Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - North Dakota state senator says he'll try to repeal cohabitation law.

North Dakota state senator says he'll try to repeal cohabitation law.

Dec 20, 2006 - 09:50:39 CST

By the Associated Press

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) -- Legislators are again being asked to do away with a state law that forbids unmarried couples to ``openly and notoriously'' live together as if they were married.

Freshman state Sen. Tracy Potter, D-Bismarck, said he will sponsor a bill in the 2007 Legislature to repeal the cohabitation law, which officials say is rarely enforced.

Efforts to repeal the law have failed in the last two sessions.

A violation of the law is a misdemeanor offense listed as a sex crime, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,000

Potter said that when he was campaigning this fall, even law enforcement officers told him the cohabitation law should be abolished.

``I just don't understand -- if nobody's going to enforce it, why do we have it on the books?'' he said. ``It clearly steps on the toes of freedom of association. We should be able to lead our lives the way we want to.''

Rep. Mary Ekstrom, D-Fargo, who sponsored the unsuccessful repeal efforts in 2003 and 2005, said she will be a co-sponsor on Potter's bill.

Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, said he does not believe the law prohibits heterosexual couples from living together and opposes a repeal. He believes the law only bars couples from living together in a way that fraudulently leads others to believe they are legally married. The state Supreme Court rejected that view in 2001.

Mathern said he would vote against a repeal again ``if it's the exact same bill and the exact same argument'' as before.

A North Carolina judge ruled in July that that state's 201-year-old cohabitation ban is unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to overturn it, said then that Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia had laws that bar cohabitation.

News > Update

Printer friendly version North Dakota state senator says he'll try to repeal cohabitation law.

Comments

Jerry wrote on Feb 1, 2007 5:36 PM:

" It is about time that the antiquated cohabitation law is removed from the books. The minorities believe in keeping it around and then they believe they should impose their beliefs on the rest of the population. In reality there are many reasons to live together. A brother and a sister may live together, a couple of elderly individuals may live together, college students live in a mixture of the sexes, and of course a man and a woman that may or may not love each other may live together. It is cheaper to live in one residence and it is also nice to have help when one is ill or just for companionship. Why should others insist we see it as a sin? I believe those against cohabitation need to open their minds and get with the times. I know of couples that have raised their children and now have grand children, yet they still have not tied the knot. “If it is not broke why fix it” they say. I was married for 20 years and have 2 children from that marriage. I then lived in a 6-year relationship with a women, bought property together, broke up and divided the property without attorneys playing the gouge game with us, by turning us on each other. I have been in a relationship for a year now and we plan on getting married in the future. We both have our own homes, but spend weekends and some days and nights together. I have relatives that have moved in with either a female/male companion after their spouses passed away. I do not see why others should try and dictate who our friends, companions, significant others, roommates, etc... are, that we choose to live with. It is none of their business. "

HA HA! wrote on Dec 21, 2006 3:42 PM:

" Interesting. How is it that two -homosexual- people (be they two males or two females) could technically post a sign on their front property saying "we are living in sin--notoriously and openly" and there's not a darn thing anyone could do about it, while a man and a woman can't legally do this? This is not a waste of time to get rid of this law. Instead, it is justly removing another vestige from an unjust, puritanical time that has nothing to do with reality. "

dp to Dan wrote on Dec 21, 2006 2:56 AM:

" The state of ND DOES NOT have a common law marriage, 7 years or not does not work in ND. "

rewrite the law wrote on Dec 20, 2006 10:56 PM:

" You see how it is with enacting laws? Better think darn hard about what you want written into the code. Good or bad, it looks like it's a lot easier writing it in than it is writing it out. "

Out with the Old wrote on Dec 20, 2006 6:46 PM:

" If people havn't realized yet we are in a society where cohabitation is a way of life and always will be. We have a different generation where we do live together before you get married, and sleep in the same bed and not 2 seperate ones. How can people make one of the biggest steps in life(marriage) without knowing wut it's like to live with that person. The law as been one of the most rediculous laws ever thought up and needs to get off the record forever. WAKE UP Legislators!!!!!!! "

silly old laws wrote on Dec 20, 2006 6:42 PM:

" No doubt this is one of the old laws from another time, this shouldn't take a lot of legistative time, get rid of it. "

Emily wrote on Dec 20, 2006 6:36 PM:

" I agree with Deb, money well spent to give North Dakota a better public image across the nation. This really ought not use much time or tax payer dollars, of which others are so concerned, as long as we have elected legislators with more than two functioning brain cells. "

hugo wrote on Dec 20, 2006 5:40 PM:

" we are some busy people, wow! really important work going on, stretching our tax dollars to the maximum. "

RS wrote on Dec 20, 2006 4:24 PM:

" Yes, Oracle CEO, this is how we decide laws: debate in the legislature. And, when over 30,000 citizens are in violation of it without anyone intending to do anything about it, it is a pretty good indication that the law should be overturned. It's now truly socially acceptable for couples to live together without that marriage in place. It seems almost everyone I know in my peer group moved in before their wedding. It doesn't mean they won't marry, they are just looking at practicalities. "

Ironic wrote on Dec 20, 2006 2:04 PM:

" I laugh because Potter ousted Margaret Sitte and she was the one who kept this law from getting overturned in the last session. I have posted before that it was one of the main reasons I would switch party lines and vote for a democrat. (I am not in her district though so a moot point) Landlords hide behind this law when discriminating against unmarried couples. Right or wrong, as the article notes the law would never withstand a court challenge and should be overturned. "

pokey wrote on Dec 20, 2006 1:44 PM:

" to rewrite - who do you this writes the legislation and does most of the lobbying for and against the legislation? Who do you think interprets any enacted legislation? "

rewrite the law wrote on Dec 20, 2006 1:28 PM:

" I rather like the idea of repealing some laws that are on the books. Make room for new ones! At least editing for clarity, going through them all from cover to cover. The Legislature is the way to go about it instead of having the supreme court do it from the bench. Just as long as lawyers aren't doing the proofreading. "

Oracle CEO wrote on Dec 20, 2006 1:19 PM:

" This is how we are going to determine our laws? If a law is rarely enforced, it might as well not be a law. What about our laws prohibiting incestual marriages? I have never heard of that one being enforced so lets strike it from the code. What we need to be debated is if this behavior is still considered unacceptable or immoral. "

Deb wrote on Dec 20, 2006 12:46 PM:

" Wasting tax payer time and money on a lame law that only furthers to make NDrs look like a bunch of back woods hicks to the rest of the country? It's a great use of time and money, if you ask me. Rep Mathern is wrong. This law needs to get off the books. If it is not enforceable, or is rarely enforced, there is no need for it. "

ND Resident wrote on Dec 20, 2006 10:54 AM:

" Here we go again, another legislator wasting taxpayer time and money. Vote him out. "

pokey wrote on Dec 20, 2006 10:54 AM:

" Sorry, there is no common law marriage in North Dakota. "

RS wrote on Dec 20, 2006 10:32 AM:

" Note to legislators: be practical. Dump the law. No one follows it. Mathern: it doesn't prohibit heterosexual couples from living together because it isn't ENFORCED, not because the law says otherwise. "

JEFF wrote on Dec 20, 2006 10:29 AM:

" That's pretty hard hitting stuff from the new senator. If he understood more, he'd probably be solving real issues. "

Dan wrote on Dec 20, 2006 10:03 AM:

" What a funny set of laws. Cohabitation is technically illegal, yet if a man and woman cohabitate for 7 years, it's considered a common law marriage. And is it still unlawful to go to bed with your boots on? "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.