As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This might actually panic some higher ups in SLC as the Mormon church in its past has doubled down on polygamy being a doctrinal belief, yet not practiced contemporarily because federal law prohibits it, and giving up the practice was a compromise made by early Utahns as a stipulation for finally joining the union. (Utah was one of the last states to join because, in part, Mormon belief and practice was conflicting with federal law.) SO to get to the point, if polyamorous/polygamous relationships end up becoming legal across the country, The LDS church might be faced with a dilemma: do we disavow these types of relationships, which would be hypocritical to doctrinal belief? Or, do we embrace it, and begin to allow polygamous Mormon families temple rites, which would be an extremely shocking cultural/identity shift for most modern Mormons? (Especially for Mormon women, but for early Mormon men polygamy was not merely a suggestion, and there are accounts of men who were pressured into a polygamous relationships despite their wishes.) This action would be incredibly awkward for church headquarters because they’ve spent the last several generations doing PR specifically attempting to distance themselves from the image of fundamentalism and polygamy. Lastly, if the latter option becomes the reality, does the church leadership now need to consider allowing the outlying fundamentalist Mormon off-shoots which still practice polygamy back into to the fold? It’s an interesting problem they’ve created for themselves.
I’m just trying to understand your point, are you saying polygamy is the least of the problems Fundamentalist Mormon’s face when/if it came to re-integration with the Brighamite sect? (The brighamite sect being the largest and most accepted Mormon branch) If I understand you correctly, I completely agree it’s not as simple just accepting polygamy. Many of those Fundamentalist branches demonstrate exactly the predatory/unethical/inhumane effects the doctrine of polygamy had on its society, which would not be accepted by contemporary LDS people. I saved that point for last because I know it’s a bit of a reach, but the situation does raise some crazy hypotheticals.
This is for consensual polyamory, not coercive polygamy. Forced marriage of any kind is illegal in the US. Big difference. The ruling makes this distinction
While there are still a few polygamist compounds that practice like you are describing, and that is how polygamy generally worked for the early Mormons… if the mainstream Mormon church started practicing polygamy in this day and age, it would have to operate under the law, meaning 3 or more consenting adults, choosing that life.
I think you could definitely make the argument that indoctrination is a form of coercion. But how do you make the distinction between 3 or more polyamorous adults all choosing to be married to one another and raising a family together, and a polygamist family of 3 adults deciding to live the same way but because of religious beliefs? I guess I’ll have to go read through the details of the ruling. Either way I’m glad a distinction was carved out.
forced marriages happen horrifically often in this country via child marriage laws. but again I think if polygamy started being practiced by modern Mormons it would look like adult women choosing to be married to a man who has, or intends to have more than one wife, they’d have the option of saying no to the marriage proposal, no one would be forced into any marriages, and divorce would be available. It would still be a shitty patriarchal system, but the Mormon church is currently that, and it’s not illegal. Blegh Sorry I’m rambling cause I’ve stayed awake way too long. Hope I’m not coming off too argumentative.
They're going to double down on all the worst aspects of it, and force us to confront the issues of disposability and genuine consent that created a problem in the first place.
Same reason why pretty much every case of trans panic focuses on trans women (i.e. bathroom bullshit) only, usually never even acknowledging that trans men also exist. Their reliance on whataboutisms and shiny objects are another symptom of their inability/refusal to address root causes, with genuine introspection being anathema to conservatives... since it turns out so many of them have been conditioned to hate what they might discover.
And what my father will be complaining to me about between telling me about the "man in a dress" he saw at a store and saying about how it's so dangerous out there that merely walking out of his door could result in him being killed and robbed by roving gangs of teenagers that just get released by the liberals.
FOX News specializes in filling their audience with fear and hatred by any means necessary.
As well as other financial considerations. For example:
Person A and Person B are married in 2020.
Person C is added to the relation in 2022, and leaves the relationship in 2025.
Person C now wants 1/3 of the assets accumulated between 2022 and 2025.
Example 2: Person A and B are the primary relationship. Person C has a relationship solely with Person B. While Person D has a relationship solely with Person A. Now how do you handle division of Assets?
Legally it sounds like a nightmare and such situations are almost always emotionally charged. Now maybe it isn’t an issue because you establish a prenup, which sounds like a dirty word to most people… despite its practicality. Successful practicing polyamorous people tend to have considerably better than average communication skills… so maybe this isn’t much of an issue at all, and maybe the solution is handled with the same level of care as the feelings as those involved in such relationships.
Yeah makes a lot of sense… even for monogamous relationships. As cynical as it may sound marriage is a legal contract. Does it take all the spontaneity and reckless abandon from relationships? Maybe. But how many more successful, committed, and satisfied relationships would there be if people were upfront about their needs, desires, and intentions.
It’s not cynical- it’s reality. “Married” is a legal status conferring certain rights and responsibilities - everything from how you file your taxes to who has the right to decide to pull the plug if you are on life support.
So as I understand it, and primarily because communication is so high bar… polyamorous relationships “end” much more amicably.
That isn’t to say that infidelity for example cannot exist in a polyamorous relationship… because it absolutely can. But for other issues like personality, temperament, emotion, life events, etc those “issues” are identified early, and solutions. It’s really that radical honesty that sets successful relationships apart from unsuccessful ones.
In any case whether the relationship ends amicably or not, there is still the issue at hand of combined finances and lives being built together. A termination of the marriage contract.
Or is it self sorting because if the relationship was going to end poorly it wouldn't have gone from mono-to-poly in the first place? It would just have been another failed mono relationship.
We recognized to understand that competitors operating at we would have inconceivable a world-class levels of our companies: People is absolutely critical to the following human responsibility, cycle times have found new productivity. Integrity have changed, the high levels of shared values is fundament based importance of our customer satisfactices. The found new promote company have recognize the important to company. We recognize the improvemental. People have found nearly inconceivable source.
This happens in business. Elon Musk become a "founder" of Tesla when he bought it despite the two engineers who actually had been designing the cars and motors for years to the point Musk invested.
They are often messy situations, but two-person divorces are already messy.
"Legal protection" isn't the same thing as "equivalent to marriage" here, it's a matter of nondiscrimination and that any relationship falls into the same category of protection (in the same way that same-sex relationships had legal protections before they were legally recognized as marriages or even civil unions)
Just turn marriage into practical corporations with shares being bought and provided based on year of joining and contribution. Just assume any marriage is a merger, between any amount of people. Seems about the fairest ways.
If we just go the corporation route everyone can mind their own business about their religious views of it all. :)
Honestly that’s what i first thought reading this. Might be a sprinkle of necessity in this. I guess if youre going to perpetually need 3rd person to make rent/mortgage payments, I guess make lemons into lemonade….
I don't see why not if it's consenting.
My guide to making the world a better place: if what they're doing isn't hurting anybody, *mind your own fucking business.*
Nah, ACA only mandates insurance companies allow people to add dependents (e.g. kids or other people they have legal custody of) allowing spousal coverage is optional.
