Come on, you didn’t really think there were any lines?
The whole point is to eliminate marriage and the family. The shoes will go on dropping until there’s nothing left. Nothing but the Left. Because that is the whole point of the exercise.
The case is W. 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill. It’s the usual mess of New York City’s absurd tenant protections with an alternative lifestyle twist.
The decision is yesterday’s West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, decided by New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan. Scott Anderson and Markyus O’Neill lived together in an apartment; Anderson was on the lease, and O’Neill was not. After Anderson died, O’Neill would have had the right to renew the lease if he were “a non-traditional family member,” but Anderson was married to Robert Romano. The apartment building company therefore argued that O’Neill was just a roommate, but the court concluded that there needed to be a hearing about whether Anderson, Romano, and O’Neill were actually in a polyamorous relationship:
As was repeatedly pointed out, there’s no reason to draw the line at two. If all that matters is love and everything else is a detail, why cavil at a number? Any number. It’s three now, but why not three thousand? Love is love, you know.
“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.
Since then we’ve eliminated the existence of the sexes. All that’s left is the detail of the number.
New York City’s eviction court – the venue of a landmark same-sex relationship decision long before Obergefell v Hodges – is now the source of a legal opinion that comes down clearly on the side of polyamorous unions.
The decision came in the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, decided by New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan, concluded that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal protection given to two-person relationships.
In June [2020], Somerville, Massachusetts, passed an ordinance allowing groups of three or more people who ‘consider themselves to be a family’ to be recognized as domestic partners. The neighboring town of Cambridge followed suit, passing a broader ordinance recognizing multi-partner relationships. The law has proceeded even more rapidly in recognizing that it is possible for a child to have more than two legal parents.”
“Why then,” posited the judge, “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 ‘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?”
What’s the counterargument? There isn’t one. If nothing is sacred, why should a number be?
How about “if you weren’t on the lease, it’s because the lease holder didn’t want you on it.”
I know. Too realistic.
Or Sally marries Sam but Joe and Sam are also in a non traditional relationship.. Does that make Sally and Joe related? Perhaps they hate each, after all one is cisgender and the other is gay.. Riddle me this judge if Sam dies who gets the lease?
Again, goes back to Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the early USSR. So disastrous even they abandoned it. Yet the left promotes it as something modern and new.
Yeah, we’re f’ed.
It seems to me that anyone can sue to inherit anything from anyone else. Say I feel really close to……….. Isn’t that a relationship of sorts? It is to me! We don’t even have to be committed in a certain way, after all. Maybe I was the maid or just a passerby. If I think they’re family, then they are.
This can also bring palimony (remember that?) to a whole new level of utopian wealth redistribution.
Not only palimony but multi-palimony is being established. One person in a house has a job and 2 or more other persons- lets say 6 other polyamorous persons decide they don’t want to work and just live off the one who works and gets a paycheck. Their sucker with the job now wants them out of there but they refuse to leave and instead go to court and get a judgement making the working sucker move out and pay them support and even though said sucker is out instead, the woke judge orders him to continue to pay partner support including pay the rent on the multi house for the but buddies – that is a logical conclusion of the unliited number of partners in a marriage theory.
Polygamy isn’t just one guy with multiple wives anymore, it’s spouses with multiple spouses who have other spouses and so on and so on. There would be a tangled web of intermarriage if you wanted to call it marriage. Children of such arrangements would suffer the most as who would bear responsibility for them in a crowd of self-indulgent adults?
Our long-ago ancestors must have had this figured out and established at least some rules for society that worked.
You mean practically what is already happening in some Socio-economic circles? Spouses with children from various men, all of whom have children with various other women.
Simply the left returning to paganism, they aren’t interested in civilization.
This isn’t NEW. Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne was openly polygynous. Christianity’s Bible doesn’t forbid it (it has to be twisted to get there) and most other major religious “Scriptures” don’t forbid it either. It is a recent Western European and Roman Catholic preference to have “only two” and as mentioned above, they didn’t even stick to it when the chips were down.
Curious. The Old Testament, a lengthy history of God’s chosen people falling away from him and paying the price for their sin, tells of polygamous households among the Hebrew people, but no of polyandrous households. The New Testament tells of the foretold anointed one who lived out the law and atoned in death for all the sins of the world. Jesus spoke only of marriage of one man and one woman, and blessed such a union with His first miracle at Cana.
But, I suppose, if one searches the text of God’s Word with the intent of deceiving to support one’s argument, one may twist and obfuscate it to an immoral end.
UPVOTE 🙂
When the SC decided on same sex marriage. Many of us predicted the slippery slope we are in now. This how society destroys itself one step at the time.
Another case of a Karen being so open-minded as to be vacant. There is no supply-chain problem with Karen’s.
Thank you, Daniel Greenfield, for another great article.
The politically correct math that Winston Smith was required to agree with in “1984” has been imposed by this judge. It is very simple math stating 1 + ! = fill in the blank with any number. and rule the answer is law until further notice.