NY judge rules that polyamorous relationships are entitled to equal legal protections

[Alben Barkley]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/24/in-sum-the-problem-with-the-same-sex-marriage-cases-is-that-they-recognize-only-two-person-relationships/

In sum, the problem with Braschi and Obergefell is that they recognize only two-person relationships. Those decisions, while revolutionary, still adhered to the majoritarian, societal view that only two people can have a family-like relationship; that only people who are "committed" in a way defined by certain traditional factors qualify for protection from "one of the harshest decrees known to the law—eviction from one's home."

Those decisions, however, open the door for consideration of other relational constructs; and, perhaps, the time has arrived. As Justice John Roberts foretold in his Obergefell dissent:

"Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective 'two' in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not.

It is striking how much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage…. If not having the opportunity to marry serves to disrespect and subordinate gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn't the same imposition of this disability … serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)?" …

[John Dule]

Every polyamorous relationship is comprised of two very happy people and one person who cries themselves to sleep every night.

[MarkD]

Damn the Supreme Court for perpetuating this misinterpretation of the US Constitution. Damn them!!! Stop lying about what the Constitution "protects" from violations by the STATE GOVERNMENTS, which do not have the same relationship to the US Constitution that the federal government has to it. Stop lying about what "rights" are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!

Rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment to give the state governments clearer guidelines what laws they cannot pass -- and keep for as long as the states want -- and reduce the discretion that federal judges exercise as they decide which laws to strike down. Damn the SCOTUS, and any other judges who imitate them!!!

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the states. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. ... [W]e ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the states, and should be slow to construe ... the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court's own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the states may pass. (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting opinion in Baldwin v. Missouri, 1930.)

[HillGoose]

wtf

everyone has a soul mate, nobody has like 5 soul mates

"polyamorous relationships" doesn't make any sense

[Badger]

Damn the Supreme Court for perpetuating this misinterpretation of the US Constitution. Damn them!!! Stop lying about what the Constitution "protects" from violations by the STATE GOVERNMENTS, which do not have the same relationship to the US Constitution that the federal government has to it. Stop lying about what "rights" are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!

Rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment to give the state governments clearer guidelines what laws they cannot pass -- and keep for as long as the states want -- and reduce the discretion that federal judges exercise as they decide which laws to strike down. Damn the SCOTUS, and any other judges who imitate them!!!

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the states. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. ... [W]e ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the states, and should be slow to construe the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court's own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the states may pass. (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting opinion in Baldwin v. Missouri, 1930.)

Sir, again, this is a Wendy's.

[Skill and Chance]

Every polyamorous relationship is comprised of two very happy people and n people who cry themselves to sleep every night.

[Ferguson97]

Every polyamorous relationship is comprised of two very happy people and one person who cries themselves to sleep every night.

Likely true more often than not, but nevertheless consenting adults should have the legal right to enter these sorts of contracts with each other.

[HillGoose]

Every polyamorous relationship is comprised of two very happy people and one person who cries themselves to sleep every night.

Likely true more often than not, but nevertheless consenting adults should have the legal right to enter these sorts of contracts with each other.

ya idk why big govt feels the need to get involved with ppl's relationships at all tho!

[Skill and Chance]

Every polyamorous relationship is comprised of two very happy people and one person who cries themselves to sleep every night.

Likely true more often than not, but nevertheless consenting adults should have the legal right to enter these sorts of contracts with each other.

ya idk why big govt feels the need to get involved with ppl's relationships at all tho!

There is really strong historical evidence that cultural polygamy = much higher violence in society (generally from alienated young men).  I would think long and hard about going down this road. 

[Torie]

This is much ado about nothing. It is about what the legal definition under state law of a "non traditional relationship" entails, which relationship grants one certain leasehold rights. So there is nothing to see here, and it is time to move on. This is not an existential moment for Colorado City.

This thread just really jumped the shark when some obscure trial judge interpreting a garden variety state statute triggered yet another  thermonuclear war about the scope and reach of the 14th amendment. Have an edible or your favorite chill pill, and go out and walk the dog.

[brucejoel99]

Every polyamorous relationship is comprised of two very happy people and one person who cries themselves to sleep every night.

Likely true more often than not, but nevertheless consenting adults should have the legal right to enter these sorts of contracts with each other.

ya idk why big govt feels the need to get involved with ppl's relationships at all tho!

There is really strong historical evidence that cultural polygamy = much higher violence in society (generally from alienated young men).  I would think long and hard about going down this road. 

"Restricting same-sex relationships doesn't pass strict scrutiny review under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amndt. (see: Obergefell). Restricting polygamy does: we can point to empirical evidence of what happens in industrialized societies that permit polygamy, thus providing the state with its necessary compelling state interest." Problem solved.

[It’s so Joever]

Every polyamorous relationship is comprised of two very happy people and one person who cries themselves to sleep every night.

Likely true more often than not, but nevertheless consenting adults should have the legal right to enter these sorts of contracts with each other.

ya idk why big govt feels the need to get involved with ppl's relationships at all tho!

Because legislatures pass laws to tell the people which behaviors are not morally acceptable, that's why. Judges  who strike down laws like these are effectively telling us that we can't legislate morality, but the truth behind their reasoning is that judges who rule this way believe that THEIR moral judgments are superior to everyone else's.