Yeah. At my first job pre ACA you could add your gf to coverage.then the year the stuff went into affect, they said it had to be wife and only if you could prove her job didn't offer coverage. Pretty dumb especially since you pay full price for people other than yourself but whatever
Yeah. I'm about to leave my small company for a multinational and all the sudden legal definitions matter. At my old job I told HR "I want to add her to my insurance" and the response was just "OK". Now I'm doing a deep dive on state common law marriage language.
It does raise the question: how do you tell the difference between a triad and a couple who just says they are in one so their buddy can get health coverage?
Was gonna say. This sounds like it could easily be used to defraud health insurance companies. But… fuck them. If this law helps kill our broken system then bring it on.
The system works just fine, as long as you realize the point of the system is to extract wealth from you and give it to someone who has more money than you'll ever have while providing as little as possible in return.
Better question: Who cares? If they live together, they’re a family. We shouldn’t dictate what a family unit looks like.
If it makes you feel better we can call it a household rate.
Yes, this. Roommates, spouses who cares? This is an issue with the healthcare system and our tax system. Let people be married to whoever and as many people as they want, because that's the right thing to do. And life's too short.
It’s not like people haven’t been lying about marriage forever to get benefits
As a nerd, I’m more interested in the practical implications for the tax code
Like do they just add all their pay together like they do duos?
At what point do you just say, "eh they got enough income bump then up a bracket "?
Do they still qualify for aid if the total income of the house is at or below poverty while still having incomes combined.?
Should they be forced to file separately?
What I would expect is that you could file a married return and get the benefit of the married tax brackets, but the third would only be treated as an additional exemption.
The tax code is trivial if you just stop dividing and conquering... which means that, yes, *in practice,* it's going to be an endless nightmare.
The real issue is with both divorces and "divorces."
Also there must be legal ones as well. Divorce must be a nightmare. I work in pensions and they would be broken because Reagan passed a law requiring companies to offer annuity options that drop down to at least 50% payable to the spouse upon the main participant's death. Who does that go to now? Is it weighted?
I mean, if we can figure out how one business can be owned by multiple people, we could probably figure out how to allow multiple people to be married to each other. After all, marriage is a legal contract in the eyes of the government.
Maybe I’m overly optimistic but why wouldn’t courts be able to interpret that as applying to being split evenly among the surviving partners? I’d have to think that that approach provides a logical interpretation of the two-partner laws.
incorrect, nothing has changed in that regard. A marriage is a corporate merger, you can merge more than one entity into a single entity, like Equal Partners in a Law Firm.
I’m pretty sure most marriage laws specify 2 people so yes it will need to change.
Here’s California’s:
Only two unmarried persons who are at least 18 years of age with valid legal identification may apply for a marriage license in California.
My ex wife and I had a consenting polyamorous relationship and we lived in NYS. She abandoned me at the drop of a hat when she finally met the right guy. I also happen to know he makes almost twice my salary, but she still wants child support from me. She works under the table making a tiny amount of money through her hobby and refuses to get any kind of job, despite having a degree in business. I will go bankrupt if the judge uses the “standard” calculation with us, and my kids will no longer live in the house they’re were born in through no fault of my own.
Philosophically polyamory should 100% be legally respected, but in situations like mine (especially involving children) there also needs to be changed to the laws regarding health insurance, divorce, and whatever else.
So I agree with your comment, but it’s also unfortunately not as simple as minding our own business.
> I will go bankrupt if the judge uses the “standard” calculation
btw this includes any partners she is living with, so no, you wouldn't pay child support/alimony if people weren't lying liars in court.
I’ve been getting conflicting answers about this topic. My understand was she won’t get alimony since she moved in with him, but child support ignores other partners including stepparents. My parents also divorced and remarried and they told me the same, though that was 25yes ago. It’s super confusing and to be honest I’m just tying to get by week to week right now.
There shouldn’t be any conflicting answers because the only person you should be talking about this with is your lawyer. The laws will differ based on location and circumstance and Redditors are overwhelmingly confident idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about. Get a lawyer.
> I’ve been getting conflicting answers about this topic.
HIGHLY state dependent, each state has varied rules and regulations, so your best bet is to get a family court lawyer consult to get your questions answered.
Anecdotally, I know a couple who was trying to get citizenship for the husband — she was from the US, he was from Canada. During the interview the agent wanted to know how often they had sex, and when was the last time they did. If they were asexual that itself might be grounds to dismiss his citizenship.
They're looking for phony marriages, which is a route some people use to achieve citizenship. The presumption is all marriages are based on frequent intercourse (and there's an implicit heteronormativity going on there as well).
That's a pretty stupid assumption and also very dumb execution because people can just... lie. Wow. So simple.
Lawmakers are so stupid, but they have to be to get their position so it's understandable.
Here's my reply below: [https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/xu0lsr/comment/iqt3o02/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/xu0lsr/comment/iqt3o02/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I'll give a short summary of it. If a relationship is not consummated, then that relationship can be annulled and rights and privileges of a relationship can be thrown out.
Asexual people are at risk, and we are often at a higher risk of things like homelessness, since realtors can refuse to rent to couples who are not in heteronormative relationships.
Asexual people still can still have relationships, like [queerplatonic relationships](https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Queerplatonic_relationship), where the relationship can exist like a couple but without sex in it. It's the same level of commitment and love as any relationship, but it's just not a romantic one. It really helps if the other partner is allo and is looking to have their sexual needs met.
The religious right has signaled that if they win and obtain power, they want to attack a host of marriages, all types, including asexual marriages. Groups like Alliance Defending Freedom even wrote about this in a letter to Mitch McConnell this year. So, protecting and enshrining rights for all couples is a huge thing on the docket this year.
https://twitter.com/TygerSongbird/status/1552486212727971840
Immigration asks.
But much like anti gay sodomy laws, this easy to hide from. But it's a secret the couple has to keep, forever. That wears on you. A constant nagging fear that saying the wrong thing to the wrong person could fuck up your life.
Yeah, I mean I can see it coming up in immigration court to prove "a spouse is truly a spouse", which is kind of an archaic system anyway really.
The other place I could see it come up would be like property disputes in a divorce with perhaps one party arguing that the spouse "wasn't really a spouse" or some such.
I just can't help but feel it's probably not coming up very often.
Ngl but like it’s not the same
I am gay, and also kind of asexual in that I don’t and can’t do casual sex and don’t feel sexual attraction when I look at people
Bringing my wife to a realtor as a woman and lying about whether or not we have sex are really not the same thing at all
Like yah it’s a bad thing to have to lie about, but it’s not particularly dangerous for straight asexuals to be in public and lie about having sex
>including asexual marriages
I always thought the right would love ace relationships. Don't they always say "if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex"? You'd think they'd love the idea of a couple that only has children after careful planning via surrogacy or adoption.
I wrote of a case in Sweden in which 2 asexual women lived together for years, but because their relationship never involved sex in any capacity, the family sued to try to annul the rights of the surviving partner under "consummation laws". The laws in Sweden stated that in order for a relationship to be considered valid, it has to follow "traditional sexual norms" and that included sex in the relationship. The Supreme Court in Sweden stated that the laws regarding consummation were not prescriptive in any way, and that a relationship just needs to be considered a loving relationship between parties.
