Started By
Message
locked post

New York allows polyamorous marriages with same legal protections as monogamous

Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:44 pm
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
119977 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:44 pm
New York Post



quote:

An opinion from New York City’s eviction court has come down on the side of polyamorous unions.

In the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan reportedly concluded that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal protection given to two-person relationships.

West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill involved three individuals: Scott Anderson and Markyus O’Neill, who lived together in a New York City apartment, and Anderson’s husband Robert Romano, who resided elsewhere.

Anderson held the lease, and following his death, the building’s owner argued that O’Neill had no right to renew the lease because he was a “non-traditional family member.”

The attorney for the property owner said that O’Neill’s affidavit, in which he claims himself as a non-traditional family member, is a “fairytale.”

According to LGBTQ Nation, the case returns to court after further investigation of the three individuals’ relationship.

In her decision, Judge Bacdayan highlighted the importance of a previous case and asserted that the existence of a triad – no matter how they got along – should not automatically dismiss O’Neill’s claim to non-eviction protections.


frick… while I legally agree with all of this, this is fricked. They use all of libertarians principles against them. They’re just evil people when I simply want true freedom for everyone.
Posted by OldHickory
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2012
10770 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:45 pm to
Animals and kids are next.
Posted by PrecedentedTimes
Member since Dec 2020
3128 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:47 pm to
Libs gonna rethink this when a Muslim baw has a good ole fashioned harem.
Posted by PrecedentedTimes
Member since Dec 2020
3128 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:48 pm to
quote:

Animals and kids are next.


Don’t get him started
Posted by fightin tigers
Downtown Prairieville
Member since Mar 2008
76177 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:49 pm to
As a legal definition what is the problem?
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
119977 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:49 pm to
quote:

As a legal definition what is the problem?


There is none, which is why I said this is legal.
Posted by fightin tigers
Downtown Prairieville
Member since Mar 2008
76177 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:50 pm to
Ah, you're one of those
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
153994 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:51 pm to
quote:

Libs gonna rethink this when a Muslim baw has a good ole fashioned harem
Logically, you can't permit f@g "marriage" without opening the floodgates.

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh in the '90s when he said a leading feminist had admitted this. She added that it didn't matter; the only important thing was destroying the patriarchy.
Posted by NotoriousFSU
Atlanta, GA
Member since Oct 2008
11942 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:52 pm to
Why shouldn’t a crazy cat lady be able to marry her cats?
Posted by OWLFAN86
Erotic Novelist
Member since Jun 2004
194493 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:53 pm to
with liberals expect libralism
Posted by HailToTheChiz
Back in Auburn
Member since Aug 2010
53687 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:22 pm to
Taxes going to become "married filing jointly+"
Posted by chalmetteowl
Chalmette
Member since Jan 2008
53641 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:27 pm to
quote:

Libs gonna rethink this when a Muslim baw has a good ole fashioned harem.


That’s the endgame of women’s rights. The whole movement came about because they didn’t want to feel forced to have to f—- unattractive and poor men just to have one
This post was edited on 10/8/22 at 9:32 pm
Posted by Gee Grenouille
Bogalusa
Member since Jul 2018
7551 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:36 pm to
quote:

following his death,


All I read was AIDS
Posted by Texaggie96
Member since Dec 2018
1381 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:36 pm to
My wife drives me crazy from time to time, I can't fathom having to deal with multiple wives.

Mistresses are much easier to handle. :)
This post was edited on 10/8/22 at 9:37 pm
Posted by SmackoverHawg
Member since Oct 2011
30939 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:39 pm to
It's inevitable. With so few real men out there, those of us still kicking arse, earning cash and swinging dong are going to be more and more in demand. Women will share if it will move them up in status and get them their Tesla's and Louis's. I'll take 3-4. Hell, I might even throw in a WoC (Woman of color) if there's so tax credits or some shite.

Sign me up.
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
103112 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:40 pm to
They’ll be able to frick unattractive rich men. Like Harvey Weinstein.
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
31520 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:44 pm to
quote:

frick… while I legally agree with all of this, this is fricked. They use all of libertarians principles against them. They’re just evil people when I simply want true freedom for everyone.


I don't see how this is using libertarian principles against us. I have vastly more of an issue with whatever bullshite law requires a landlord to enter into a contract with someone with whom they don't want to contract than I would have an issue with adults freely contracting amongst themselves as a family unit.
Posted by dallastigers
Member since Dec 2003
9449 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:49 pm to
quote:

Anderson held the lease, and following his death, the building’s owner argued that O’Neill had no right to renew the lease because he was a “non-traditional family member.”


I don’t agree with a judge redefining family membership and enforcing it on owner. I don’t agree with judges legislating.

If a person living separately from spouse (like going through a divorce) could allow new special friend or even a regular friend to live full time without being added to lease and that friend was legally entitled to renew lease after leaseholder dies than so be it.

I have no clue on law and rent control to know what is enforced in divorcing or just letting a friend live there situations. It does seem like owner should be able to require that new person has to be formally listed on lease somehow and living there for a certain time frame to tie owner to rent control renewal. It’s one thing to kick people out immediately with time left on contract that is still being paid, but to keep rent control renewable it just seems like owner should be in the know.

Does husband living elsewhere have the right to renew rent control contract? It didn’t come across that he was on lease, but at least that may be public info and known by owner. If it’s really a polyamorous union wouldn’t he just step in and renew?

Posted by Tigerfan56
Member since May 2010
10526 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:53 pm to
quote:

They’re just evil people when I simply want true freedom for everyone.


Ah, yes. The “other” people with different ideology are evil/degenerate and below you.

Dehumanizing a group so you don’t have to do so many mental gymnastics to justify why you discriminate against them. This has played out in history many times.

But your reasons aren’t just ignorance and hate, they’re justified! All the other times in the past, those were wrong, but not this time!
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
72095 posts
Posted on 10/8/22 at 10:03 pm to
Remember when we said redefining marriage from being between a man & a woman would open Pandora’s Box? Remember how leftists scoffed at and dismissed the idea. Remember how we called it a slippery slope and leftists mocked the very idea. Remember how they said homos just wanted to “love who they want to love”?

I remember.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram