one of the roles of local government.
Would this argument hold up in court? It all depends on whether it faces a mere Rational Basis test (in which case it holds) or whether, as Barzelay says, it faces Strict Scrutiny under Lawrence (in which case, as Barzelay says, the ordinance doesn't stand a chance).
The law itself I have no immediate problem with. As you say, it prevents 20 random people living together in a single house and all.
But this is an extenuating circumstance. There are children involved. It would be harmful to them to separate their parents. Forcing the parents to get married -- an action they obviously have their own reasons for not taking -- cannot be the answer. I think this speaks to the larger issue that the government needs to redefine what constitutes a family unit.
Besides, I don't see why this is a violation of the law, though I'd have to look deeper into the text of the law itself: here you have three people who are related by blood living with two other people who the three are related to. The fact that these last two are not related in the manner described should make no difference, as we do not have three people living together none of whom are related. If that makes sense.
It just sounds to me like the law is poorly written and probably needs to be amended.
Interesting argument, Ben. But what, exactly, is wrong with 20 random people sharing a house? It's none of my business if a homeowner wants 19 of his closest friends to move in with him. Annoyance ought not to be an excuse for legislation - I don't know how preventing people from being annoyed constitutes a rational basis.
Mike: It's obvious from the enforcement of this law that it was not intended to prevent 20 random people from living together. It's hollow nanny-state moralizing of the worst sort meant to regulate sexual activity (which, incidentally, is another place where Lawrence comes in).
6 Comments:
Bush's fault
Yes, everybody knows the world is full of stupid people, but why do they have to have the power?
What does Lawrence have to do with ECONOMIC justice?
A colorable, though probably losing, argument could be made on the city's behalf. The city could argue this isn't about morality, but about zoning. That is, the city is trying to prevent a deflation in value of housing by preventing a massive collection of 20 unrelated people from living in one building (turning a house into a mini-apartment of sorts). To maintain the single-family nature of that zone, they require people living in a home (if there are more than 3 people in the home) to be related by marriage or blood. That seems to be the easiest line to draw becaue it's easy for people to lie about whether they are in a relationship.....much harder to lie about whether they are married or brother/sister (although, if they have kids, I hope it's not the latter). So, you see, it's not about the government making moral judgments on people's private lives at all. It's about zoning, maintaining the single-family nature of the area.....something that has long been considered one of the roles of local government.
Would this argument hold up in court? It all depends on whether it faces a mere Rational Basis test (in which case it holds) or whether, as Barzelay says, it faces Strict Scrutiny under Lawrence (in which case, as Barzelay says, the ordinance doesn't stand a chance).
The law itself I have no immediate problem with. As you say, it prevents 20 random people living together in a single house and all.
But this is an extenuating circumstance. There are children involved. It would be harmful to them to separate their parents. Forcing the parents to get married -- an action they obviously have their own reasons for not taking -- cannot be the answer. I think this speaks to the larger issue that the government needs to redefine what constitutes a family unit.
Besides, I don't see why this is a violation of the law, though I'd have to look deeper into the text of the law itself: here you have three people who are related by blood living with two other people who the three are related to. The fact that these last two are not related in the manner described should make no difference, as we do not have three people living together none of whom are related. If that makes sense.
It just sounds to me like the law is poorly written and probably needs to be amended.
Interesting argument, Ben. But what, exactly, is wrong with 20 random people sharing a house? It's none of my business if a homeowner wants 19 of his closest friends to move in with him. Annoyance ought not to be an excuse for legislation - I don't know how preventing people from being annoyed constitutes a rational basis.
Mike: It's obvious from the enforcement of this law that it was not intended to prevent 20 random people from living together. It's hollow nanny-state moralizing of the worst sort meant to regulate sexual activity (which, incidentally, is another place where Lawrence comes in).
fire hazard maybe?
Post a Comment
<< Home