Posted on 10/01/2022 6:26:09 PM PDT by marshmallow
NEW YORK (LifeSiteNews) — In the latest vindication of conservative concerns about the legal precedent set by forced recognition of same-sex “marriage,” a New York judge ruled that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same legal protections as two-person unions.
As highlighted by Reason, on September 23 New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan handed down her decision in West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, which concerned roommates Markyus O’Neill, Scott Anderson, and Anderson’s “husband” Robert Romano. When Anderson died, the apartment company forbade O’Neill from renewing his lease because his name was not on it, and they did not recognize the two as any more than roommates.
The court determined that deciding the case would require determining whether or not they were truly in a polyamorous relationship. In Bacdayan’s opinion, she questioned at length the basis for limiting such recognized relationships to two people, citing support for her position in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that forced all 50 states to recognize same-sex “marriage.”
“Why then, 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?” the judge asked. “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? Why does the relationship have to be characterized by ‘exclusivity?’ Why is holding each other out to the community as a family a factor?”
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
A woman judge.
Women have fostered the entire growth of the pervert parade in this country, and they continue to do so.
Anthony Kennedy. The gift that keeps on giving.
A lot of people owe Rick Santorum a lot of apologies.
It goes back to women voters.
And administrstors. And shrinks. And advocates. And politicians.
Oh, the lawyers are salivating over this.
Remember how the liberals laughed at all of us who questioned homosexual marriage leading to polygamy, or group marriage?? In true Alinsky style, we were all ridiculed. It may happen that monogamy itself will be ruled to be discrimination.
Yes, indeed.
I remember a lot of people on social media making fun of people as “bat(excrement) crazy” for suggesting this would be coming next.
But, if same-sex “marriage” makes sense, this certainly does as well. Can’t claim it is any more illogical. Marriage means union of a husband and wife...so for the courts to rule that two men or two women can enter into this union and the total illogic such a ruling is, certainly multiple people can as well since reality and the meaning of words were already tossed out the window as a basis for which to base a legal opinion.
Couldn’t see that one coming , could we?
Like Robert Bork wrote, we’re slouching toward Gomorrah.
Big words, majoritarian animus...
It’s because the majority agreed that marriage WOULD consist of a dyad.
Words have specific meanings or they have no meaning.
It was stupid enough when the courts decided that queers could legally marry....now you get this crap.
Next: Woman wants to marry a jar of kosher dills and change her name to Vlasic. Court says why not...except for majoritarian animus, of course.
Men have been for polygamy for centuries.
And now it’s a woman’s fault?
BWAHAHAHHA!!!!!
Men, faithfully blame shifting since the Fall.
We are no longer slouching towards Gomorrah.
We are racing towards it at Warp Factor 8.
Polygamy doesn’t mean marriage.
Guys want to sleep with young, good looking, fertile women. No kidding.
Women are hypergamous and are concerned about securing male resources. Marriage has always been the social security for women. Not men.
Nice try.
Women have pushed the societal changes to make perversions acceptable. There is no male equivalent of a “fag hag”, as just one societal example.
More perversion.
I see a lotta ‘crimes of passion’ coming.
Here we go.
“If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), p. 224.
Even today, lineage and inheritance are much clearer in monogamous relationships.
-PJ
“Is there really any legal basis for limiting my power at all?”
Bong-huffing judge KAREN May Bacdayan . . .
Sure, KAREN, go on and support state-sanctioned adultery.
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.