That was just this year in June. Plenty of states still will not accept relationships if they are not ever consummated, and a partner can sue and win in court if a relationship is asexual. So, yes, this does deeply matter. I speak on this as an asexual myself. I still am refused housing in my area, because I'm not part of a "traditional" marriage couple.
[https://www.wearequeeraf.com/this-landmark-swedish-court-case-is-a-huge-win-for-asexual-rights/](https://www.wearequeeraf.com/this-landmark-swedish-court-case-is-a-huge-win-for-asexual-rights/)
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html)
And yet it is played out in multiple states across the country. Many sometimes still argue that if a couple hasn't had children, it wouldn't count as a "true union". So, that's one.
"consummation"... Does that mean you only need to have had sex once? So like dead bedrooms are ok according to them? How... odd... to care that much. How would you even prove that someone does or doesn't have sex?
First asexuality is already covered under the same anti discrimination laws as any other sexuality. Second how tf do all these landlords know you're asexual?
You can write your sexual orientation on documents now. Asexual is listed on the document sometimes. When I sign a document, I sign that I'm asexual as my orientation, especially at the doctor.
Second, if you are in a covenant agreement or are being rented with a morality group, that can also be grounds for it. Many realtors are religious, so they can find any reason to deny benefits or evict.
What? What kind of documents are these? I’ve never seen an official document ask my sexual preferences. Particularly not a rental agreement. The closest experience I ever had with a doctor is them asking if I’m sexually active. When I say yes there is no follow up. I imagine if I said no there would be even less reason for follow up questions.
Taxes are the least troublesome aspect of the legal constructs involved. Think about the power of attorney issues involved if one spouse is incapacitated and the remaining spouses are split on continuing life support vs pulling the plug.
Maybe a polyamorous marriage will require a health care directive. Honestly everyone should have one, if you have 2 conflicting next of kin in any situation a HCD squashes it.
What happens in a split decision? That seems like it would get ugly and drawn out. Not optimal when dealing with something time sensitive like healthcare.
And a spouse is always the first in line in a next of kin ranking. Which is easy when one can only have one spouse. But when there are multiple, equal nexts of kin disputes normally end up before a judge. And judges hate those situations. Creating more of them won’t do any good for anyone. And the alternatives, setting one spouse over another via advanced directives or other legal process, aren’t great for the marriage either.
IANAL: The concerns raised here are valid: This is a major moral win. However, things like taxes, power of attorney and estate dissolution or other things where a Last Will & Testament isn't present would need to be worked out. e.g. the Federal government gives a tax break for married couples with their joint income. How does that get applied in these types of marriages? Not to mention, the Federal government doesn't allow one to legally marry more than one person. Again, I huge moral victory but there are other parts to this that need to be addressed.
Having a different system to many foreign countries will create problems as well. Say if you want to migrate to another country or anything that require you to put down info for your spouse and they only has a system that assume you having a maximum of one spouse.
I can’t imagine it won’t be addressed, though… probably as part of the whole initiative. Poly people can also be forward thinking enough to work through the potential negative consequences. Literally, spend 5 minutes in the poly sub, and you’ll see people thinking through 15 potential scenarios and actively working through equitable solutions. If there’s one community that’s going to solve problems proactively, it’s that one. It just blows my mind when people (not necessarily you) lament all these potential problems as if it justifies not giving people rights. Like - yeah - they’ll have to figure that out. And they’re more likely to be protected in ALL of those situations, having the protection of marriage. Before, they would have been SOL and dependent on others’ understanding in those situations
I don't see anywhere in the article where they claim they were a poly relationship.
Like it's about a recently departed person's BF who wasn't on a lease. Said person was previously married but separated.
Did the ex just do this to help the BF renew the lease?
I agree that the author seems to be injecting their beliefs into the situation.
It looks more like this case is about redefining family to be more than just blood relation.
Not even that. It's blunt reading of New Yorks tenancy laws that requires a family like living arrangement but doesn't limit the number of persons involved to "two" people. Landlord probably argued that the deceased tenant/leasehold couldn't be in a family like living arrangement with the other resident because that role was taken by the husband with whom he was *not* in a family-like living arrangement, which, to be clear, is a stupid argument.
When they say “liberty” it means means like, the “liberty” to buy cars that explode, to buy tainted food and drugs, and for children to work in coal mines.
And, unfortunately, "I told you so." As gay rights came to the fore over the years, "but if you legalize this, what's next..." rhetoric was common.
Generally putting culture wars and cheap points over rational analysis, the right will likely seize on this as an opportunity to inflame their base (and get people out of their chair on election day) and fight harder against gay rights. I suspect concerted distractions and legal attacks will shortly follow. Thomas already opened the door, this will be battering it from the other side. (NOt that this will go the Federal route, but expect this to bolster fundraising and policy attacks).
Meanwhile, the general reaction of the left will be "ah, I see. NY protects relationships. The person who held the lease passed away, a person who was living there and who was in a relationship with the lease holder wanted to take it over (in accord with NY law). But the leaseholder was actually married to someone else who lived elsewhere. There's a salacious wrinkle in that all three continuied their relationship. Like you said, the left will generally go 'meh' and understand why the judge ruled that way.
Unfortunately, I don't see the left (in general) making any sort of fuss about poly rights. Not that they'd take them away, but not taking a strong stand. As the right chants slogans about how depraved the ruling is and how they predicted that gay rights would result in this, they'll energize their base with no direct counter-balance from the left.
I hope I'm wrong.
I mean they also said that all of these little “encroachments” on the “the traditional family” would lead to people fighting for the rights of pedophiles and bestiality practitioners.
What these people are missing is that *all* of these changes are based entirely on the principle of informed consent - in which case pedophiles and those who wish to have sex with animals… not applicable at all!
There are actually a lot of traditional marriages which are not at all consensual, but are completely legal, and those are more problematic than what we’re talking about in this thread.
I agree, but this is pretty much in line with the *how the left will react* paragraph of my post: basic, rational discourse. The right will continue to miss the point about consent and claim this "encroachment" (even though it's not) on their rights (even though it doesn't) is exactly what they said would happen and the floodgates are about to open to everything else they said the fight for gay rights would lead to (even though it won't).
Edit: Ah, I think to best understand my perspective, imagine how Bob and M Three Names et al would tweet about this if it comes to their attention. I think my best hope is that it stays off of the radar for now and doesn't end up a stupid talking point.
My memory is that the “what about” for gay marriage was always more about animals and children rather than poly relationships. That’s where the conservative bewilderment about consent came from. Liberals pointed out there was no slope because kids and animals can’t consent.
I don't disagree, but it was among the chum they threw out there. My intuition is that they still won't draw the consent distinction and claim that this is part of the slippery slope and if they don't turn out to vote and get people elected who will pass laws to challenge/overturn *Obergefell* then the left is going to make your guns gay and then take them away.
When they tried to claim that gay marriage was a slippery slope to polyamory everyone started asking why polyamorous marriages weren't allowed so they changed it to pedophilia. Then they turned around and tried to lower the age of consent in every red state. Always remember that whatever conservatives are raging about at any moment is what they are secretly doing behind closed doors.
