New York City judge argues the 'time has arrived' to legally recognize polyamory relationships

[MeganC]

Slippery slope: New York City judge argues the 'time has arrived' to legally recognize polyamory relationships

A recent decision in New York City's eviction court has come down squarely in favor of recognizing legal rights for polyamorous relationships. Trial court Judge Karen May Bacdayan concluded in the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same...

www.theblaze.com

Full title: Slippery slope: New York City judge argues the 'time has arrived' to legally recognize polyamory relationships

...
Bacdayan suggested that the plurality in Braschi only extended legal protections to same-sex couples with "normal familial characteristics" to avoid going "too far." But she questioned why the law should not go further.

“Why then," the judged asked, "except for the very real possibility of implicit majoritarian animus, is the limitation of two persons inserted into the definition of a family-like relationship for the purposes of receiving the same protections from eviction accorded to legally formalized or blood relationships?" Is ‘two’ a ‘code word’ for monogamy? Why does a person have to be committed to one other person in only certain prescribed ways in order to enjoy stability in housing after the departure of a loved one?”

She went on to say that "the Braschi court's referral to 'normal familial activities' reveals an intent to limit the application of noneviction protections to someone who can demonstrate a traditional marriage but for their sexual orientation." Though in 1989 the Braschi decision was called "a radical leap," Bacdayan ruled that ultimately it was "rooted in traditional ideology."

"However, what was 'normal' or 'nontraditional' in 1989 is not a barometer for what is normal or nontraditional now," Bacdayan wrote. "Indeed, the definition of 'family' has morphed considerably since 1989."

Citing the decriminalization of polygamy in Utah, the recognition of polyamorous domestic partners by Sommerville and Cambridge, Massachusetts, and laws that acknowledge a child can have more than two legal parents, Bacdayan said the "broadening recognition" of polyamorous relationships" "begs the question" of why a man who claims to have been involved in a same-sex throuple should not qualify for the legal protections of New York City's rent control laws "under a more inclusive interpretation of a family."

"In sum, the problem with Braschi and Obergefell is that they recognize only two-person relationships," the judge wrote. "Those decisions, while revolutionary, still adhered to the majoritarian, societal view that only two people can have a family-like relationship; that only people who are 'committed' in a way defined by certain traditional factors qualify for protection from 'one of the harshest decrees known to the law—eviction from one's home.'"

"Those decisions," she added, "open the door for consideration of other relational constructs; and, perhaps, the time has arrived."

 

[FollowingHim]

Note that the earlier law explicitly raised homosexual relationships to equivalence with heterosexual ones, and made a moral judgment on what was good and bad.

Why? What does morality have to do with rental contracts?

The only reason for this was to find an excuse to drag down heterosexual marriage to the same moral status as a gay relationship in the eyes of the world, through gradual and calculated changes.

This should never have even been under consideration. They could have just recognised all members of a household as having whatever legal protections exist as part of contract law, without making any moral judgments at all. But that was not the agenda.

They might do that now, but it's too late. The purpose was the decades of confusion that we've just been through. That was achieved successfully.

 

[Bartato]

Any opinion contrary to that of the Creator of Heaven and Earth is ultimately arbitrary and capricious. The Almighty recognizes monogynous and polygynous marriages between men and a women. He does not recognize anything else. A functional society will follow His lead.

 

[MemeFan]

Sign of decadence.

State literally putting its fingers into everything.

 

[paterfamilias]

"Polyamory"

 

[Patricia C]

Although I am not a fan of polyamory it does open the door for a rulling or judgement that will decriminalize or make a polygamist marriage legal. What others do in the privacy is none of my business. I would just like to live my life without fear that if i fall in love with an already married man that 1 i will have to hide and 2 that he could go to jail for being married to me as well. I want my husband should i be blessed with one to be protected.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I would just like to live my life without fear that if i fall in love with an already married man that 1 i will have to hide and 2 that he could go to jail for being married to me as well. I want my husband should i be blessed with one to be protected.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that two or more consenting adults can live together. Utah is the worst with laws against cohabitation, but most states aren't going to care as long as those involved are..... consenting adults.

 

[Patricia C]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that two or more consenting adults can live together. Utah is the worst with laws against cohabitation, but most states aren't going to care as long as those involved are..... consenting adults.

Well, that is good to know. I think i would still like to know Polygyny is decriminalized. And just like most men want to find a unicorn I want the church to acknowledge Polygyny as acceptable but that probably won't happen.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I understand your feelings @Patricia C
But honestly, if you find a family....that is probably all you'll need.
It would be nice if my sisterwife's family accepted her choice without first thinking she was brainwashed into joining some weird religious cult.....but it's not going to change her choice, or make her relationship less valid. Honestly church recognition doesn't really do a darn thing either. My hubby and I were told by a minister and his wife some 23 years ago we weren't really married, just shacked up. Good thing we didn't need their approval or validation.

In life there is always what we think we want....and then there is His will. I choose to trust He is working out the details of our lives.....and I can usually see ample evidence for that choice.

I could appreciate your enthusiasm too that you shared in the other thread.....and can relate to how few see the beauty, and morality of this family structure.

All that said, when you find someone that is the same kinda crazy.....it's pretty awesome!.....and very worth waiting for!

 

[Patricia C]

I understand your feelings @Patricia C
But honestly, if you find a family....that is probably all you'll need.
It would be nice if my sisterwife's family accepted her choice without first thinking she was brainwashed into joining some weird religious cult.....but it's not going to change her choice, or make her relationship less valid. Honestly church recognition doesn't really do a darn thing either. My hubby and I were told by a minister and his wife some 23 years ago we weren't really married, just shacked up. Good thing we didn't need their approval or validation.

In life there is always what we think we want....and then there is His will. I choose to trust He is working out the details of our lives.....and I can usually see ample evidence for that choice.

I could appreciate your enthusiasm too that you shared in the other thread.....and can relate to how few see the beauty, and morality of this family structure.

All that said, when you find someone that is the same kinda crazy.....it's pretty awesome!.....and very worth waiting for!

I have a friend i am talking to and we will see how it goes. We... His wife and I get along very well it feels very natural to me for us to be together. We will see in time. There are a lot of things to consider.