Live in Sin and Lose your Job

They say that we in Canuckland are for more liberal than our American neighbours, but rarely do we see such blatant examples as the one that was in the news last week. 

Deborah Hobbs was hired as an emergency dispatcher in Pender County, North Carolina.  She’s 40 years old.  She lives with her boyfriend.  (Please, control yourselves.  The horror of it all:  a couple living in sin!)

When Sheriff Carson Smith found out about the abomination, he knew what to do.  He stepped in and immediately acted to end the scurrilous evil that was happening in his county.  He ordered Ms. Hobbs to marry the guy, move out of his house, or quit her job.  No harlots will be permitted to deprave his God-fearin’ workplace!

No, it’s not a joke.

In Ontario, the Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based on marital status.  Not so in North Carolina, it seems.  In fact, it is a CRIME for unmarried couples to live together in good ol’ NC.  Same thing in Virginia, West Virginia, Michigan, Florida, North Dakota and, of course, Mississippi.  I take it that the shotgun wedding is still a regular occurrence.

North Carolina’s law was passed in 1805 and is still on the books.  According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 36 people have been charged in NC since 1997 and there have been 7 convictions! 

The laws states that “if any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a class-two misdemeanor." 

The law of interpretation of statutes is important here.  You see, the offence is to “lewdly AND lasciviously associate, bed AND cohabit together”.  All the essential terms are conjunctive, meaning that you have to be both “lewd” AND “lascivious” and you must “associate” AND “bed” AND “cohabit”. 

In Canada, this would make for an interesting case.  “Lewd” is defined in dictionary.com as: “Preoccupied with sex and sexual desire; lustful” and “obscene; indecent”.  “Lascivious” is defined as:  “Given to or expressing lust; lecherous” and “exciting sexual desires; salacious”. 

What if you and your unmarried housemate are only mildly interested in sex (as opposed to “preoccupied”) and your sex is rather mundane (as opposed to “obscene”)?  Would a conviction still be obtained? 

Can you imagine a couple having to defend themselves against this charge by claiming that they are pretty boring in bed and sex does not preoccupy their minds, while the Crown would have to try to prove that what these people do in bed is lewd and lascivious?  Unless ALL sexual acts were considered by the court to be lewd and lascivious (not likely, as the words would have no meaning), then the courts would have to get into defining what is lewd and lascivious and what is just plain normal sex.  You might have people actually interested in jury duty, for a change!

In Canuckland, we debate homosexual marriage.  In the US of A, they’re still debating sex outside of marriage.  Yowzers!