New York judge rules in favor of polyamorous relationships

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #282784

    New York judge rules in favor of polyamorous relationships

    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.

    Another activist judge and court.

    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.

    The relationship is ILLEGAL in the US.  So how can they say they are entitled to legal protection of an ILLEGAL act?

    Simple, the activist judge is making a law (and not the lawmakers/legislators/elected officials).

    The case revolves around three individuals. Scott Anderson and Markyus O’Neill lived together in a New York City apartment. Anderson held the lease, but was married to another man, Robert Romano, who lived at another address. After Anderson died, the building’s owner contended 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.”

    The court concluded that there needed to be a hearing about whether Anderson, Romano and O’Neill were in a polyamorous relationship.

    Why?  So you can charged them with the crime of Polygamy?

    …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?”

    Yes, two means monogamy.  TWO people!  Not three, not five, not twenty-five!

    Three or more means the illegal act of polygamy.

    Which this activist judge (who it seems failed math and that two means two) re-writing legal law for this illegal act.

    This judge MUST be de-barred for ignoring the LAW.

    (in some places)… “recognizing that it is possible for a child to have more than two legal parents.”

    And they are called Mother & step-father, Father & step-mother.  Two biological parents who divorced and both remarried.

    Here is what the law in New York states:

    SECTION 255.15
    Bigamy
    Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE O, ARTICLE 255
    § 255.15 Bigamy.

    A person is guilty of bigamy when he contracts or purports to contract
    a marriage with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or
    the other person has a living spouse.

    Bigamy is a class E felony.

    It also goes against US federal law:

    The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882,[1] is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23…

    …declaring polygamy a felony in federal territories.  (aka the USA).

    These activist judges and their court decisions MUST BE thrown out for ignoring the LAW, and they being de-barred for overstepping their authority by CREATING LAWS from the bench – which is NOT their job.

     

    This case needs to go to the SCOTUS, there they are sure to toss out this judge’s decision for violating the law of BOTH NY State and the US.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!

SIGN UP FOR UPDATES!

NAVIGATION