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 ...
They also owe the same to Dr. Laura Schlessinger - she warned about all this crap in 1999 when Vermont legalized gay marriage.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygamy:
Definition of polygamy
1: marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time
And now it’s a woman’s fault?
Most men have never been for polygamy. Polygamy means that a few men at the top have harems, and many men at the bottom have nothing.
Solomon is said to have had 1,000 wives and concubines. That left 999 men without a woman.
In practice, more women favor polygamy than do men. Some women would rather share an Alpha male than settle for a Beta, even if she were to have the Beta all to herself.
A, B, and C get married. They are a union, one legal entity. C gets p.o.'d and files for divorce. The divorce is granted and the marriage is dissolved. Is B still married to A? Does C get half of A's assets and half of B's assets? How does that work out?
These idiots have no idea of the can of worms they are opening. Or maybe the family law attorneys do and are salivating.
‘Mixed race’ who apparently calls herself ‘Filipino-American’…
Gee, no one saw this coming.
What is the legal basis for “Civil Marriage”?
Is it written in the constitution ?
This will be a bridge too far for the government. Not on the basis of any ethics, but purely for the economic benefit of government. If multiple partners were allowed, families could effectively be perpetual, “robbing” the State of it’s ability to confiscate the wealth as there would always be one or more surviving spouses.
Polygamy ,,, next stop child marriage ,, last stop pedosexualism.
Deviant States of America.
And they wonder why putin says those awful things about our nation.
If only I had known multiple wives was an option when i was younger....
Since spouses can't be forced to testify against each other in court, an entire crime syndicate can all get married.
In the case in question, imagine an entire apartment all getting married together. The landlord would have to evict all of them to keep just one of them from returning.
Good luck to the insurance companies trying to sort out benefits. Good luck to employers too.
"So, who do you have on your insurance plan? Spouse, kids? "
"I have 500 spouses and they're all on my employee plan. It's nice to have a government job."
The government had no business getting into marriages and Family Law is an aberration.
Next marry you basketball
Next thing you know, Democrats will want to stop limiting marriage to people. There are plenty of people who would marry their dogs.
Lots of people love their animals. It’s just a matter of time....
SHE’S A BARD COLLEGE ALUM! FIGURES. EVEN THE MALES HAVE AN EXCESS OF ESTROGEN!
What if A, divorces only B, but remains married to C, and B, and C, want to remain married? And what if...ah, fahgedaboudit!
What’s wrong with a little...nah, I ain’t gonna say it!
Nope. Most woman want a faithful, monogamous man. They are NOT interested in being wife # anything except one.
This exactly what Justice Scalia predicted in his dissent in the Defence of Marriage act ruling by the Supreme Court back in 2013.
So, are we getting to the stage that a horse thief is defined as someone stole someone else’s wife?
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.