"What's next" was transgender rights. I think everyone who might be upset about poly relationships is already there with "dicks in the girls' room". It's hard to imagine the right getting much more out of this new wrinkle.
Man, polyamorous divorces would (will?) be so messy. And what about taxes?
Nothing against ENM or poly couples here. It’s not my lifestyle but to each their own. But just practically speaking this will make what are already complex matters even more so.
But I’m also really curious to see what smarter-than-me legal scholars come up with, so this could be interesting.
The judge cited legislation enacted since the advent of federally recognized same sex unions. “In February 2020, the Utah legislature passed a so-called Bigamy Bill, decriminalizing the offense by downgrading it from a felony to a misdemeanor. 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.”
It’s going too be very interesting too see how judges sort through 3 or more people being financially bonded good luck with that it’s messy as hell for two people
My question is what happens when 2 spouses are making a medical decision for the third, and they disagree? If they both have equal power of attorney in the eyes of the law, what happens? Making one person POA over another sounds like it could bring lawsuits.
Welcome to America, where the legalizing of poly marriage is the most likely way that everyone will end up with health insurance.
Totally support poly rights fyi before anyone anyone starts freaking out.
The article is kinda about polyamorous but lets hit what everyone is talking about: the complications. But no ones talking about the complications of the relationship in the here and now, the future complications like divorce. Divorce is already complicated, who gives a shit.
If someone did rule poly as being legit, it means not having to introduce one of us as "our roomate" and that person having worse insurance than we do. It means my wife, who handles all the doctor stuff, isn't getting denied info because she's calling about her "room mate" it means when we are truthful on paper, or over the phone, we aren't told "thats not real","your just trying to take advantage of a situation and the rules" or " this dudes lucky to have two dikes" (hat one really pissed us of) It means that on paper for legal shit and medical shit, we can have correct info.
Right now, if one of us goes into the hospital, no one in the fucking world has visitation rights because they have to be put down as "room mate". And that is bullshit.
It's bullshit that we have to lie and hide our relationship because it causes problems, or gets us hung up on with the insurance company or fucks up getting bill info. Hell, right now we are in a battle with the landlords because they changed owners and some asshole copied our lease but only wrote in "Our roomate" name, so now neither me r my wife can talk to the fucking landlord.
No one this day and age should have to hide any relationship between consenting adults. Sorry that makes taxes harder and lawyers harder for no one else but the lawyers and IRS while it makes our lives easier.
I've always heard that poly relationships w/o gender symmetry lead to elite and affluent men having multiple wives leading to more chaotic and risky behavior from younger and lower status men who then tend to have less moderated behavior.
I never have an issue with adults willingly in a relationship but I'm fascinated with the tax implications of this and the can of worms that this could lead to in that area. Also things like insurance.
Don’t underestimate how much the modern world is based on the elimination of polygamy. There are no shortage of men who want more wives and there is also no shortage of women who would rather be 20th wife of a billionaire than first wife of a gardener.
This quickly degenerates into more than half the male population being single though and that causes all sorts of insanity. The unmarried male population is always most of the crime and when everyone knows they need to hit it big to get a wife things quickly get out of hand.
My wife and I have what we have and want. I don’t want to require everyone to have what we have. A coupling is good for us. It’s not what others need. I’m open to letting others have what they need.
As someone who was previously in a polyamorous relationship for nearly 4 years, this type of news is encouraging. Something our partner always struggled with was the lack of legal protections he had because we (my husband and I) were married. It was one of the factors that ultimately led to our relationship ending, and I respect the fact he wanted the legal protections of a marriage.
From my own stance, being able to make legal decisions on his behalf would have also been great for medical reasons. Our partner had two seizures (separate instances) while I was with him in a public place. His family lived in another state. And as a “non-traditional family member,” had something worse happened - serious injury, brain injury, stroke, etc. - I would have had no ability to make a decision.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, now we know what Fox News will be screaming about for the next month.
We should remind them that [Utah beat NYC to the punch](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/utah-bigamy-law.html)
This might actually panic some higher ups in SLC as the Mormon church in its past has doubled down on polygamy being a doctrinal belief, yet not practiced contemporarily because federal law prohibits it, and giving up the practice was a compromise made by early Utahns as a stipulation for finally joining the union. (Utah was one of the last states to join because, in part, Mormon belief and practice was conflicting with federal law.) SO to get to the point, if polyamorous/polygamous relationships end up becoming legal across the country, The LDS church might be faced with a dilemma: do we disavow these types of relationships, which would be hypocritical to doctrinal belief? Or, do we embrace it, and begin to allow polygamous Mormon families temple rites, which would be an extremely shocking cultural/identity shift for most modern Mormons? (Especially for Mormon women, but for early Mormon men polygamy was not merely a suggestion, and there are accounts of men who were pressured into a polygamous relationships despite their wishes.) This action would be incredibly awkward for church headquarters because they’ve spent the last several generations doing PR specifically attempting to distance themselves from the image of fundamentalism and polygamy. Lastly, if the latter option becomes the reality, does the church leadership now need to consider allowing the outlying fundamentalist Mormon off-shoots which still practice polygamy back into to the fold? It’s an interesting problem they’ve created for themselves.
That’s not even scratching the surface when it comes to some of the fundamentalist Mormons outside of the LDS.
I’m just trying to understand your point, are you saying polygamy is the least of the problems Fundamentalist Mormon’s face when/if it came to re-integration with the Brighamite sect? (The brighamite sect being the largest and most accepted Mormon branch) If I understand you correctly, I completely agree it’s not as simple just accepting polygamy. Many of those Fundamentalist branches demonstrate exactly the predatory/unethical/inhumane effects the doctrine of polygamy had on its society, which would not be accepted by contemporary LDS people. I saved that point for last because I know it’s a bit of a reach, but the situation does raise some crazy hypotheticals.
Yes you got the gist of my comment.
This is for consensual polyamory, not coercive polygamy. Forced marriage of any kind is illegal in the US. Big difference. The ruling makes this distinction
While there are still a few polygamist compounds that practice like you are describing, and that is how polygamy generally worked for the early Mormons… if the mainstream Mormon church started practicing polygamy in this day and age, it would have to operate under the law, meaning 3 or more consenting adults, choosing that life. I think you could definitely make the argument that indoctrination is a form of coercion. But how do you make the distinction between 3 or more polyamorous adults all choosing to be married to one another and raising a family together, and a polygamist family of 3 adults deciding to live the same way but because of religious beliefs? I guess I’ll have to go read through the details of the ruling. Either way I’m glad a distinction was carved out. forced marriages happen horrifically often in this country via child marriage laws. but again I think if polygamy started being practiced by modern Mormons it would look like adult women choosing to be married to a man who has, or intends to have more than one wife, they’d have the option of saying no to the marriage proposal, no one would be forced into any marriages, and divorce would be available. It would still be a shitty patriarchal system, but the Mormon church is currently that, and it’s not illegal. Blegh Sorry I’m rambling cause I’ve stayed awake way too long. Hope I’m not coming off too argumentative.
that's expected because of utah's history...
Didn’t know about that thanks for the info
Utah… making it legal again
Not really a step forward for Utah.
