North Dakota Reviews Cohabitation Ban

(AP)  Don Polries and Helen Vetter don't look like outlaws. She's 82 and nearly blind, and he's an 87-year-old World War II veteran whose only brush with the law was a traffic ticket or two, decades ago.

But the retired farmers — and thousands like them — are considered criminals in North Dakota because they're not married and live together.

It makes Polries chuckle and Vetter steam.

"I will not have the state ruling us old people," Vetter said. "All we're trying to do is help each other out ... Boy, I'd like to see the state come and try and split us up."

Without each other, the Bismarck couple say, they'd be in a nursing home. They have lived together for about a year, after dating and living in separate apartments for more than a decade.

"I am legally blind," Vetter said. "I can't read and I can't drive — Don does that for me. ... And when Don had his hip replaced, I helped him out. What's wrong with that?"

North Dakota is one of seven states that bar a man and woman from living together "openly and notoriously" as if they were married. Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia have similar laws.

The North Dakota law has been on the books since statehood, and lists cohabitation as a sex crime, along with rape, incest and adultery.

"It's misguided and a stain on North Dakota's Century Code," said freshman state Sen. Tracy Potter, a Bismarck Democrat who has sponsored legislation to repeal the anti-cohabitation law.

The attempts at repeal failed in the last two legislative sessions.

This year the Senate approved a bill that would lift the cohabitation ban unless an unmarried man and woman pass themselves off as being married to commit fraud. The bill keeps the punishment at a maximum 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Potter himself approved of the change.

Questioning from House Judiciary Committee members at a hearing Tuesday was generally sympathetic to the revised proposal, and three lawmakers spoke in its favor. The committee took no immediate action on the measure.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[pakaal]

haneyr wrote: "You want to sleep with a man, woman, sheep, horse, or what ever. Go for it."

You wrote that you were 'speaking to the article' and yet all of a sudden we've gone from two people in a committed, long-term, loving relationship that doesn't involve a legal contract, to bestiality? Who's referencing things that aren't in the article now?

Good attempt at muddying the issue though, I'll give you that.

[pakaal]

%u201CStrongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.%u201D
-James Madison

%u201CNothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.%u201D
-John Adams

[sclaires]

I agree that North Dakota needs to repeal the no cohabitation law. You will find that older people are living together, not for ***, but companionship. Some of them will lose survivor benefits if they remarry so they don't. It is that way in Florida despite what the law says. Besides, it is cheaper for two people to live together and share expenses then for one. I know how hard it is for me since I live alone and am retired. It would be nice to have someone to help with expenses, but I have been living by myself for so long, I am used to it and don't think I could live with anyone.

[haneyr-2009]

It seems some of the people writing here see rain on a sunny day. I don't see any reference to religion in this article. So why are the Christian-phobes bringing it up? This is totally a secular issue and should be treated as such. You don't like the law then change it. Don't cry if you don't have the votes to change the law. If you do then do it and stop looking for scape goats everywhere.

Now to speak to this article. As a born again Christian I agree with most of you and say get the secular government out of our personal lives. You want to sleep with a man, woman, sheep, horse, or what ever. Go for it. And when your partner changes their love for you and wants someone else. Go for it. It will so much easier to change your partner with no legal rules binding you to a single person or gender. No more divorce courts for tax payers to pay for. No need for government to waste money changing your last name on official papers. No divorce attorneys. No alimony. No paternity requirements. No fault seperations (hey it's not my fault she grew old after 20 years of living together).

TOTAL FREEDOM TO DO AS YOU PLEASE IN YOUR SIGHT. RIGHT ON!

[michellem99-2009]

I feel that this nation has issues but they are going to far. I don't care who you sleep with in your home as long it is adults that agree. I will not at my age marry. I read this/that. I DON'T want any church telling me how to live when they need to clean out their back yead not mine. The Bible does not rule my life. It has been written in a differernt time. I live with a person for 24 years. We are both handicapped. Marriage ain't for every one. So don't push it.

[binkybooster]

AHHH!!! to the old days when we let the lions eat the christians. Those were the daaays

[vancouverboo]

Alas, yet another threat to marriage. If they keep this up no one will want to marry a person of the opposite *** any more. They only do it now for the legal benefits - right? - and if the *** and the fornicators get those benefits then why bother? Right? Isn't that what the defense of marriage is all about?

[oleander8]

In 20 - 30 years all those states with laws against gay marriage are going to be revisiting those silly laws too.

[formrusmcsgt]

They should repeal the illegality of it, but in no way should they offer recognition of their noncommitment as they would of married couples.
Posted by MITYWHITY at 04:59 PM : Feb 27, 2007


Right. Folks that have been together for decades show absolutely no commitment. It all depends on a piece of paper, right MITY?

[mitywhity]

They should repeal the illegality of it, but in no way should they offer recognition of their noncommitment as they would of married couples.