Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   Concerned citizen wants an elected official who's been living in sin with an unmarried partner for eight years to be arrested for violating state cohabitation laws. This is not a repeat from 1916   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 140
    More: Florida, elected officials, City Attorney Lynn Whitfield, cohabitations, Hallandale Beach, soul mate, citizen wants  
•       •       •

15705 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2012 at 2:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-15 04:15:25 PM  
A sizable population of the electorate is comfortable resorting to extreme measures to discredit and invalidate their political opponents. Nothing shocking here
 
2012-10-15 04:17:06 PM  
www.keithlondon.com

Truly History's greatest monsters
 
2012-10-15 04:27:17 PM  
Sounds like a law that should be challenged.
 
2012-10-15 04:28:06 PM  
Is this his "soul mate"?

imageshack.us
 
2012-10-15 04:28:20 PM  
Umm, the lady complaining has the last name Takahashi so is either Japanese or married Japanese. Does she really want the laws from 100 years ago enforced?
 
2012-10-15 04:30:56 PM  

Diogenes: trippdogg: Not to herp the derp, but if the law is on the books and a citizen makes a complaint, isn't law enforcement obligated to pursue it?

If I were the target, I'd sue for malicious prosecution. Granted, that doesn't address the problem of the law still being on the books. But the law cannot be selectively enforced.

The larger problem is that we don't regularly review the law to see if it's still applicable, relevant, or just a good idea. It takes stupid situations like this to purge them.


I cannot find any confirmation of this, but I heard that Jesse Ventura once introduced a bill in Minnesota that would require that at every fourth(?) session, the legislature could pass no laws, but only repeal them.
 
2012-10-15 04:43:38 PM  
Let's just make up a bunch of laws, and then only enforce them when convenient. I'm sure that's the definition of a republic.

P.S. if the shoe was on the other foot, you best believe there would be some prosecuting going on.
 
2012-10-15 04:49:23 PM  
From the comments:

Independent/thinker at 8:23 AM October 15, 2012

Linda has too much time on her hands, Linda go volunteer doing something positive for society. Stay out of other peoples lives.


Could not have put it any better myself.
 
2012-10-15 04:58:25 PM  

Diogenes: Call me when you moral crusader nitwits press for the prosecution of Governor Mark Sanford, since infidelity is still illegal according to SC state law.


Good God...there goes half the legislature!
 
2012-10-15 04:58:57 PM  
I'm pretty sure that would violate  Lawrence v. Texas, actually. 

So it's a law that's literally unenforceable.
 
2012-10-15 05:06:15 PM  

Jument: There are a ton of stupid and/or obsolete laws on a books. It should be a priority of government to strike them.


That proposal has been in my profile here for years.

For every new law, you must get rid of one old one. Doesn't matter what it is, just get rid of one. The 2 are voted on as a pair..
 
2012-10-15 05:14:54 PM  

Need_MindBleach: I'm pretty sure that would violate  Lawrence v. Texas, actually. 

So it's a law that's literally unenforceable.

Lawrence v. Texas

is complicated. It definitely found that a law that criminalizes certain sexual behaviors between unmarried gay people is unconstitutional. The problem is that the rationale is unclear. Is that law unconstitutional because it denies equal protection of the laws to gay people? If so, then perhaps a sodomy law that applies to gays and straights equally is OK. Or is that law unconstitutional because it deprives people of their substantive due process (liberty interest) in engaging in consensual sexual behavior without government interference?
 
2012-10-15 05:18:57 PM  

ciberido: pute kisses like a man: if the concierge has fringes on his coat, then he is a concierge in admiralty and is the master of the inn of court. therefore, your declaration may be ratified by the captain of the vessel in admiralty and given the full force and weight of law of the commonwealth of the several united states in admiralty and the common law of england.

So, logically, if I ADD fringes to the concierge's coat, then I get duchess-ized!


this is a perfectly logical assessment, however, it has the requirement that the infringement occur under the auspices of a common law source of power. meaning, you must either be before a flag on a gold colored flagpole, or have the back of a united states federal treasure note dollar bill legal tender facing the concierge at ALL TIMES of the infringement.

then your duchy may be ratified by the inn of court in admiralty
 
2012-10-15 05:25:47 PM  

indylaw: Need_MindBleach: I'm pretty sure that would violate  Lawrence v. Texas, actually. 

So it's a law that's literally unenforceable.

