Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
Most laws of this type are actually meant to prohibit gay couples from doing such things. That was one of the major problems with the amendment banning it in Ohio-- all the restrictions it placed on gay couples also are placed on unmarried couples of any orientation simply because they can't word it specifically about gay people. The city probably doesn't want gay people with children living there. Even if the children belonged to one of them, too bad, you can't live there because that would violate this law.
Even if it is meant for straight people, its absurd.
Then again, who would want to live somewhere as artificially Pleasantville and closed-minded and ignorant as the sort of place that would pass that law?
I was thinking that it's not necessarily for those that are "unmarried" and straight...it's for those that are gay. If unmarrieds are allowed to live together than that's one step closer for gay couples to be recognized.
I'm NOT against gay couples, I'm just pointing out that there's more to this rule than meets the eye. They can't say "This law is actually for gay couples" because it's not politically correct and could hurt someone's election year (if they're having one). I don't think it considered unconstitutional since I don't remember it being written anywhere in the Constitution (unless you're trying to make it fall under freedom of speech...but even that is a far stretch).
Anyhoo, I don't think its right either, but hopefully things will change with the next set of politians there.