Posted on 10/03/2022 8:54:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Come on, you didn’t really think there were any lines?
The whole point is to eliminate marriage and the family. The shoes will go on dropping until there’s nothing left. Nothing but the Left. Because that is the whole point of the exercise.
The case is W. 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill. It’s the usual mess of New York City’s absurd tenant protections with an alternative lifestyle twist.
The decision is yesterday’s West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, decided by New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan. Scott Anderson and Markyus O’Neill lived together in an apartment; Anderson was on the lease, and O’Neill was not. After Anderson died, O’Neill would have had the right to renew the lease if he were “a non-traditional family member,” but Anderson was married to Robert Romano. The apartment building company therefore argued that O’Neill was just a roommate, but the court concluded that there needed to be a hearing about whether Anderson, Romano, and O’Neill were actually in a polyamorous relationship:
As was repeatedly pointed out, there’s no reason to draw the line at two. If all that matters is love and everything else is a detail, why cavil at a number? Any number. It’s three now, but why not three thousand? Love is love, you know.
“In sum, the problem with Braschi and Obergefell is that they recognize only two-person relationships. 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, however, open the door for consideration of other relational constructs; and, perhaps, the time has arrived. As Justice John Roberts foretold in his Obergefell dissent:
“Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective ‘two’ in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not.
Since then we’ve eliminated the existence of the sexes. All that’s left is the detail of the number.
New York City’s eviction court – the venue of a landmark same-sex relationship decision long before Obergefell v Hodges – is now the source of a legal opinion that comes down clearly on the side of polyamorous unions.
The decision came in the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, decided by New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan, concluded that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal protection given to two-person relationships.
In June [2020], Somerville, Massachusetts, passed an ordinance allowing groups of three or more people who ‘consider themselves to be a family’ to be recognized as domestic partners. The neighboring town of Cambridge followed suit, passing a broader ordinance recognizing multi-partner relationships. The law has proceeded even more rapidly in recognizing that it is possible for a child to have more than two legal parents.”
“Why then,” posited the judge, “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?”
What’s the counterargument? There isn’t one. If nothing is sacred, why should a number be?
An obvious leap in incrementalism by the libtards. Next, pedophilia and beastiality.
This was pretty much inevitable legally once same sex marriage became legal.
Once it became about “consenting adults” then it was anything goes and it will go as far as there is to go.
Nobody remembers that the Republican Party was founded not just on the principal of abolition of slavery. The other pillar of the Republican Party platform was the abolition of polygamy. Which was a big issue back then, especially with the Mormon church practicing it.
Utah was not allowed admission to the Union until 1896, long after it had enough population to qualify. It was only when it (and the Mormon church) outlawed polygamy that Congress agreed to admitting it.
But, as a nation we weren’t as ‘enlightened’ then as we are today. Who are any of us to pass any kind of judgement on alternative lifestyles? Men can ‘become women’ just because they feel like it. It’s the women who object to pretend women who are to be shunned, not the pretend women.
We are living in crazy times and God help those who try and point that out.
The reason the Republicans felt as strongly about abolishing polygamy as they did about slavery is because people in the United States who had the opportunity to actually observe the practice, found that it led to conditions no better than slavery for the women. But what did they know, right?
Mormon Utah couldn’t become a State without disavowing polygamy, IIRC.
I was told that, according to the Bible, if a man had sex with a virgin, even if he raped her, they were married in the eyes of God. That the Old Testament (I forget which book) said he had to take her for his wife. You raped her, you bought her.
This fellow also adhered to the belief that a daughter was under the rule of her father, until she married. And that she could only marry a man of her father's choosing.
I don't think he practiced this belief. Only that he wished that modern society adhered to such "Biblical rules."
Was his name Josh Dugger?
Celebration in Colorado City tonight
Problem with polygamy is that it is far more difficult to work out who’s entitled to what in a ten way marriage than it is in a two-person marriage.
Even if you’re against it on principle, a civil partnership between a man and a woman, or two men, or two women, looks the same from an enforcement perspective - Two people must consent to enter into the contract, while the contract is in place they are totally equal under the law, it takes two to tango, and if one leaves the partnership thru a legal process, the partnership is ended.
You cannot enforce that with poly. It’s too complicated.
What happens if Wives 2 and 3 are okay with New Wife 9, but wives 4 and 5 veto the extension of the marriage and the other wives sit on the fence? What if the patriarch can just order the other wives to fall in line?
Liberaltarians ought to be in favor of this ruling, if they are at all consistent.
The case involved three gay guys.
Per the article:
“If all that matters is love and everything else is a detail, why cavil at a number? Any number. It’s three now, but why not three thousand? Love is love, you know.”
One wife at a time was more than enough! Even too much at times!
A lot of this cultural idiocy will lose its appeal once one of two things happen:
1. It becomes clear that it doesn’t work by any objective measure.
2. It works so well that people figure out how to take advantage of it and turn it into a racket that makes or saves them a lot of money.
This is pretty accurate for purposes of anthropological history. The beliefs are common among middle eastern tribal people. Arab Islam incorporates them into their cultural beliefs. The man is an idiot if he wishes to enforce on even the most conservative contemporary Christian culture. People like him are dangerous fools as they provide the left with ready made strawmen to ‘prove’ believing Christians are psychopathic fanatics.
More chaos, less order, end of clarity and certainty, all things the left is doing to Western civilization as they deconstruct it and us.
Nobody knows anything or controls anything, not even within our own homes and lives and family relationships because even they are ruled by and defined and administered by outside forces and agencies.
Defining marriage out of existence.
“ An obvious leap in incrementalism by the libtards. Next, pedophilia and beastiality.”
I may have to join PETA
It’s that bad
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.