Lawrence v. Texas is complicated. It definitely found that a law that criminalizes certain sexual behaviors between unmarried gay people is unconstitutional. The problem is that the rationale is unclear. Is that law unconstitutional because it denies equal protection of the laws to gay people? If so, then perhaps a sodomy law that applies to gays and straights equally is OK. Or is that law unconstitutional because it deprives people of their substantive due process (liberty interest) in engaging in consensual sexual behavior without government interference?


it's a right to privacy issue. whatever you do (as consenting adults) in the privacy of your bedroom enjoys protection from government involvement. the acts you do in the privacy of your bedroom are considered quite private, and this privacy is considered important. so, the government must satisfy a heightened scrutiny to get in your bedroom and tell you what to do.

living together and private consensual sex are issues that don't satisfy a heightened scrutiny

/ roughly. it's been a while since I did any real constitutional research on the issue.
 
2012-10-15 05:28:58 PM  
If she wants gays to stop living together without getting married, then maybe she should support gay marriage!
 
2012-10-15 05:31:09 PM  

HammerHeadSnark: Profedius: olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.

Not that I would have a problem with this even having to deal with all the women I would not want to see nude. I do have one question though. Wouldn't women be very cold? Maybe we could allow them to wear coats and clothes in the fall and winter times. I am just trying to think of the women and what is best for them.

If they'd stay in the kitchen making sammiches like they're 'sposed to they wouldn't git cold.

/That is all.


You do have a point there, but having them nude and stuck in the home just doesn't work for me...I mean them. I am not sure how it would be in every work place but my office would be a lot happier place for me to come to every week day if the ladies here were nude.
 
2012-10-15 05:48:12 PM  

Profedius: I am not sure how it would be in every work place but my office would be a lot happier place for me to come to every week day if the ladies here were nude.


I for one would do my damnedest to get transferred to sales & marketing.
 
2012-10-15 05:52:02 PM  

JesseL: Some puritanical harridan wouldn't shut up about it 100 years ago and it was either pass a law or have her killed.


mattarmstrongblog.files.wordpress.com

They chose... poorly.
 
2012-10-15 06:07:45 PM  

Wouldn't cohabitation effect college dorms that are co-ed? Even if the sleeping arrangements aren't co-ed the bathrooms are. ZOMG! SIN!! SATAN!!!

SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!
 
2012-10-15 06:10:28 PM  

pute kisses like a man: this is a perfectly logical assessment, however, it has the requirement that the infringement occur under the auspices of a common law source of power. meaning, you must either be before a flag on a gold colored flagpole, or have the back of a united states federal treasure note dollar bill legal tender facing the concierge at ALL TIMES of the infringement.


It's perfectly simple.
 
2012-10-15 06:13:17 PM  

lockheed1039: While I dnrtfa...I like the idea of shoving teh book of inane laws up an elected official's arses.

/in fact, I would just do this shiat out of spite.


Well, looks like we found Linda Takahashi's fark handle.
 
2012-10-15 06:46:46 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: TFA doesn't say that Londons partner is another man. Probably is a man though.
I wonder how the law against co-habitation defines co-habitation? I'd bet my beer money that co-habitaion is between a man and a woman. Because two men sharing a house together is just two bachelors sharing a house together. Unless they're homos. That's covered by another law entirely.


Unless it's in Key West.
 
2012-10-15 06:48:30 PM  
If I were that official, I would welcome the chance at spending a few hours in court getting that law overturned.
 
2012-10-15 07:02:07 PM  

AmbassadorBooze: This would give them standing to sue in court over the law, but old laws should be removed from the books anyways. I want to tie my pet alligator to a fire hydrant.


We let you do that and where does it stop? Platypus' tied to Firemen? Scorpions glued to schoolchildren!?!?
 
2012-10-15 07:06:03 PM  

pute kisses like a man: I would bet that this is a law that was functionally overturned/considered to be unconstitutional. the legislature never took it off the books, despite the fact that it cannot be enforced.


Nope.

Hyppy's link showed that someone was prosecuted under this law as recently as 2006.
 
2012-10-15 07:23:07 PM  

PhatChuckB: I cannot find any confirmation of this, but I heard that Jesse Ventura once introduced a bill in Minnesota that would require that at every fourth(?) session, the legislature could pass no laws, but only repeal them.


Seems easier just to automatically sunset all laws; you could amend the constitution to require that all laws be explicitly renewed every 5 years and that if they weren't they'd be automatically invalidated.

The administrative burden is pretty small; when there is widespread agreement (as there would be on many laws) you could put all the renewals together into a single act. You'd only have to re-debate laws that are not widely supported.

Of course that doesn't stop the legislature from repeatedly renewing stupid laws, but it at least relieves them of the political burden of removing them, and provides for a bit more accountability because they do have to vote the old laws up on a regular basis.
 
