A female New York judge has gone as far as taking into question the legal basis for limiting marriage to only two individuals.
“In the latest vindication of conservative concerns about the legal precedent set by forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’, a New York judge ruled that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same legal protections as two-person unions.
 |
| Judge Karen May Bacdayan |
New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan handed down her decision in West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, which concerned roommates Markyus O’Neill, Scott Anderson, and Anderson’s ‘husband’ Robert Romano. When Anderson died, the apartment company forbade O’Neill from renewing his lease because his name was not on it, and they did not recognize the two as any more than roommates.
The court determined that deciding the case would require determining whether or not they were truly in a polyamorous relationship. In Bacdayan’s opinion, she questioned at length the basis for limiting such recognized relationships to two people, citing support for her position in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that forced all 50 states to recognize same-sex ‘marriage’.
‘Why then, except for the very real possibility of implicit majoritarian animus, is the limitation of two persons inserted into the definition of a family-like relationship for the purposes of receiving the same protections from eviction accorded to legally formalized or blood relationships? Is the number two a code word for monogamy? Why does a person have to be committed to one other person in only certain prescribed ways in order to enjoy stability in housing after the departure of a loved one? Why does the relationship have to be characterized by exclusivity? Why is holding each other out to the community as a family a factor? Perhaps, as in the instant case, the triad has chosen to closet their relationship from others? Perhaps the would-be successor is not out’, the judge continued.
‘Maybe they do not believe their real family is open to alternative kinds of relationships. Holding out discounts the existence of prejudice and misunderstanding about communities and people that are not normie. Do all nontraditional relationships have to comprise or include only two primary persons? The Braschi court’s decision, heralded as a radical leap, a discouragingly accurate characterization given the decades that passed before gay marriage was legalized, was still decided in a relatively narrow and safe context’.
Bacdayan lamented that Obergefell ‘still adhered to the majoritarian, societal view that only two people can have a family-like relationship’, but noted that it still ‘open[ed] the door for consideration of other relational constructs; and, perhaps, the time has arrived’. For support, she cited Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, which noted that the Obergefell majority ‘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’.
While UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh stresses that Bacdayan is ‘just one judge at a relatively low-level court’, the decision highlights the expansionist tendencies of LGBT activists.
Congressional Democrats (and some Republicans) are currently pushing the so-called ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ (RMA), which would repeal the long-standing (but unenforced) Defense of Marriage Act (which recognized marriage as a man-woman union in federal law and protected states’ rights to do the same), federally recognize any ‘marriage’ lawfully performed by any state, and force every state to recognize any ‘marriage’ of any other state ‘between two individuals’, without regard for ‘the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals’.
Notably, states would only have to recognize one another’s same-sex ‘marriages’, but the federal government would have to recognize any new union a state comes up with, such as a marriage of more than two people, potentially setting up a pretext for future activists to dismantle a new ‘inequality’”. -Life-Site News
The case for bigamy, being rooted in Judaic, Islamic, and Mormon religious traditions, is far stronger than the feeble case for homosexual marriage. It is even arguably within the Biblical Christian tradition as well, even if it does not meet the ideal.
The civilizational foundations of American society have been so thoroughly undermined that there’s no purpose in raising trivial objections over what exact shape the wreckage will eventually take.
In due time, the Law of Unintended Consequences will fall with a vengeance upon those who sought to overthrow the traditional Western family in favor of an egalitarian model more to their liking.