New York judge rules polyamorous relationships deserve legal protection, just like every other
Polyamorous relationships in New York are now entitled to the same sort of legal protection given to two-person relationships. (Getty)
A New York City judge has ruled that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same legal protection given to two-person relationships.
The ruling revolves around a case involving three individuals: Scott Anderson, Markyus O’Neill and Robert Romano.
Anderson and O’Neill lived together in a New York City apartment which Anderson held the lease for.
Anderson was married to Romano however, who lived at another address.
A case was brought forward following Anderson’s death. The building’s owner argued that O’Neill had no right to renew the lease since he was just a “roommate” of Anderson’s and not “a non-traditional family member”, LGBTQ Nation reported.
But at the city’s eviction court, civil court Judge Karen May Bacdayan concluded that polyamorous relationships – involving more than two people – are entitled to the same legal protections given to two-person relationships.
‘Complex issue of multi-person relationships’
Judge Bacdayan referenced Braschi v Stahl Assocs Co – a 1989 New York Court of Appeals case that decided a two-person, same-sex relationship is entitled to legal recognition.
She wrote in her opinion: “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.”
Bacdayan also noted the cases she referenced involved two-person relationships, whereas this case presented the “distinct and complex issue of significant multi-person relationships”.
The judge cited legislation passed since the advent of federally recognised, same-sex unions.
Bacdayan then questioned why the limitation of two persons is inserted into the definition of a “family-like relationship”.
“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?” She said.
The attorney for the property owner described defendant O’Neill’s affidavit, claiming himself as a non-traditional family member, as a “fairytale”.
After further investigation of the three individuals’ relationship, the case will return to court.