Or…maybe they just don’t think we should legislate morality.

[Schiff for Senate]

Damn the Supreme Court for perpetuating this misinterpretation of the US Constitution. Damn them!!! Stop lying about what the Constitution "protects" from violations by the STATE GOVERNMENTS, which do not have the same relationship to the US Constitution that the federal government has to it. Stop lying about what "rights" are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!

Rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment to give the state governments clearer guidelines what laws they cannot pass -- and keep for as long as the states want -- and reduce the discretion that federal judges exercise as they decide which laws to strike down. Damn the SCOTUS, and any other judges who imitate them!!!

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the states. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. ... [W]e ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the states, and should be slow to construe the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court's own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the states may pass. (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting opinion in Baldwin v. Missouri, 1930.)

Sir, again, this is a Wendy's.

Neither original nor a necessary or intelligent contribution.

[It’s so Joever]

Every polyamorous relationship is comprised of two very happy people and one person who cries themselves to sleep every night.

Likely true more often than not, but nevertheless consenting adults should have the legal right to enter these sorts of contracts with each other.

ya idk why big govt feels the need to get involved with ppl's relationships at all tho!

Because legislatures pass laws to tell the people which behaviors are not morally acceptable, that's why. Judges  who strike down laws like these are effectively telling us that we can't legislate morality, but the truth behind their reasoning is that judges who rule this way believe that THEIR moral judgments are superior to everyone else's.

Or…maybe they just don’t think we should legislate morality.

We always did legislate morality until many judges started deciding that their morality was superior to ours.

Okay, we also always used to do a lot of dumb s**t, historic precedent is not a virtue alone. Unless you are trying to be technical and argue “all laws are morality based” in which case you are missing the forest for the trees in that while true…Murder actually hurts someone else, polyamory does not to the same extent by any means.

[It’s so Joever]

Damn the Supreme Court for perpetuating this misinterpretation of the US Constitution. Damn them!!! Stop lying about what the Constitution "protects" from violations by the STATE GOVERNMENTS, which do not have the same relationship to the US Constitution that the federal government has to it. Stop lying about what "rights" are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!

Rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment to give the state governments clearer guidelines what laws they cannot pass -- and keep for as long as the states want -- and reduce the discretion that federal judges exercise as they decide which laws to strike down. Damn the SCOTUS, and any other judges who imitate them!!!

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the states. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. ... [W]e ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the states, and should be slow to construe the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court's own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the states may pass. (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting opinion in Baldwin v. Missouri, 1930.)

Sir, again, this is a Wendy's.

Neither original nor a necessary or intelligent contribution.

I’d say Badger’s comment matched the intellectual contribution of the post he replied to.

[courts]

good

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hopefully this is struck down as this is crazy

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I don't even have much of an opinion on this issue, really, but I have to say that this thread is going almost exactly as I would have expected.

[Badger]

Damn the Supreme Court for perpetuating this misinterpretation of the US Constitution. Damn them!!! Stop lying about what the Constitution "protects" from violations by the STATE GOVERNMENTS, which do not have the same relationship to the US Constitution that the federal government has to it. Stop lying about what "rights" are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!

Rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment to give the state governments clearer guidelines what laws they cannot pass -- and keep for as long as the states want -- and reduce the discretion that federal judges exercise as they decide which laws to strike down. Damn the SCOTUS, and any other judges who imitate them!!!

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the states. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. ... [W]e ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the states, and should be slow to construe the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court's own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the states may pass. (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting opinion in Baldwin v. Missouri, 1930.)

Sir, again, this is a Wendy's.

On ignore in perpetuity (something I should have done a long time ago).

I haven't put you on ignore solely because your posts are inevitably good for the lulz.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Every polyamorous relationship is comprised of two very happy people and one person who cries themselves to sleep every night.

Likely true more often than not, but nevertheless consenting adults should have the legal right to enter these sorts of contracts with each other.

ya idk why big govt feels the need to get involved with ppl's relationships at all tho!

There is really strong historical evidence that cultural polygamy = much higher violence in society (generally from alienated young men).  I would think long and hard about going down this road. 

It's a little late for that. America is full of serial polygamy and alienated young men. And that would appear to be exactly what the MAGATs want.

[Biden his time]

In sum, the problem with Braschi and Obergefell is that they recognize only two-person relationships. Those decisions, while revolutionary, still adhered to the majoritarian, societal view that only two people can have a family-like relationship;

The slippery slope in action

Being real, for most people who accepted same-sex marriage and did so under the basis that it was just consenting adults, they will come around to this polyamorous stuff as well. After all, both of them operate on the same basis, the individuals aren't hurting anyone, why do you care?

The only difference between these two relationships is one is more socially accepted these days.

In fact, one day the liberals will probably be calling those digress polyamorophobic and wanting their voices to be shut down in the public sphere.

This is just how American liberalism is and how it works.

[Goldwater]

Based.

[The Dowager Mod]

So I can marry Brad Pitt AND George Clooney?

[citizenZ]

As mentioned before, this entire slope is slippery.

I feel like modern day liberalism doesn't work well with the laws and workings of the United States Constitution. If you become a strict constitutionalist, like our majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and throughout the Circuit Court system, you'll find that everything from same sex marriage to gun control have very flimsy legal arguments.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Both polygamy and polyamory already exist in America. It's called hookup culture.