saycricket
05-19-2006, 08:24 AM
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060518/D8HLSQ600.html
"The city council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction." ...
"The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children."
From what I can gather from this article, the existing law is that unmarried / unrelated couples cannot cohabit! LOL
The site looks maahhvelous Drew!!
"The city council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction." ...
"The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children."
From what I can gather from this article, the existing law is that unmarried / unrelated couples cannot cohabit! LOL
The site looks maahhvelous Drew!!