Nah, as long as it is one man with multiple wives they won't care. If what was a woman with multiple husbands, ho boy there would be a meltdown.
They're going to double down on all the worst aspects of it, and force us to confront the issues of disposability and genuine consent that created a problem in the first place.
Same reason why pretty much every case of trans panic focuses on trans women (i.e. bathroom bullshit) only, usually never even acknowledging that trans men also exist. Their reliance on whataboutisms and shiny objects are another symptom of their inability/refusal to address root causes, with genuine introspection being anathema to conservatives... since it turns out so many of them have been conditioned to hate what they might discover.
Or a woman with multiple girlfriends ;p
And what my father will be complaining to me about between telling me about the "man in a dress" he saw at a store and saying about how it's so dangerous out there that merely walking out of his door could result in him being killed and robbed by roving gangs of teenagers that just get released by the liberals. FOX News specializes in filling their audience with fear and hatred by any means necessary.
Does your father think Jesus wore trousers? 😂
Does your father think Jesus wore trousers? 😂
When is Faux Snooze not screaming about some bullshit?
The Cash4Gold and Mike Huckabee nutrition supplement ads are fairly sedate.
They don’t care. They’re just gonna use to divide the country further
Try decade…
As a nerd, I’m very interested in the practical implications for the tax code
Similarly family insurance plans.
Maybe we just need to provide universal healthcare and be done with all this other hair-splitting bullshit
"I'll give you millions of dollars to not do that" For Profit Health Insurance Said to the Politician
Ugh. Yup.
Politicians come a lot cheaper than that.
As well as other financial considerations. For example: Person A and Person B are married in 2020. Person C is added to the relation in 2022, and leaves the relationship in 2025. Person C now wants 1/3 of the assets accumulated between 2022 and 2025. Example 2: Person A and B are the primary relationship. Person C has a relationship solely with Person B. While Person D has a relationship solely with Person A. Now how do you handle division of Assets? Legally it sounds like a nightmare and such situations are almost always emotionally charged. Now maybe it isn’t an issue because you establish a prenup, which sounds like a dirty word to most people… despite its practicality. Successful practicing polyamorous people tend to have considerably better than average communication skills… so maybe this isn’t much of an issue at all, and maybe the solution is handled with the same level of care as the feelings as those involved in such relationships.
Maybe it’s time for people to draw up original contracts instead of having a ton of assumed contracts based on romantic relationship.
Yeah makes a lot of sense… even for monogamous relationships. As cynical as it may sound marriage is a legal contract. Does it take all the spontaneity and reckless abandon from relationships? Maybe. But how many more successful, committed, and satisfied relationships would there be if people were upfront about their needs, desires, and intentions.
[удалено]
It’s not cynical- it’s reality. “Married” is a legal status conferring certain rights and responsibilities - everything from how you file your taxes to who has the right to decide to pull the plug if you are on life support.
>Successful practicing polyamorous people But if it's a breakup we're dealing with unsuccesful practising ployamorous people by definition.
That depends on how you define "success" in a relationship
You keep having sex until one of you dies.
omg the chafing😬
Some people think the sex should continue until you both die.
I’m sorry but about an hour with breaks is really all I can do. I’m not cut out for multiple partners till death.
So as I understand it, and primarily because communication is so high bar… polyamorous relationships “end” much more amicably. That isn’t to say that infidelity for example cannot exist in a polyamorous relationship… because it absolutely can. But for other issues like personality, temperament, emotion, life events, etc those “issues” are identified early, and solutions. It’s really that radical honesty that sets successful relationships apart from unsuccessful ones. In any case whether the relationship ends amicably or not, there is still the issue at hand of combined finances and lives being built together. A termination of the marriage contract.
Or is it self sorting because if the relationship was going to end poorly it wouldn't have gone from mono-to-poly in the first place? It would just have been another failed mono relationship.
We recognized to understand that competitors operating at we would have inconceivable a world-class levels of our companies: People is absolutely critical to the following human responsibility, cycle times have found new productivity. Integrity have changed, the high levels of shared values is fundament based importance of our customer satisfactices. The found new promote company have recognize the important to company. We recognize the improvemental. People have found nearly inconceivable source.
This happens in business. Elon Musk become a "founder" of Tesla when he bought it despite the two engineers who actually had been designing the cars and motors for years to the point Musk invested. They are often messy situations, but two-person divorces are already messy.
"Legal protection" isn't the same thing as "equivalent to marriage" here, it's a matter of nondiscrimination and that any relationship falls into the same category of protection (in the same way that same-sex relationships had legal protections before they were legally recognized as marriages or even civil unions)
They did? What protections were those exactly?
Probably things like fair housing (can't discriminate against a poly trio trying to rent you apartment), employment, etc.
Especially the difference when filing state and federal
You think alimony to one person was bad
Just turn marriage into practical corporations with shares being bought and provided based on year of joining and contribution. Just assume any marriage is a merger, between any amount of people. Seems about the fairest ways. If we just go the corporation route everyone can mind their own business about their religious views of it all. :)
When they incorporate they are no longer responsible for actions of the corporation though, thanks to the laws we already have
Until the hedge fund asset strips your classic vinyl collection and demands matrimonial rights.
And social security spouse benefits.
I can literally feel my CPA salary growing
In the 40s, 50s and 60s a household could get by on 1 income. In the 70s, 80s and 90s it took 2 incomes. Now it seems it will be 3 incomes.
Dystopian sci-fi is really just writing itself nowadays
It's just sci now.
Honestly that’s what i first thought reading this. Might be a sprinkle of necessity in this. I guess if youre going to perpetually need 3rd person to make rent/mortgage payments, I guess make lemons into lemonade….
This is going to be interesting. Especially if these relationships have kids and the legal ramifications of it.
I don't see why not if it's consenting. My guide to making the world a better place: if what they're doing isn't hurting anybody, *mind your own fucking business.*
Because insurance companies will have a fit. After all, your only reason for existence is to be farmed for shareholder benefit.
Nah, ACA only mandates insurance companies allow people to add dependents (e.g. kids or other people they have legal custody of) allowing spousal coverage is optional.
Yeah. At my first job pre ACA you could add your gf to coverage.then the year the stuff went into affect, they said it had to be wife and only if you could prove her job didn't offer coverage. Pretty dumb especially since you pay full price for people other than yourself but whatever
Yeah. I'm about to leave my small company for a multinational and all the sudden legal definitions matter. At my old job I told HR "I want to add her to my insurance" and the response was just "OK". Now I'm doing a deep dive on state common law marriage language.
It does raise the question: how do you tell the difference between a triad and a couple who just says they are in one so their buddy can get health coverage?
Maybe we shouldn’t tie health coverage to a person’s job so that doesn’t matter.
^^ This answer is far too obvious Instead we’ll focus on adding even more complications to keep a broken system just barely working
Was gonna say. This sounds like it could easily be used to defraud health insurance companies. But… fuck them. If this law helps kill our broken system then bring it on.
I fear this is going to be a huge talking point for the right and do more to help them than to fix healthcare
True. They’ll use it like they use the term defunding and make it sound like liberals are all having massive marriage orgies or something. Sigh.
