3
0

Oh Emm Gee, Right Wingers! Slippery Slope Fallacy!


 email                
2022 Sep 28, 11:49am   221 views  11 comments

by AmericanKulak   ➕follow (6)   💰tip ($0.34 in tips)  

Bigamy is NEVER going to be recognized just because of Gay Marriage!


WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 25, 2022) - A judge in New York has just ruled that polyamorous relationships - in this case a 3-person married unit living together in an apartment - are entitled to the same legal protection as opposite-sex or same-sex 2-person marriages.

Since the judge relied upon the famous legal precedent which led to constitutional protection for same-sex marriages, this ruling could expand that right by creating a fundamental right to marriages of 3 or more persons.

On the other hand, this expansive reading of the law could even lead to an overruling of the constitutional right of two people of the same sex to marry, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf. In the court's words:

"Before gay marriage was legalized in any state, Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co. (N.Y. 1989) was decided. The New York State Court of Appeals became the first American appellate court to recognize that a non-traditional, two-person, same-sex, committed, family-like relationship is entitled to legal recognition.

Braschi is widely regarded as a catalyst for the legal challenges and changes that ensued. By the end of 2014, gay marriage was legal in 35 states through either legislation or state court action. Obergefell v Hodges (2015), the seminal Supreme Court decision that established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, was also heralded as groundbreaking."

The Braschi case from New York's highest court, upon which the trial judge relied, held that whether or not a individuals in a marriage are entitled to some legal protection "should be based upon an objective examination of the relationship of the parties.

In making this assessment, the lower courts of this State have looked to a number of factors, including the exclusivity and longevity of the relationship, the level of emotional and financial commitment, the manner in which the parties have conducted their everyday lives and held themselves out to society.

And the reliance placed upon one another for daily family services...it is the totality of the relationship as evidenced by the dedication, caring and self-sacrifice of the parties which should, in the final analysis, control."

Clearly, some judges can early find that these same characteristics are present in other polyamorous relationships where 3 or more persons live together in a house or apartment, and perhaps even raise children together, suggests the law professor.

The Rapidly Expanding Legal Recognition
Moreover, it is not the only example of the rapidly expanding legal recognition of plural marriages. As the trial judge wrote:

"In February 2020, the Utah legislature passed a so-called Bigamy Bill, decriminalizing the offense by downgrading it from a felony to a misdemeanor. 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.

In 2017, the Uniform Law Commission, an association that enables states to harmonize their laws, drafted a new Uniform Parentage Act, one provision of which facilitates multiple-parent recognition. Versions of the provision have passed in California, Washington, Maine, Vermont, and Delaware, and it is under consideration in several other states.

Courts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Texas, Arizona, and Louisiana have also supported the idea of third parents. American conservatism has long mourned the proliferation of single parents, but, if two parents are better than one, why are three parents worse?" [emphasis added]WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 25, 2022) - A judge in New York has just ruled that polyamorous relationships - in this case a 3-person married unit living together in an apartment - are entitled to the same legal protection as opposite-sex or same-sex 2-person marriages.

Since the judge relied upon the famous legal precedent which led to constitutional protection for same-sex marriages, this ruling could expand that right by creating a fundamental right to marriages of 3 or more persons.

On the other hand, this expansive reading of the law could even lead to an overruling of the constitutional right of two people of the same sex to marry, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf. In the court's words:

"Before gay marriage was legalized in any state, Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co. (N.Y. 1989) was decided. The New York State Court of Appeals became the first American appellate court to recognize that a non-traditional, two-person, same-sex, committed, family-like relationship is entitled to legal recognition.

Braschi is widely regarded as a catalyst for the legal challenges and changes that ensued. By the end of 2014, gay marriage was legal in 35 states through either legislation or state court action. Obergefell v Hodges (2015), the seminal Supreme Court decision that established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, was also heralded as groundbreaking."

