North Dakota Reviews Cohabitation Ban

Legislators Seek To Repeal Law That Considers Unmarried Men And Women Living Together A Sex Crime

(AP) 
"I think that things like this make us more of a joke, and we have a hard time with that anyway," said state Rep. Kathy Hawken, a Republican from Fargo. "It is just one more thing that makes us look provincial, and I don't think we really are."

Tom Freier, a spokesman for the North Dakota Family Alliance, which opposes Potter's bill, said he believed the existing law had important symbolic value.

"I think when we stand up for our principles and our standards, I think that's something to be admired, as opposed to being ridiculed," Freier said.

Speaking earlier, Jennifer Ring, executive director of the ACLU of the Dakotas, said the law has never been enforced, and she called it "unconstitutional and silly." The proposed new version also could be challenged as unconstitutional and is not needed, she said.

"Defrauding someone through a lie is already a crime," she said.

Census figures from 2000 show 23,000 people in North Dakota living in de facto relationships, Potter said. Census figures from that same year show 5.2 million people nationwide lived in an "unmarried partner household."

Rep. Louise "Weezie" Potter, a Grand Forks Democrat who is not related to Tracy Potter, said her elderly mother-in-law and longtime partner wanted to move from Florida to a senior home in Grand Forks a few years ago. They were not allowed to move in because they weren't married, Potter said.

Potter's mother-in-law, who now suffers from Alzheimer's disease, now lives alone in a seniors home in East Grand Forks, Minn. Potter's husband, Tom, a Presbyterian minister, said he and his family never objected to his 78-year-old mother living with her partner for many years.

"One of the reasons she and her companion didn't get married is because she was receiving veterans' benefits after she was widowed," Tom Potter said. "She would have lost them had she remarried."

Polries and Vetter met at a dance a dozen years ago. Both had divorced after more than 40 years of marriage. She has two children; Polries has seven, all of whom are married.

The couple said none of their children object to their living arrangement. "We're never going to get married — for what?" Vetter said. "You get married one year, and die the next."

[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.