Missouri town to evict couple w/3 children on the basis that they are not married

"The couple had closed on the home and sought an occupancy permit. City officials asked to see their marriage license and the children’s birth certificates. That is when they were told they were in violation of the city ordinance."

Excuse me? The simple fact that they were required to present such documents is despicable. The whole concept of an "occupancy permit" is despicable, too. They bought the house, they own it, it's their property, and since it was built as a residential structure, it's logical to assume that it's correctly zoned for a residence. What right does the government have to tell them that they can't live in a house that they legally own, for any reason?

"The current ordinance prohibits more than three persons from living together unless they are related by 'blood, marriage or adoption.' It had been used to prevent unwed people from living together with their children."

So, these people are not married, but have three children together.

Therefore, three out of five people in the house are related by blood to everyone else, and the other two are related to three of the other four.

Under the *loosest* interpretation of this I can see, the city can enforce this by evicting ONE of the parents, but not both. If they try to evict any of the children, they'd be violating the law as written.

I consider this a seperation of church and state issue, but for a reason deeper than the obvious "they're fornicators, that's a sin, so let's git 'em" excuse. They're being denied a permit to reside on their own property because they have not sought official sanction from the state to be MARRIED. Why, exactly, does the state have any say over who can and cannot enter into marriage, which in this country, is a RELIGIOUS definition? I've got no problem with the government licensing and regulating civil unions, but marriage should be strictly off-limits.

Of course, even in this case, I would have a problem if they were denied a permit based on a lack of a civil union. There is simply no excuse for this family to require an occupancy permit for residential-zoned land that they own. This is tyrrany, and I distinctly remember something from high school where they talked about the consequences of that.

-pb