Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Scott <catfather AT donpoo.net>]

On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 02:28  PM, Thomas Beckett wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > > If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and  
> > > register themselves as married then, according to state law, they  
> > > are legally married.
>
> That is not the law in North Carolina.  You can only get married in  
> this state with a valid marriage license issued by your county  
> Register of Deeds.  (It is a property transaction, after all.)

Hmm, I used to hear about a law stating that basically the state would  
recognize a couple as a married after living in the same house sharing  
expenses and what not for a period of seven years. (Common law  
marriage?) Was this also a casualty of mangled law interpretation or  
was it something that existed and has since been done away with?

> > Can anyone find a cite on this? I did some quick googling but failed  
> > to turn anything up other than what appear to be copy-n-paste  
> > references to dumblaws.com.
>
> You can look at NC Statutes here:
>
> http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl
>
> Chapter 14 is the criminal code, which contains most of those crackpot  
> legislation.  Article 26 - Offenses against Public Morality and  
> Decency - is especially juicy.
>
> http://www.ncleg.net/Statutes/GeneralStatutes/HTML/ByArticle/ 
> Chapter_14/Article_26.html

[snip]

> Getting back to the hotel room thing, this is what the statute  
> actually says:
>
> "Any man and woman found occupying the same bedroom in any
> hotel, public inn or boardinghouse for any immoral purpose, or
> any man and woman falsely registering as, or otherwise
> representing themselves to be, husband and wife in any hotel,
> public inn or boardinghouse, shall be deemed guilty of a Class 2
> misdemeanor."
>
> http://www.ncleg.net/Statutes/GeneralStatutes/HTML/BySection/ 
> Chapter_14/GS_14-186.html
>
> One wonders if the same Supreme Court ruling would also invalidate  
> this statute?

I more wonder how this clearly defined statement was twisted to into  
what was found on dumblaws.com. I had suspected that this wasn't  
accurately reported all though I do agree that the variation posted to  
dumblaws.com makes for more lively Internet lore.

--
Scott (aim: bluecame1)
blog: http://sackheads.org/~scottrus/blog/
Do not trifle with me, I have eaten 104 brains.