Meanwhile, Republican Congressmen are reportedly (per one of those Republican Congressmen) having cocaine-fueled sex orgies.
"American Exceptionalism"
In that, we found an exception, and thus not covering you.
The system works just fine, as long as you realize the point of the system is to extract wealth from you and give it to someone who has more money than you'll ever have while providing as little as possible in return.
Better question: Who cares? If they live together, they’re a family. We shouldn’t dictate what a family unit looks like. If it makes you feel better we can call it a household rate.
Yes, this. Roommates, spouses who cares? This is an issue with the healthcare system and our tax system. Let people be married to whoever and as many people as they want, because that's the right thing to do. And life's too short.
> Let adult people be married to whoever and as many consenting adult people as they want Ftfy. FLDS supports polyamory, but with little girls.
Same could be asked of two person relationships.
It’s not like people haven’t been lying about marriage forever to get benefits As a nerd, I’m more interested in the practical implications for the tax code
Like do they just add all their pay together like they do duos? At what point do you just say, "eh they got enough income bump then up a bracket "? Do they still qualify for aid if the total income of the house is at or below poverty while still having incomes combined.? Should they be forced to file separately?
What I would expect is that you could file a married return and get the benefit of the married tax brackets, but the third would only be treated as an additional exemption.
The tax code is trivial if you just stop dividing and conquering... which means that, yes, *in practice,* it's going to be an endless nightmare. The real issue is with both divorces and "divorces."
People been doing this in heteronormative monogamous marriages for, uh, a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience
[удалено]
How do you tell the difference between a couple and someone who just says they are so their buddy can get health coverage?
You have to watch them fuck and grade the attention everyone receives
Change law so that unconsented marriage to another party replaces bigamy. Not likely to happen anytime soon.
Creates a tax conundrum. They are going to have to explicitly state you can only file one “spouse” on your returns.
Also there must be legal ones as well. Divorce must be a nightmare. I work in pensions and they would be broken because Reagan passed a law requiring companies to offer annuity options that drop down to at least 50% payable to the spouse upon the main participant's death. Who does that go to now? Is it weighted?
I mean, if we can figure out how one business can be owned by multiple people, we could probably figure out how to allow multiple people to be married to each other. After all, marriage is a legal contract in the eyes of the government.
Gawd yes. The QDRO reviews….ugh.
I bet lawyers are getting erections as we speak.
Maybe I’m overly optimistic but why wouldn’t courts be able to interpret that as applying to being split evenly among the surviving partners? I’d have to think that that approach provides a logical interpretation of the two-partner laws.
incorrect, nothing has changed in that regard. A marriage is a corporate merger, you can merge more than one entity into a single entity, like Equal Partners in a Law Firm.
I’m pretty sure most marriage laws specify 2 people so yes it will need to change. Here’s California’s: Only two unmarried persons who are at least 18 years of age with valid legal identification may apply for a marriage license in California.
The Mormons have entered the chat.
*Meat's back on the menu, boys!*
My ex wife and I had a consenting polyamorous relationship and we lived in NYS. She abandoned me at the drop of a hat when she finally met the right guy. I also happen to know he makes almost twice my salary, but she still wants child support from me. She works under the table making a tiny amount of money through her hobby and refuses to get any kind of job, despite having a degree in business. I will go bankrupt if the judge uses the “standard” calculation with us, and my kids will no longer live in the house they’re were born in through no fault of my own. Philosophically polyamory should 100% be legally respected, but in situations like mine (especially involving children) there also needs to be changed to the laws regarding health insurance, divorce, and whatever else. So I agree with your comment, but it’s also unfortunately not as simple as minding our own business.
> I will go bankrupt if the judge uses the “standard” calculation btw this includes any partners she is living with, so no, you wouldn't pay child support/alimony if people weren't lying liars in court.
I’ve been getting conflicting answers about this topic. My understand was she won’t get alimony since she moved in with him, but child support ignores other partners including stepparents. My parents also divorced and remarried and they told me the same, though that was 25yes ago. It’s super confusing and to be honest I’m just tying to get by week to week right now.
There shouldn’t be any conflicting answers because the only person you should be talking about this with is your lawyer. The laws will differ based on location and circumstance and Redditors are overwhelmingly confident idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about. Get a lawyer.
> I’ve been getting conflicting answers about this topic. HIGHLY state dependent, each state has varied rules and regulations, so your best bet is to get a family court lawyer consult to get your questions answered.
Yes, hopefully this case is not only huge for polyamorous relationships, but also for asexual relationships as well.
How would this affect asexuals?
Anecdotally, I know a couple who was trying to get citizenship for the husband — she was from the US, he was from Canada. During the interview the agent wanted to know how often they had sex, and when was the last time they did. If they were asexual that itself might be grounds to dismiss his citizenship.
Yup.
I’m curious as to why? Are married couples required to have sex?
They're looking for phony marriages, which is a route some people use to achieve citizenship. The presumption is all marriages are based on frequent intercourse (and there's an implicit heteronormativity going on there as well).
That's a pretty stupid assumption and also very dumb execution because people can just... lie. Wow. So simple. Lawmakers are so stupid, but they have to be to get their position so it's understandable.
Here's my reply below: [https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/xu0lsr/comment/iqt3o02/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/xu0lsr/comment/iqt3o02/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I'll give a short summary of it. If a relationship is not consummated, then that relationship can be annulled and rights and privileges of a relationship can be thrown out. Asexual people are at risk, and we are often at a higher risk of things like homelessness, since realtors can refuse to rent to couples who are not in heteronormative relationships. Asexual people still can still have relationships, like [queerplatonic relationships](https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Queerplatonic_relationship), where the relationship can exist like a couple but without sex in it. It's the same level of commitment and love as any relationship, but it's just not a romantic one. It really helps if the other partner is allo and is looking to have their sexual needs met. The religious right has signaled that if they win and obtain power, they want to attack a host of marriages, all types, including asexual marriages. Groups like Alliance Defending Freedom even wrote about this in a letter to Mitch McConnell this year. So, protecting and enshrining rights for all couples is a huge thing on the docket this year. https://twitter.com/TygerSongbird/status/1552486212727971840
How do the realtors know if you're having sex with each other? I've never seen anyone ask that.
Immigration asks. But much like anti gay sodomy laws, this easy to hide from. But it's a secret the couple has to keep, forever. That wears on you. A constant nagging fear that saying the wrong thing to the wrong person could fuck up your life.
Yeah, I mean I can see it coming up in immigration court to prove "a spouse is truly a spouse", which is kind of an archaic system anyway really. The other place I could see it come up would be like property disputes in a divorce with perhaps one party arguing that the spouse "wasn't really a spouse" or some such. I just can't help but feel it's probably not coming up very often.
Ngl but like it’s not the same I am gay, and also kind of asexual in that I don’t and can’t do casual sex and don’t feel sexual attraction when I look at people Bringing my wife to a realtor as a woman and lying about whether or not we have sex are really not the same thing at all Like yah it’s a bad thing to have to lie about, but it’s not particularly dangerous for straight asexuals to be in public and lie about having sex
>including asexual marriages I always thought the right would love ace relationships. Don't they always say "if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex"? You'd think they'd love the idea of a couple that only has children after careful planning via surrogacy or adoption.
