Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[Major-Tom]

Well, the key phrase here is domestic partnership, it's not recognizing their partnership in the sense of the legal definition of a marriage. That alone is a huge caveat, since were they to allow polyamorous marriage, the legal implications could be huge (IE, how the hell should multiple people file joint taxes, in what way would they acquire title to real property as a union etc etc), but domestic partners? That guarantees hospital visitation, right of survivorship in terms of real estate, etc etc. Nothing huge but still tangible.

That doesn't really open the door to any murky legal complications and whatnot, so while this just seems like a symbolic vote, it's really nothing drastic. Won't affect me, and to be honest, I don't see it affecting anyone other than potential polyamorous couples in Somerville Mass. I don't really agree with it, but that's not my say, so who cares?

Edit: To clarify, I recognize the distinction between polyamory/polygamy, though if, say, a group of polyamorous partners tried to legally marry (not a domestic partnership), would that not just be polygamy with extra steps? That's not a rhetorical question, I don't always have the greatest grasp of all these different terms.

Domestic partnerships in this matter are fine.

Right. If we start talking about marriages of more than two people, that's where you probably oughta draw a line in the stand. Definitely not one for actual polygamy.

[Joohan]

Can't wait to see what a fluster cluck a 6 six way divorce turns into.

[New haven america]

Can't wait to see what a fluster cluck a 6 six way divorce turns into.

Well that's not how polyamory works, because polyamory is just having multiple relationships, not marriages.

You're thinking about Polygamy.

[Auze]

I feel like they moved backwards a bit there.

[Necroghastia]

And yet, it gets the point across quite succinctly.

Not really. All it does is induce eye rolls and make the user seem uninformed, unintelligent, and immature

Moreso than claiming that the city council that did this is composed of pedophiles? Pull the other one.

[Joohan]

Can't wait to see what a fluster cluck a 6 six way divorce turns into.

Well that's not how polyamory works, because polyamory is just having multiple relationships, not marriages.

You're thinking about Polygamy.

Misread the OP. Thought this was moving to actually change some legal precedent, instead of just some meaningless word play and virtue signalling on the part of the city council.

Am opposed to both though, for practical, though chiefly, moral reasons.

[New haven america]

Well that's not how polyamory works, because polyamory is just having multiple relationships, not marriages.

You're thinking about Polygamy.

Misread the OP. Thought this was moving to actually change some legal precedent, instead of just some meaningless word play and virtue signalling on the part of the city council.

Am opposed to both though, for practical, though chiefly, moral reasons.

Why?

[Rojava Free State]

I feel like they moved backwards a bit there.

Me: Abolish marriage as a concept

That town: lets allow for multiple marriages at once!

[Joohan]

Misread the OP. Thought this was moving to actually change some legal precedent, instead of just some meaningless word play and virtue signalling on the part of the city council.

Am opposed to both though, for practical, though chiefly, moral reasons.

Why?

Intimate romance is something that is meant to be special, shared with only one other person. In Christian and Judaic theology, it is very much a matter akin to soul mates, were in men and women are made to live as partners between one another. Polyamory is removed from this notion of unique love and devotion, and throughout history has proven to be merely methods by which people satisfy their sexual desires and material needs ( to the benefit of mostly powerful men ). Marriage is more than merely a legal contract, and should be regarded as such.

[Greed and Death]

This is going to end in a massive dumpster fire. Though the lawyers will be happy

Counting my money now.

[Greed and Death]

Well that's not how polyamory works, because polyamory is just having multiple relationships, not marriages.

You're thinking about Polygamy.

Misread the OP. Thought this was moving to actually change some legal precedent, instead of just some meaningless word play and virtue signalling on the part of the city council.

Am opposed to both though, for practical, though chiefly, moral reasons.

It may allow groups of people to claim benefits reserved families in Somerville, Mass.

[Joohan]

Misread the OP. Thought this was moving to actually change some legal precedent, instead of just some meaningless word play and virtue signalling on the part of the city council.

Am opposed to both though, for practical, though chiefly, moral reasons.

It may allow groups of people to claim benefits reserved families in Somerville, Mass.

If that's the case, than this is actually a pretty big issue.

[Neutraligon]

What does this mean legally and how will it work?

[Greed and Death]

It may allow groups of people to claim benefits reserved families in Somerville, Mass.

If that's the case, than this is actually a pretty big issue.

there are not many marriage benefits done at the city level.

[Grenartia]

Well that's not how polyamory works, because polyamory is just having multiple relationships, not marriages.

You're thinking about Polygamy.

Misread the OP. Thought this was moving to actually change some legal precedent, instead of just some meaningless word play and virtue signalling on the part of the city council.

Actually, its not meaningless.

In Massachusetts, domestic partnerships provide some of the legal benefits married couples enjoy, including hospital visitation rights, shared health care coverage and sick or bereavement leave for a partner, according to the Miller Law Group.

Also, "virtue signalling" has long ago become a meaningless buzzphrase someone utters whenever progress happens that they don't like.

Am opposed to both though, for practical, though chiefly, moral reasons.

There is no real moral nor practical reason to oppose it.

Why?

