[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Title:ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 1 --ARCHIVE
Notice:V1 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:REGENT::BROOMHEAD
Created:Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:873
Total number of notes:22329

267.0. "another old law to go?" by GOJIRA::PHILPOTT (Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott) Thu Apr 02 1987 11:05

Associated Press Thu  2-APR-1987 08:36                       Cohabitation-Law

2-APR-87

         State Senate to Vote on Repeal of Law Against Living Together

    BOSTON  (AP)  - The future of a state law that dates back more than 200 
    years and outlaws unmarried couples from living together rests  in  the 
    Massachusetts Senate.
   
    The state House of Representative repealed the 1784 cohabitation law on 
    Tuesday.  The repeal's sponsor, State Rep.  Marjorie Clapprood says she 
    expects the Senate to vote to repeal the law.
   
    She  suggested the repeal after Sharon selectmen cited the cohabitation 
    law as a reason for disciplining two police officers  of  the  opposite 
    sex who were living together.
   
    "This obviously, ludicrous, ancient, Neanderthal law still being on the 
    books was brought to my attention by the  very  embarrassing  political 
    manuevers in the town ...," Ms. Clapprood said.
   
    Officers  Linda  J.   Farris, Sharon's first female police officer, and 
    Lawrence Phaneuf, 40, were told at a selectmen meeting in October  that 
    they  could  be  guilty of adultery and cohabitation because they lived 
    together.

    "Overwhelmingly, people were outraged that the statute was  raised  200 
    years later in Sharon," the representative said.
   
    After  a  three-hour  meeting,  the  board  of selectmen determined the 
    officers could keep their jobs.  The officers, who married in November, 
    agreed  not  to  sue  to  the  town  for  violation  of civil rights or 
    discrimination.
   
    "If we took all the offenders of this law in the  state  to  court,  we 
    wouldn't  have  enough  room  in  the jails of the commonwealth to hold 
    them," Ms. Clapprood said.
   
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
267.1MANTIS::PAREThu Apr 02 1987 16:531
    stupid law anyway
267.2Virginia just as backward!NEWVAX::BOBBI brake for Wombats!Fri Apr 03 1987 12:1616
    Virginia is just as stupid!  They recently upheld the law and
    re-affirmed that it should be on the books! 
    
    There was a court case, I don't remember the specifics, but two
    people (male/female) were denied an apartment on the grounds that
    they were not married. They brought suit and lost, with the judge
    stating that what they were doing was illegal and therefore a valid
    reason for denial. There were additional statements about the sanctity
    of marriage and other neanderthal comments, which I don't remember,
    nor care too! There may have also been some comments about trying
    to enforce the law, but I think that was made by both sides.
    
    All I can say is that I am glad I don't live in Virginia (though
    Maryland might have the same law....who knows!)
�
    janet b.