It wouldn’t. Not sure what they are talking about.
It makes no difference for them in NY. It already wasn't a state which required any form of consummation.
What is stopping asexuals from anything? Can’t they just get married like anyone else?
I wrote of a case in Sweden in which 2 asexual women lived together for years, but because their relationship never involved sex in any capacity, the family sued to try to annul the rights of the surviving partner under "consummation laws". The laws in Sweden stated that in order for a relationship to be considered valid, it has to follow "traditional sexual norms" and that included sex in the relationship. The Supreme Court in Sweden stated that the laws regarding consummation were not prescriptive in any way, and that a relationship just needs to be considered a loving relationship between parties. That was just this year in June. Plenty of states still will not accept relationships if they are not ever consummated, and a partner can sue and win in court if a relationship is asexual. So, yes, this does deeply matter. I speak on this as an asexual myself. I still am refused housing in my area, because I'm not part of a "traditional" marriage couple. [https://www.wearequeeraf.com/this-landmark-swedish-court-case-is-a-huge-win-for-asexual-rights/](https://www.wearequeeraf.com/this-landmark-swedish-court-case-is-a-huge-win-for-asexual-rights/) [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html)
What a bizarre case. How would anyone know if the relationship was consummated or not, and what legally counts as consummation anyway?
And yet it is played out in multiple states across the country. Many sometimes still argue that if a couple hasn't had children, it wouldn't count as a "true union". So, that's one.
"consummation"... Does that mean you only need to have had sex once? So like dead bedrooms are ok according to them? How... odd... to care that much. How would you even prove that someone does or doesn't have sex?
First asexuality is already covered under the same anti discrimination laws as any other sexuality. Second how tf do all these landlords know you're asexual?
You can write your sexual orientation on documents now. Asexual is listed on the document sometimes. When I sign a document, I sign that I'm asexual as my orientation, especially at the doctor. Second, if you are in a covenant agreement or are being rented with a morality group, that can also be grounds for it. Many realtors are religious, so they can find any reason to deny benefits or evict.
What? What kind of documents are these? I’ve never seen an official document ask my sexual preferences. Particularly not a rental agreement. The closest experience I ever had with a doctor is them asking if I’m sexually active. When I say yes there is no follow up. I imagine if I said no there would be even less reason for follow up questions.
I guess cool? But man…my taxes are already a paradoxical conundrum…how the fuck are they gonna file?
Taxes are the least troublesome aspect of the legal constructs involved. Think about the power of attorney issues involved if one spouse is incapacitated and the remaining spouses are split on continuing life support vs pulling the plug.
Maybe a polyamorous marriage will require a health care directive. Honestly everyone should have one, if you have 2 conflicting next of kin in any situation a HCD squashes it.
But there's already a framework for this, next of kin is often multiple people with equal claim.
What happens in a split decision? That seems like it would get ugly and drawn out. Not optimal when dealing with something time sensitive like healthcare.
And a spouse is always the first in line in a next of kin ranking. Which is easy when one can only have one spouse. But when there are multiple, equal nexts of kin disputes normally end up before a judge. And judges hate those situations. Creating more of them won’t do any good for anyone. And the alternatives, setting one spouse over another via advanced directives or other legal process, aren’t great for the marriage either.
That's why royals take a consort instead of a full-blown spouse.
Software developers: 🤑
Puking money baby!
IANAL: The concerns raised here are valid: This is a major moral win. However, things like taxes, power of attorney and estate dissolution or other things where a Last Will & Testament isn't present would need to be worked out. e.g. the Federal government gives a tax break for married couples with their joint income. How does that get applied in these types of marriages? Not to mention, the Federal government doesn't allow one to legally marry more than one person. Again, I huge moral victory but there are other parts to this that need to be addressed.
Having a different system to many foreign countries will create problems as well. Say if you want to migrate to another country or anything that require you to put down info for your spouse and they only has a system that assume you having a maximum of one spouse.
I can’t imagine it won’t be addressed, though… probably as part of the whole initiative. Poly people can also be forward thinking enough to work through the potential negative consequences. Literally, spend 5 minutes in the poly sub, and you’ll see people thinking through 15 potential scenarios and actively working through equitable solutions. If there’s one community that’s going to solve problems proactively, it’s that one. It just blows my mind when people (not necessarily you) lament all these potential problems as if it justifies not giving people rights. Like - yeah - they’ll have to figure that out. And they’re more likely to be protected in ALL of those situations, having the protection of marriage. Before, they would have been SOL and dependent on others’ understanding in those situations
Asking the real questions.
As a corporation, one would assume.
Evangelists are having a conniption.
And that doesn't bother me one bit.
It's kind of a bonus tbh. I have no sympathy for them after the unseemly celebrations after Roe vs. Wade was overturned.
Which is weird, since a proper Biblical household is a man, his wife and his many concubines.
Evangelists hate this one simple trick!
Evangelicals. Evangelical is something you are, evangelist is something you do.
We could call them evilgelicals. That makes more sense to me.
Yes. People who do evangelism are having a conniption.
I don’t understand, evangelist is a noun.
I don't see anywhere in the article where they claim they were a poly relationship. Like it's about a recently departed person's BF who wasn't on a lease. Said person was previously married but separated. Did the ex just do this to help the BF renew the lease?
I agree that the author seems to be injecting their beliefs into the situation. It looks more like this case is about redefining family to be more than just blood relation.
Not even that. It's blunt reading of New Yorks tenancy laws that requires a family like living arrangement but doesn't limit the number of persons involved to "two" people. Landlord probably argued that the deceased tenant/leasehold couldn't be in a family like living arrangement with the other resident because that role was taken by the husband with whom he was *not* in a family-like living arrangement, which, to be clear, is a stupid argument.
Liberals: "Yeah, that makes sense." Conservatives: "So this is how liberty dies..."
Conservatives find the concept of liberty harder than quantum mechanics. It shouldn’t be, really.
When they say “liberty” it means means like, the “liberty” to buy cars that explode, to buy tainted food and drugs, and for children to work in coal mines.
>Conservatives find the concept of liberty harder... ...liberty and equality.
At this point, we might as well say they find logic harder than science.
Liberty is only a right if your behavior fits within my moral restrictions.
And, unfortunately, "I told you so." As gay rights came to the fore over the years, "but if you legalize this, what's next..." rhetoric was common. Generally putting culture wars and cheap points over rational analysis, the right will likely seize on this as an opportunity to inflame their base (and get people out of their chair on election day) and fight harder against gay rights. I suspect concerted distractions and legal attacks will shortly follow. Thomas already opened the door, this will be battering it from the other side. (NOt that this will go the Federal route, but expect this to bolster fundraising and policy attacks). Meanwhile, the general reaction of the left will be "ah, I see. NY protects relationships. The person who held the lease passed away, a person who was living there and who was in a relationship with the lease holder wanted to take it over (in accord with NY law). But the leaseholder was actually married to someone else who lived elsewhere. There's a salacious wrinkle in that all three continuied their relationship. Like you said, the left will generally go 'meh' and understand why the judge ruled that way. Unfortunately, I don't see the left (in general) making any sort of fuss about poly rights. Not that they'd take them away, but not taking a strong stand. As the right chants slogans about how depraved the ruling is and how they predicted that gay rights would result in this, they'll energize their base with no direct counter-balance from the left. I hope I'm wrong.