Intimate romance is something that is meant to be special,

Having it between more than two partners doesn't make it any less special, and I speak from personal experience.

shared with only one other person.

Maybe according to your interpretation of certain religious texts, however, not everyone follows your religion, and not even all of those who do don't subscribe to your interpretation.

In Christian and Judaic theology, it is very much a matter akin to soul mates, were in men and women are made to live as partners between one another. Polyamory is removed from this notion of unique love and devotion, and throughout history has proven to be merely methods by which people satisfy their sexual desires and material needs ( to the benefit of mostly powerful men ).

Except non-monogamy in the context you're talking about occurred in societies which did not value egalitarianism and individual rights. There is no reason to believe polyamory in our current society will produce the same effects, and to claim otherwise is a fallacy.

Marriage is more than merely a legal contract, and should be regarded as such.

I actually agree.

What does this mean legally and how will it work?

See the link above.

[Gonsh]

Good for them. If people want multiple partners, fine by me. It's not going to change anything for me personally.

[Ifreann]

i advocate for mass investigations on the entire city council to see who has the most child sized skeletons in their closet.

???

Extremely normal conspiracy mindset

"Politicians are making decisions I don't like? Better try to smear them all as paedophiles."

[The Black Forrest]

I am not hurt by it so....meh.

[Apostate]

Misread the OP. Thought this was moving to actually change some legal precedent, instead of just some meaningless word play and virtue signalling on the part of the city council.

Actually, its not meaningless.

In Massachusetts, domestic partnerships provide some of the legal benefits married couples enjoy, including hospital visitation rights, shared health care coverage and sick or bereavement leave for a partner, according to the Miller Law Group.

Also, "virtue signalling" has long ago become a meaningless buzzphrase someone utters whenever progress happens that they don't like.

Am opposed to both though, for practical, though chiefly, moral reasons.

There is no real moral nor practical reason to oppose it.

Intimate romance is something that is meant to be special,

Having it between more than two partners doesn't make it any less special, and I speak from personal experience.

shared with only one other person.

Maybe according to your interpretation of certain religious texts, however, not everyone follows your religion, and not even all of those who do don't subscribe to your interpretation.

In Christian and Judaic theology, it is very much a matter akin to soul mates, were in men and women are made to live as partners between one another. Polyamory is removed from this notion of unique love and devotion, and throughout history has proven to be merely methods by which people satisfy their sexual desires and material needs ( to the benefit of mostly powerful men ).

Except non-monogamy in the context you're talking about occurred in societies which did not value egalitarianism and individual rights. There is no reason to believe polyamory in our current society will produce the same effects, and to claim otherwise is a fallacy.

Marriage is more than merely a legal contract, and should be regarded as such.

I actually agree.

What does this mean legally and how will it work?

See the link above.

Yikes.

And as a fellow Mass resident can I Please beg for Maine to take us over now? K Thanks.

[Cekoviu]

Wonder if some people in Utah are pissed over this? -ducks-

yes, but not for the reasons u think
vasha,
a utahn

[Greed and Death]

Wonder if some people in Utah are pissed over this? -ducks-

yes, but not for the reasons u think
vasha,
a utahn

I am sure the Utah version of one man many wives will come along soon.

[Cetacea]

Real talk, why should we even care? The worst that happens is horrible divorce proceedings involving 8 people and not two. Overall we will be fine. The sun will still rise in the east and gravity will continue to function.

Because social norms are not as firm as we might like to pretend, and poly relationships can and have been normalized and mainstreamed in other societies, and it usually doesn't end well when you reach them being prevalent and the norm. That's separate to them being tolerated with this understanding in mind.

Can you give any real examples where socially acceptable polyamory have caused social breakdown? I’d argue that serial monogamy is normalised and more of an issue

[New haven america]

Why?

1. Intimate romance is something that is meant to be special, shared with only one other person. 2. In Christian and Judaic theology, it is very much a matter akin to soul mates, were in men and women are made to live as partners between one another. 3. Polyamory is removed from this notion of unique love and devotion, 4. and throughout history has proven to be merely methods by which people satisfy their sexual desires and material needs ( to the benefit of mostly powerful men ). 5. Marriage is more than merely a legal contract, and should be regarded as such.

1. No it's not.
2. Yeah, well, A. The US is secular, and B. Soul mates aren't real.
3. No it's not. Love doesn't take on just 1 form or idea.
4. That's not polyamory.
5. Again, that's polygamy, not polyamory.

[Joohan]

1. No it's not.

G, well when you put it that way...

2. Yeah, well, A. The US is secular,

The US is secular in that no church has legal authority over the body of government. There exists no law, however, prohibiting the common citizenry from enacting and enforcing legislation derived from religious teachings, or from a place of religious zeal.

3. No it's not. Love doesn't take on just 1 form or idea.

I do not believe that polygamy ( polyamory, whatever ) is based upon a place of love - rather, it is most often simply a means by which people use to satisfy either their lust or material needs.

[Atheris]

Ruh-roh. I don't think this will end well.Last time I saw polyamory in the news, well, that was during the whole ProJared debacle. I really hope something like that doesn't happen again, especially as a result of what's happening in Somerville.