2012-10-15 08:18:15 PM  

Incog_Neeto: AmbassadorBooze: This would give them standing to sue in court over the law, but old laws should be removed from the books anyways. I want to tie my pet alligator to a fire hydrant.

We let you do that and where does it stop? Platypus' tied to Firemen? Scorpions glued to schoolchildren!?!?


Yay!
 
2012-10-15 08:25:14 PM  
Cases like this are why I think every jurisdiction should be allowed to have a predetermined, fixed number of laws on its books.

Say that number is 1000 and you have already reached it, but want to pass a new law, then you would have to revoke one of the previous laws.

For example, if you want to make it illegal to sell bananas in bunches greater than six, than first you have to revoke the law that makes it illegal to co-habitate.

You want to mandate that all gasoline will henceforth be dyed fuscia ? first you must revoke the law that makes it illegal to chew gum in the presence of clergy.

etc..., etc..., etc...

Forces the legislature to consider how necessary a potential new law really is and eliminates older, unenforced ones. Also makes it possible for most citizens to actually know all the laws of the land..
 
2012-10-15 09:33:29 PM  
Florida is becoming a toxic mix of crypto-fascist corporatism and snarling theocracy. But please do visit, the beaches are nice this time of year.
 
2012-10-15 09:40:58 PM  

indylaw: Need_MindBleach: I'm pretty sure that would violate  Lawrence v. Texas, actually. 

So it's a law that's literally unenforceable.

Lawrence v. Texas is complicated. It definitely found that a law that criminalizes certain sexual behaviors between unmarried gay people is unconstitutional. The problem is that the rationale is unclear. Is that law unconstitutional because it denies equal protection of the laws to gay people? If so, then perhaps a sodomy law that applies to gays and straights equally is OK. Or is that law unconstitutional because it deprives people of their substantive due process (liberty interest) in engaging in consensual sexual behavior without government interference?


According to Wikipedia, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion recognizing a 14th Amendment right to sexual privacy. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined, so there was a 5-vote majority on the same rationale. O'Connor concurred but rejected the sexual privacy rationale and asserted the law was unconstitutional by being discriminatory toward one group. Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented, because "homosexual agenda" (Scalia actually used that phrase). Thomas apparently was just embarrassed enough to point out, irrelevantly, that although he thinks anti-sodomy laws are constitutional, he thinks they're silly and if he was a legislator he would repeal them.
 
2012-10-15 09:49:10 PM  

olddeegee: Cythraul: I also want legislation against women wearing clothing that shows their ankles. Those sexy ankles, they're responsible for all the debauchery in the world.  There we go.


www.resurrection.it
Agrees
 
2012-10-15 10:42:05 PM  
Desuetude - a legal doctrine that under some circumstances (see details, especially three-prong Walz Test), a law becomes invalid if it has not been enforced for a long time
 
2012-10-15 11:12:25 PM  
It might not make sense to have a law against it, but people who cheat on their spouses are assholes. No need for a law- Karma usually gets 'em in the end.
 
2012-10-15 11:40:02 PM  
Link

If you read up on the guy, sounds like he's a real douche-tard. Apparently a concerned citizen is just using his own tactics against him.
 
2012-10-15 11:51:27 PM  
imageshack.us
Arrested for showing too much ankle in her day.

/you wouldn't believe
//how much incest porn i had to wade through
///before i gave up and gave you this image
 
2012-10-16 12:30:49 AM  
We persecute prosecute other people or violating stupid pointless laws.
 
2012-10-16 12:50:13 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Jument: There are a ton of stupid and/or obsolete laws on a books. It should be a priority of government to strike them.

Why would they want to give up any piece of their power, no matter how insignificant?


That seems to be the problem - "What if I cannot find another reason to arrest the dude down the road I don't like, cept for the fact he likes 'unnatural sex' acts?"
 
2012-10-16 09:50:48 AM  
Laws should expire automatically on a schedule related to the percentage of votes cast in their factor.

If a law passes by 60% majority, it should expire after 6 years.

If legislators were forced to constantly renew laws, we would have less laws, good laws, and be a better country for it.
 
2012-10-16 10:12:46 AM  
Let's put Linda Takahashi in an internment camp.
 
2012-10-16 11:55:38 AM  

fnordfocus: pute kisses like a man: I would bet that this is a law that was functionally overturned/considered to be unconstitutional. the legislature never took it off the books, despite the fact that it cannot be enforced.

Nope.

Hyppy's link showed that someone was prosecuted under this law as recently as 2006.


yeah, read that after I posted. I was surprised.
 
Displayed 40 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report