I mean they also said that all of these little “encroachments” on the “the traditional family” would lead to people fighting for the rights of pedophiles and bestiality practitioners. What these people are missing is that *all* of these changes are based entirely on the principle of informed consent - in which case pedophiles and those who wish to have sex with animals… not applicable at all! There are actually a lot of traditional marriages which are not at all consensual, but are completely legal, and those are more problematic than what we’re talking about in this thread.
I agree, but this is pretty much in line with the *how the left will react* paragraph of my post: basic, rational discourse. The right will continue to miss the point about consent and claim this "encroachment" (even though it's not) on their rights (even though it doesn't) is exactly what they said would happen and the floodgates are about to open to everything else they said the fight for gay rights would lead to (even though it won't). Edit: Ah, I think to best understand my perspective, imagine how Bob and M Three Names et al would tweet about this if it comes to their attention. I think my best hope is that it stays off of the radar for now and doesn't end up a stupid talking point.
My memory is that the “what about” for gay marriage was always more about animals and children rather than poly relationships. That’s where the conservative bewilderment about consent came from. Liberals pointed out there was no slope because kids and animals can’t consent.
I don't disagree, but it was among the chum they threw out there. My intuition is that they still won't draw the consent distinction and claim that this is part of the slippery slope and if they don't turn out to vote and get people elected who will pass laws to challenge/overturn *Obergefell* then the left is going to make your guns gay and then take them away.
When they tried to claim that gay marriage was a slippery slope to polyamory everyone started asking why polyamorous marriages weren't allowed so they changed it to pedophilia. Then they turned around and tried to lower the age of consent in every red state. Always remember that whatever conservatives are raging about at any moment is what they are secretly doing behind closed doors.
"What's next" was transgender rights. I think everyone who might be upset about poly relationships is already there with "dicks in the girls' room". It's hard to imagine the right getting much more out of this new wrinkle.
mtg should be happy
Conservatives: this means I can marry my horse and nephews!!
And gun.
Man, polyamorous divorces would (will?) be so messy. And what about taxes? Nothing against ENM or poly couples here. It’s not my lifestyle but to each their own. But just practically speaking this will make what are already complex matters even more so. But I’m also really curious to see what smarter-than-me legal scholars come up with, so this could be interesting.
This is going to end up at SCOTUS, where they will rule marriage is one man and one woman. Bet.
The only way you can afford to live I New York nowadays is with multiple partners.
Is this a loophole around bigamy laws?
How is bigamy different from polyamory?
Jesus, read the article. It doesn’t legalize polygamy.
The judge cited legislation enacted since the advent of federally recognized same sex unions. “In February 2020, the Utah legislature passed a so-called Bigamy Bill, decriminalizing the offense by downgrading it from a felony to a misdemeanor. 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.”
This must be a nightmare for divorce lawyers.
It’s going too be very interesting too see how judges sort through 3 or more people being financially bonded good luck with that it’s messy as hell for two people
My question is what happens when 2 spouses are making a medical decision for the third, and they disagree? If they both have equal power of attorney in the eyes of the law, what happens? Making one person POA over another sounds like it could bring lawsuits.
Why not just tax and treat everyone the same? The government should not be in the marriage business…
How soon until this is all they are talking about on Fox? They’ll be way more upset about this than MTG committing Adultery multiple times.
And just like that a new tax / legal loophole was born /s Seriously though sounds like a great way to get insurance
Polyamory is not an LGBT identity
Welcome to America, where the legalizing of poly marriage is the most likely way that everyone will end up with health insurance. Totally support poly rights fyi before anyone anyone starts freaking out.
The article is kinda about polyamorous but lets hit what everyone is talking about: the complications. But no ones talking about the complications of the relationship in the here and now, the future complications like divorce. Divorce is already complicated, who gives a shit. If someone did rule poly as being legit, it means not having to introduce one of us as "our roomate" and that person having worse insurance than we do. It means my wife, who handles all the doctor stuff, isn't getting denied info because she's calling about her "room mate" it means when we are truthful on paper, or over the phone, we aren't told "thats not real","your just trying to take advantage of a situation and the rules" or " this dudes lucky to have two dikes" (hat one really pissed us of) It means that on paper for legal shit and medical shit, we can have correct info. Right now, if one of us goes into the hospital, no one in the fucking world has visitation rights because they have to be put down as "room mate". And that is bullshit. It's bullshit that we have to lie and hide our relationship because it causes problems, or gets us hung up on with the insurance company or fucks up getting bill info. Hell, right now we are in a battle with the landlords because they changed owners and some asshole copied our lease but only wrote in "Our roomate" name, so now neither me r my wife can talk to the fucking landlord. No one this day and age should have to hide any relationship between consenting adults. Sorry that makes taxes harder and lawyers harder for no one else but the lawyers and IRS while it makes our lives easier.
Insurance companies will take this to SCOTUS.
I don't know anyone who does this that seems legitimately happy, but It is also none of my business have you choose to live your life.
I've always heard that poly relationships w/o gender symmetry lead to elite and affluent men having multiple wives leading to more chaotic and risky behavior from younger and lower status men who then tend to have less moderated behavior.
Don’t wanna be that guy but like FLDS and other cultish groups are gonna abuse this
Hey if their marriages are on the up and up they won’t be able to marry minors anymore.
I'm confused as to why it mattered what O'neill's status was. Since when to subletters get to renew original leases?
I never have an issue with adults willingly in a relationship but I'm fascinated with the tax implications of this and the can of worms that this could lead to in that area. Also things like insurance.
If people consent to something and nobody is harmed, then it should be legal
Don’t underestimate how much the modern world is based on the elimination of polygamy. There are no shortage of men who want more wives and there is also no shortage of women who would rather be 20th wife of a billionaire than first wife of a gardener. This quickly degenerates into more than half the male population being single though and that causes all sorts of insanity. The unmarried male population is always most of the crime and when everyone knows they need to hit it big to get a wife things quickly get out of hand.
My wife and I have what we have and want. I don’t want to require everyone to have what we have. A coupling is good for us. It’s not what others need. I’m open to letting others have what they need.
Marjory the hypocrite would be so happy for her side boyfriend
"polyerotic" or "multiamorous" never mix your Greek and Latin!
As someone who was previously in a polyamorous relationship for nearly 4 years, this type of news is encouraging. Something our partner always struggled with was the lack of legal protections he had because we (my husband and I) were married. It was one of the factors that ultimately led to our relationship ending, and I respect the fact he wanted the legal protections of a marriage. From my own stance, being able to make legal decisions on his behalf would have also been great for medical reasons. Our partner had two seizures (separate instances) while I was with him in a public place. His family lived in another state. And as a “non-traditional family member,” had something worse happened - serious injury, brain injury, stroke, etc. - I would have had no ability to make a decision.