BridgetSPK
#1 Sir Purr Fan
31378 Posts
user info
edit post |
| Quote : | "
Taking our cue from 1805
Rick Martinez, Correspondent
Debora Lynn Hobbs wants the State of North Carolina out of her personal life. She thinks her living arrangement is none of the government's business. It shouldn't be too long before she gets to argue her case, once Hobbs v. Pender County gets a court date. Hobbs and the North Carolina chapter of the ACLU have sued the county for the express purpose of getting the state's 200-year-old anti-cohabitation law declared unconstitutional.
Hobbs was a law enforcement dispatcher for the county until Sheriff Carson Smith, her boss, found out she was living with a man who wasn't her husband. He gave Hobbs several choices: get married, quit living with her boyfriend or find another job. Hobbs quit and headed to court instead. To her credit, she's suing on principle. She's not asking for gobs of money to soothe her emotional distress and repair her self-esteem. All she wants is enough cash to cover her legal expenses.
Her case is essentially this: the government shouldn't dictate with whom she lives. The government in this case is not only her employer, but also you and me, since the General Assembly passed the anti-cohabitation law on our behalf in 1805. So is Hobbs' living arrangement any of my business?
Absolutely. Cohabitation has a lousy track record that results in social problems which, as a taxpayer, cost me money. Simply put, cohabitation is bad public policy. Morality has little to do with this case.
Social scientists -- not preachers, mind you -- David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead are directors of The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Their review of the social science led them to these stark conclusions:
• Cohabitation increases the risk of domestic violence for women, and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children.
• Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples.
• Living together before marriage increases the risk of break-up after marriage.
These outcomes are detrimental to public safety and health, and many of their consequences -- poverty, incarceration, physical, emotional and sexual abuse -- ultimately are problems the rest of us have to address. If for no other reason than to provide greater financial and physical protection for women and children, the anti-cohabitation law should stay on the books.
Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the state unit of the ACLU, told me that the mere possession of a marriage license wouldn't prevent the social ills pointed out by Popenoe and Whitehead. True. But it's shortsighted to ignore that cohabitation is more common among the poor and less educated, the very populations that are most vulnerable to exploitation and abandonment that shacking up often leads to.
Debora Lynn Hobbs also argues that enforcement of the cohabitation law is arbitrary, and thus unfair. Law enforcement usually is. The cops don't come close to catching every drunken driver. They collar only a few to send the message that drinking and driving is dangerous and costly.
There was a time when the public and the criminal justice system considered drunken driving no big deal. Everyone was entitled to a few drinks at the end of the day or at a party before driving home. Mothers Against Drunk Driving changed all that. The group erased the misguided societal tolerance of drunken driving by exposing the physical and emotional carnage it causes.
The ridicule directed at our anti-cohabitation and alienation of affection laws reveals a similar societal ignorance. Cohabitation and adultery rarely affect just the folks in the sack. If they did, I would be on Hobbs' side. But they don't. They often tear apart multiple families. Hardly a week goes by that we don't read about an assault or molestation committed by a live-in lover.
For too long, we've shied from the physical and emotional abuse, reasoning that a person's marital conduct and living arrangements are personal, not societal concerns. By viewing these laws as an unjust imposition of morals, we've sabotaged the benefits they provide.
The Census Bureau estimates that approximately 350,000 North Carolinians are cohabiting. I'm not advocating that these folks be thrown in jail. But the law should be kept in place to remind us that, as a society and as individuals, marriage is the far better, more stable and cheaper way to go.
Contributing columnist Rick Martinez can be reached at rickjmartinez2@verizon.net
" |
http://www.newsobserver.com/567/story/410041.html 2/22/2006 2:05:50 PM
|
