Asking for a friend. /sarc
Posted on 03/21/2021 5:15:19 PM PDT by fwdude
Cambridge, Massachusetts has redefined domestic partnerships to give relationships involving more than two people the same rights as a married couple.
Home to Harvard University, Cambridge is the second city in the state, after its neighbor Sommerville, legally to recognize polyamory.
During a March 8 meeting, the Cambridge city council voted to redefine “domestic partnerships,” which previously had been defined as two unmarried people living together.
The new definition broadens the definition to “two or more persons” not related by blood who “are in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship” and “consider themselves to be a family.”
The council also removed a requirement that those in a domestic partnership must live together, as well as a provision that those in a domestic partnership must submit evidence to the city of their relationship as a family.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
I suppose then that polygamy will be legalized.
I remember the warnings in 2011 and marrying animals and family members is next.
Hey guys !
How’d you like to have TWO OLD LADIES ?? How bout Three ?
that’s what I thought !
Nasty Puritan descendants doing what they do. A lot of trouble comes from the Northeast.
If they keep us pre occupied with illegals, drugs, sedition, war, BLM, antifa, burning looting racism, they can continue their little thiefdoms
In 1862 Vermont Republican Congressman Justin Morrill authored the Anti-Bigamy Act which was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1879.
Even Mormons outlawed polygamy in the 1890, clearing the way for Utah's admission as a state in 1896.
So Utah usually votes Republican, though they did go for Wilson (1916), FDR (all four times), Truman (1948) and Lyndon Johnson (1964).
They can also be quirky in electing Democrats like Harry Reed and Republican Mitt Romney.
Anyway, my point is: the Republican Morrill Anti-Bigamy act of 1862 did not make Mormons permanently anti-Republican.
I have no problem if someone wants to take on two or more wives if they can afford it, both monetarily and without loss of sanity.
The technical argument about this is that marriage is a contract, with established rights that can be enforced. Multi-party marriages are going to get sticky. Personally, one wife is more than enough.
The argument that marriage is merely a contract between two people is a faulty one. That means incest can be justified since blood relatives can enter into contracts.
Marriage pulls many more people into it than just the ones who marry. It is essentially a contract with society.
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.