The Braschi case from New York's highest court, upon which the trial judge relied, held that whether or not a individuals in a marriage are entitled to some legal protection "should be based upon an objective examination of the relationship of the parties.

In making this assessment, the lower courts of this State have looked to a number of factors, including the exclusivity and longevity of the relationship, the level of emotional and financial commitment, the manner in which the parties have conducted their everyday lives and held themselves out to society.

And the reliance placed upon one another for daily family services...it is the totality of the relationship as evidenced by the dedication, caring and self-sacrifice of the parties which should, in the final analysis, control."

Clearly, some judges can early find that these same characteristics are present in other polyamorous relationships where 3 or more persons live together in a house or apartment, and perhaps even raise children together, suggests the law professor.

The Rapidly Expanding Legal Recognition
Moreover, it is not the only example of the rapidly expanding legal recognition of plural marriages. As the trial judge wrote:

"In February 2020, the Utah legislature passed a so-called Bigamy Bill, decriminalizing the offense by downgrading it from a felony to a misdemeanor. 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.

In 2017, the Uniform Law Commission, an association that enables states to harmonize their laws, drafted a new Uniform Parentage Act, one provision of which facilitates multiple-parent recognition. Versions of the provision have passed in California, Washington, Maine, Vermont, and Delaware, and it is under consideration in several other states.

Courts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Texas, Arizona, and Louisiana have also supported the idea of third parents. American conservatism has long mourned the proliferation of single parents, but, if two parents are better than one, why are three parents worse?" [emphasis added]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2022-09-26/plural-marriage-recognized-new-york-under-key-precedent

Oh Emm Gee, Right Wing John Bircher Bigots! Nothing is wrong with Poly Marriages! But we're never going to legalize Pedophilia and Beastiality! Slippery Slope Fallacy!

Comments 1 - 11 of 11   

1   Eric Holder   2022 Sep 28, 11:59am  

It's a perfect solution for the illegal immigration problem: just marry every wetback to Kamala and thus make them citizens!
2   Misc   2022 Sep 28, 6:05pm  

You know for those dog lovers out there...does the thing you marry have to be human????
3   richwicks   2022 Sep 28, 6:07pm  

Misc says

You know for those dog lovers out there...does the thing you marry have to be human????


Would this mean my dog is covered by my company's medical insurance?
4   HeadSet   2022 Sep 28, 7:52pm  

richwicks says

Would this mean my dog is covered by my company's medical insurance?

Only if you consummate the marriage.
5   Ceffer   2022 Sep 28, 8:00pm  

Lawyers love all this shit because the guaranteed failures and disentanglements mean years and years in family law courts with massive legal fees. They will love to generate as many legal tar babies as they can. The degeneracy undermines the family unit, and the courts suck money like vampires from the useful idiots.
6   richwicks   2022 Sep 28, 8:11pm  

HeadSet says

richwicks says


Would this mean my dog is covered by my company's medical insurance?

Only if you consummate the marriage.


Haha, on one hand, how would they prove it, on the other hand, would I want to claim it?

I guess this would exclude cats, rabbits, and guinea pigs from marriage.
7   Karloff   2022 Sep 28, 9:18pm  

It's not a slippery slope with these people. It's a cliff.
8   PeopleUnited   2022 Sep 28, 9:36pm  

Romans 1:28
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”

King James Version (KJV)
9   Ceffer   2022 Sep 29, 2:14am  

Who could resist this polyamory candidate? What could possibly go wrong?
10   HeadSet   2022 Sep 29, 1:25pm  

That has got to be satire. "Coffee Shop Master?" "Passionate University Non-Completer?" Only thing missing is "Dick so small I could marry my cat, rabbit or guinea pig."
11   Karloff   2022 Sep 29, 10:53pm  

Wow. I'm smitten. They/shey just checked all the right boxes. Too good to be true and I'm beginning to think they might be catfishing.

Please register to comment:

about   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions