I disagree that the Manassas fact pattern mirrors Moore identically. The downstairs rentor and his girlfriend are not related and, insofar as the Manassas ordinance is concerned, neither is the nephew. Moore would control, IMO, with respect to the nephew, but not the rentor or his girlfriend. There Belle Terre would control given the distinction between the two controlling cases. Moore invalidates part B of the ordinance and perhaps extends part D beyond just dependent children to include a nephew, but the Chavez household still doesn't qualify under parts A, C or an extended D.

I disagree with this law as I believe family relations, even if they are not formalized by marriage, blood, adoption, etc, are among the most important of rights protected by the rights of association and privacy. Brennan's reasoning of such in Part II-A of his opinion in Roberts v US Jaycees is probably one of the best statements of this:

Family relationships, by their nature, involve deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs but also distinctively personal aspects of one's life. Among other things, therefore, they are distinguished by such attributes as relative smallness, a high degree of selectivity in decisions to begin and maintain the affiliation, and seclusion from others in critical aspects of the relationship.

That said, if I'm a lower court judge, I'm bound to apply both Moore and Belle Terre leaving the Chavez's still afoul of the law. As a lawmaker I'd definitely be voting against the law or for its repeal and as an appellate judge to strike down the law as unconstitutional (though a higher court could certainly reverse if they uphold the extent of the current precedents).

The instant ordinance discriminates on the basis of just such a personal lifestyle choice as to household companions. It permits any number of persons related by blood or marriage, be it two or twenty, to live in a single household, but it limits to two the number of unrelated persons bound by profession, love, friendship, religious or political affiliation, or mere economics who can occupy a single home. Belle Terre imposes upon those who deviate from the community norm in their choice of living companions significantly greater restrictions than are applied to residential groups who are related by blood or marriage, and compose the established order within the community. The village has, in effect, acted to fence out those individuals whose choice of lifestyle differs from that of its current residents.

Brennan also dissented on procedural grounds as in his view the case no longer met the constitutional threshold of being an actual controversy as the six students in the case were no longer leasing the house. Moore also was plurality court. It is probably better viewed like a case like Board of Regents v Bakke since there was a 4-(2)-1-4 split with Brennan's two vote concurrence and Stevens' concurrence serving as the middle. Stevens' view was that the ordinance constituted a taking since the ordinance did not have a "substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare."

In this Manassas instance, Stevens' comment that "Th[e] basic ['owner's right to decide how best to use his own property'] has always been limited by the law of nuisance which proscribes uses that impair the enjoyment of other property in the vicinity" may limit Moore's reach to allow this stupid law.

But they had no way of enforcing it, and it never became problem for us.

If this goes successfully unchecked, what's to stop some other city (mine) from redefining family so that two adults who are not blood relatives cannot live together (stare decisis be damned)? While I suppose that landlords and maybe some real estate professionals might oppose this, taken a few steps further, it's an easy way to go after same gender couples (not just immigrants), no?

And what's with the definition of "living *and* cooking together?" What if we eat out every night? Do we then not qualify under the rule? Growing up, my family (mom, dad, etc.) and I ate out every night, including Thanksgiving and Christmas – we wouldn't be "family" because of that? What if it's only sticking pre-made items in the microwave? Is that cooking? Making coffee? Opening up the cat food? Unreal.