Opinion | The Golden Girls Would Violate Zoning Laws

These decisions make sense. The 1950s, when nearly 70 percent of children were raised in married-couple, male-breadwinner households, are long gone. (Today, only 22 percent of children have the same arrangement.) Similarly, nonmarital cohabitation and high housing prices have resulted in an unprecedented fluidity of family structure and living arrangements.

Moreover, there is no evidence that a traditional family and a true functional family differ in land-use effects. The fact that zoning codes allow an unlimited number of related people to live together (while limiting unrelated people) is not rational, either.

Justice Thurgood Marshall raised this point in his dissent in a 1974 case, Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, when he said that the definition of family being upheld by the court would allow a family of 12 in a small bungalow, but that “three elderly and retired persons could not occupy the large manor house next door.” In other words, the communal living arrangement in “The Golden Girls” would be a zoning violation. (Dorothy and Sophia were related, but Blanche and Rose were not.)

Four state courts are not 50 state courts, and federal courts have not definitively ruled on the matter. The Belle Terre case upheld a definition of family that excluded a group of six college students from living together, but that group of college students was not a functional family. A 1977 Supreme Court case, Moore v. City of East Cleveland, struck down a zoning code that prohibited a grandmother and her grandsons from living together in their home. But that decision applied only to “related” people in traditional relationships.

Presidential candidates should loosen these restrictive definitions. They could propose thoughtful federal statutes that articulate how local governments can regulate the family. There’s precedent for that: The Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act overrode local controls to improve access to wrongfully closed-off places. Candidates could also commit to appoint judges who understand this issue and take a broad view of family structure.

Championing this issue would promote progressive ideals. And it could unite both sides of the political aisle. Conservatives may come to realize that limited definitions of family erode property rights and freedom of association in the home.

As a zoning official, I’m usually the last person to advocate for federal intrusion into local decision-making. But the problems of housing inequality and segregation are too big for localities to tackle piecemeal. Every presidential candidate should incorporate into their housing plans a definition of family that better reflects how we choose to live today.

Sara C. Bronin (@sarabronin) is an architect and a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.