News
Featured Image
 shutterstock.com

Stop Federal Lawmakers From Forcing Gay Marriage On The States! Tell your Senators to vote NO.

NEW YORK (LifeSiteNews) — In the latest vindication of conservative concerns about the legal precedent set by forced recognition of same-sex “marriage,” a New York judge ruled that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same legal protections as two-person unions.

As highlighted by Reason, on September 23 New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan handed down her decision in West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, which concerned roommates Markyus O’Neill, Scott Anderson, and Anderson’s “husband” Robert Romano. When Anderson died, the apartment company forbade O’Neill from renewing his lease because his name was not on it, and they did not recognize the two as any more than roommates.

The court determined that deciding the case would require determining whether or not they were truly in a polyamorous relationship. In Bacdayan’s opinion, she questioned at length the basis for limiting such recognized relationships to two people, citing support for her position in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that forced all 50 states to recognize same-sex “marriage.”

“Why then, except for the very real possibility of implicit majoritarian animus, is the limitation of two persons inserted into the definition of a family-like relationship for the purposes of receiving the same protections from eviction accorded to legally formalized or blood relationships?” the judge asked. “Is ‘two’ a ‘code word’ for monogamy? Why does a person have to be committed to one other person in only certain prescribed ways in order to enjoy stability in housing after the departure of a loved one? Why does the relationship have to be characterized by ‘exclusivity?’ Why is holding each other out to the community as a family a factor?”

“Perhaps, as in the instant case, the triad has chosen to closet their relationship from others?” she continued. “Perhaps the would-be successor is not ‘out.’ 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?”

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 longstanding (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.”

The RMA passed the House of Representatives in July with 47 Republicans joining every Democrat. The bill has received greater pushback in the Senate, where 10 Republicans would have to join the Democrats in order to send it to President Joe Biden for his signature. It remains to be seen whether supporters will find those 10 votes.

In the meantime, while Senate GOP leaders are neglecting to mobilize opposition to the RMA, conservative groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and LifeSiteNews are picking up the slack. LifeSite is currently running a VoterVoice campaign to make Republican senators aware of grassroots opposition to the bill, and urging them to vote against it accordingly.

Stop Federal Lawmakers From Forcing Gay Marriage On The States! Tell your Senators to vote NO.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

9 Comments

    Loading...