I work as a municipal attorney, but it never crossed my mind that a simple residential zoning ordinance could have big moral consequences. But that’s apparently the case, based on a situation in Black Jack, Missouri.
On its face, the Black Jack ordinance is pretty innocuous. It prohibits more than three people from living together, unless they are related by marriage, blood, or adoption. I don’t know the reasons for the ordinance, but I suspect they’re rather mundane, like the elimination of group houses — cat houses, crack houses, frat houses — from peaceful neighborhoods.
But it also has another effect: It restricts the existence of unmarried co-habitators (historically speaking, known as relationships of concubinage). Two people can shack up and have one child, but if they have another, they violate the ordinance and must move out. Based on this ordinance, Black Jack recently denied some unmarrieds and their three children an occupancy permit. It also says it might start evicting other co-habitators.
I assume the ACLU will ride in soon, in an effort to save the free-sex day, and there’ll be a raging court battle.
I’m not optimistic about Black Jack’s chances of winning. If Black Jack says its ordinance is intended to keep disruptive living arrangements (e.g., frat houses) out of peaceful neighborhoods, the ACLU will say the ordinance should be drafted more narrowly, and if the court believes the right to privacy (sex) is a stake, it will probably agree with the ACLU. If Black Jack says it has a legitimate public interest in prohibiting mass concubinage and points to polygamy cases as precedent, the ACLU will take two tacks: (1) distinguish concubinage from polygamy; and (2) argue that Black Jack itself doesn’t really think concubinage is a societal problem, since it allows unmarrieds with one child to live together.
The ACLU will have a solid base of support in their efforts. When news about the Black Jack ordinance surfaced earlier this month, the secularists screamed “Theocracy!” They think the ordinance is an attempt to enforce traditional morality.
And maybe it is, but that doesn’t make Black Jack a theocracy. There’s a huge difference between (1) admitting religion into the public square as one player among many; and (2) making a religion the basis of the entire public square. It’s similar to the difference between advocating things like public assistance for the needy and advocating the imposition of Communism. Sure, there are a few common threads, but they’re hardly the same thing. Yet just as lunkheads in the twentieth century screamed “Commie!” whenever something political happened that they didn’t agree with, today lunkheads scream “Theocracy!” whenever the political dice don’t roll their way.
For the record, I like Black Jack’s ordinance, though I would prefer that it prohibited all concubinage relationships.
My reason is simple: I’d like to see what happens on a small playing field when traditional morality holds the ground.
The Church’s principle of subsidiarity says the smallest units of society should handle whatever problems they can, without interference/assistance from bigger units. The principle of subsidiarity has a lot of good consequences. It for instance preserves the small units of society, where cohesiveness, connectedness, and love bloom.
It also creates millions of sociological laboratories.
There’s an old saying: “A smart man learns from his mistakes. A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.”
The principle of subsidiarity gives wise men the chance to learn. By creating true diversity across the nation — in the families, in the towns, in the states — other families, towns, and states can look at the results of the different schemes. If the results are good, the others might emulate the schemes. If the results are bad, they won’t.
If Black Jack were to enact an ordinance that prohibits concubinage altogether, what would happen? Would the moneyed Bobos stay away because they disdain traditional morality, with the result that it would become a ghost town with a rotten economy? Or would traditionally-minded families move there, thus creating an environment of moral and economic stability?
I don’t know the answer, and I suspect I never will. There’s a strong element in our society that doesn’t want such diversity. It wants the uniformity of “No Religion, No Morality” across the nation. Although that same element favors diversity in other areas, when it comes to these two building blocks of society, it doesn’t want to give them room to function, even at the most local of levels, like the small town of Black Jack, Missouri.
© Copyright 2006 Catholic Exchange
Eric Scheske is an attorney, the Editor of The Daily Eudemon, a Contributing Editor of Godspy, and the former editor of Gilbert Magazine.
