nYork Civil Court Judge Karen May Bakdian He says “it’s time” to change how marriage is defined, and to judge the side of polygamous marriages in the United States.
The decision came in the case “West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill” where it was held that persons in polygamous relationships have the same legal rights as relationships between two persons.
Dispute status and traditional law
Bakdian He supports changing the 1989 law, stressing that we need to “move forward”. It all happened after that Scott Andersonwho lived with his partner Marcus O’Neillhe had a wife, Robert Romanowho lived elsewhere.
After the death of the latter, when Anderson and O’Neill They wanted to renew the lease, but the landlords wouldn’t let them because they weren’t married. That’s when the “unconventional family” justification was born.
Prior to legalizing same-sex marriage in any state,” Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co, 74 NY2d 201 (1989) made the New York State Court of Appeals the first US Court of Appeals to recognize non-traditional, heterosexual, same-sex couples in a family relationship Committed are entitled to legal recognition, so a non-traditional family member is entitled to protection from non-eviction.
“brushes It is widely seen as a catalyst for the challenges and legal changes that followed,” Bakaidan wrote in her opinion.
“By the end of 2014, same-sex marriage was legal in 35 states through legislation or state court action. The Obergefell v Hodges (2015) Supreme Court decision establishing same-sex marriage as a constitutional right was also announced as groundbreaking.
“but, brushes Her and Obergefell’s descendants limit their possessions to relationships between two people. This case presents a distinct and complex case for important multi-person relationships.”
In February 2020, the Utah legislature passed the so-called polygamy bill, which decriminalizes the crime by lowering its classification from a felony to a misdemeanor. In June [2020]Somerville, Massachusetts, has issued an ordinance allowing groups of three or more people who “consider themselves to be family” to be recognized as local partners.
Neighboring city of Cambridge followed suit, passing a broader law recognizing multiple partner relationships. The law has gone much faster in recognizing the possibility of a child having more than two legal parents.
Why, then, except for the very real possibility of implicit majority hostility, is the restriction of two persons included in the definition of a family-like relationship for purposes of obtaining the same protection from eviction afforded to formal or blood relations?
“Is ‘two’ a ‘code word’ for monogamy? Why should one commit to another in certain specific ways only in order to enjoy stability in housing after a loved one has gone?”
.
[ad_2]
