notes on government, sports and popular culture
over at Cone’s
on North Carolina’s now-unconstitutional cohabitation law. Guarino’s
getting his two cents’ worth in. I’d rush to his defense, but he does pretty good by himself.
Thing is, there’s a law forbidding just about every other personal choice in this country, with only more to come. Mind you, the TRC hasn’t come right out and said there ought to be a law requiring every Greensboro citizen to read the report, but they probably don't think it's a bad idea, either.
The fundamental debate over any law governing personal choice is over whom the law does or doesn’t impact. Motorcycle and seat belt laws are perfect examples. Opponents say it’s their business if they kill themselves; proponents argue that when opponents don’t finish the job, society’s stuck with the medical bills. (Although I’m sure Big Ben
picked up his tab.)
Guarino’s simply arguing that cohabitation does, in many cases, harm innocent third parties: kids. It’s a reasonable argument, and who in their right mind wouldn’t support any measure to protect kids, even if it technically infringes on the rights of the childless?
certainly would. I’ve never actually heard Dr. Laura advocate for cohabitation laws. She just preaches that cohabitation is the poorest personal choice a woman can make, especially when children are involved. It just comes naturally after taking hundreds and hundreds of calls from women wondering why their kids are messed up while they’re all shacked up with some strange dude.