- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

New York allows polyamorous marriages with same legal protections as monogamous
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:44 pm
New York Post
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.
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 on 10/8/22 at 8:45 pm to OMLandshark
Animals and kids are next.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:47 pm to OMLandshark
Libs gonna rethink this when a Muslim baw has a good ole fashioned harem.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:48 pm to OldHickory
quote:
Animals and kids are next.
Don’t get him started
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:49 pm to OMLandshark
As a legal definition what is the problem?
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:49 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
As a legal definition what is the problem?
There is none, which is why I said this is legal.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:50 pm to OMLandshark
Ah, you're one of those
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:51 pm to PrecedentedTimes
quote:Logically, you can't permit f@g "marriage" without opening the floodgates.
Libs gonna rethink this when a Muslim baw has a good ole fashioned harem
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 on 10/8/22 at 8:52 pm to OldHickory
Why shouldn’t a crazy cat lady be able to marry her cats?
Posted on 10/8/22 at 8:53 pm to Kafka
with liberals expect libralism
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:22 pm to OMLandshark
Taxes going to become "married filing jointly+"
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:27 pm to PrecedentedTimes
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 on 10/8/22 at 9:36 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
following his death,
All I read was AIDS
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:36 pm to OMLandshark
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. :)
Mistresses are much easier to handle. :)
This post was edited on 10/8/22 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:39 pm to OMLandshark
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.
Sign me up.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:40 pm to chalmetteowl
They’ll be able to frick unattractive rich men. Like Harvey Weinstein.
Posted on 10/8/22 at 9:44 pm to OMLandshark
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 on 10/8/22 at 9:49 pm to OMLandshark
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 on 10/8/22 at 9:53 pm to OMLandshark
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 on 10/8/22 at 10:03 pm to OMLandshark
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.
I remember.
Popular
Back to top

23










