- cross-posted to:
- seattle@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- seattle@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/66759116
A unanimous vote among the three members of the Seattle City Council’s Housing, Arts and Civil Rights Committee forwarded a proposal to the full council that would amend sections of the Seattle Municipal Code to “recognize genders outside the gender binary, recognize pansexuality and asexuality as orientations, and include consensual relationships with multiple partners as an element of attitudes, preferences, and practices pertaining to sexual orientation.”
The protections would apply to employment, housing, business licensure, places of public accommodation, park usage, and “bias-free policing,” according to the proposal.
Seattle would follow Portland, West Hollywood, Berkeley, California, and a handful of other cities in adopting the expanded protections against discrimination. Under the bill, residents facing unfair treatment could file complaints and seek remedy through Seattle’s Office for Civil Rights.
You must log in or register to comment.
Honestly as a monogamous lesbian in a 27 year marriage, I will never understand why you can’t be married to multiple people of you want to be? So much for land of the free hu
Inheritance, medical decisions, child custody, and a dozen other spouse rights get really difficult when they become three person issues.
These are settled issues. Turns out last remaining parents with multiple children die all the time leaving more than one person to make decisions and settle inheritance.
Spousal rights < parental rights. Step parents are generally (BIG emphasis on generally here, you can what if this shit to death, your specific cases where the parents aren’t fit are not what we’re talking about here) made to defer to the child’s actual parents when making decisions for that child. I can imagine family court, when it comes to that, will come to the same conclusion with polyspousal relationships. The good news is a system exists to deal with it.
Inheritance, like anything without a will, is split equally among the remaining next of kin, in this case, multiple remaining spouses.
It’s already advisable to have a Will in place and to discuss what your preferences are medically with your partner, that wouldn’t change with multiple partners. Just like a single parent with multiple children.
Even if these issues weren’t settled, even if you have some stupid specific edge case that invalidates everything I’ve said so far, it doesn’t fucking matter. These are not problems. They’re inconveniences. They can be settled and are no reason to stand in the way of consenting adults seeking happiness at
Those are already difficult with just two people. I’m not sure it would be that much more difficult with a third.
iLesbian 🤖
Taxes probably.
And religious self-righteousness of course.It was probably just the Mormons that ruined that for you.
I’m sure in a different time line where the Mormons where not so controversial and vitial in their role of stealing land from mexico and the natives then it might not of been so much of a bad thing.
But I think most of our laws against poly stem from the the feud between the united States and the Mormons. There was some drama about redrawing boundary lines or the Mormons wanted to succeed and the state/feds made poly illegal as one of many ways they targeted the Mormons. I think being poly was precieved as slavery. Which under the Mormons it probably was essentially slavery to be fair.
This kind of ignores the fact that every country that isn’t the US and never had Mormons still chose monogamy as the law.
I’m american so my perspective always gets warped into telling the story as if we are the world.
But yeah I agree with your point. More or less it was a fun snippet into history and relevant law.
It’s will all relevant because thats around the civil war and slavery. polygamy was kind of thrown into the same camp as slavery as I brought up. And to make it not from the perspective about the united states, much of the rest of the world was going through a similar experience and asking if slavery was nessisary. I can’t tell you who took the lead but I can tell you we certainly where not the first. So I guess maybe it wasn’t all because the Mormons, but who knows maybe it had a influence, the states could of still had it legalized.
You mean the other Christians. Mormon men wanted to marry multiple wives, the other denominations said no fuck you to one denomination. They are all Christians.
In law, we still place our hand on a Bible and swear by it, etc. The difference is just that Catholics and Protestants and whoever else were already dominant in society when Mormonism arose, and the other Christians were threatened by that and were like like nah bro you aren’t real Christians we run this land get fucked like all the other minorities
In the end all of the same to me. Different tools to a different means in a diffetent time.
Mormons where the tool of manifest destiny and only was allowed to exist or go as far as they did because they where useful to the state. And in the end they reshaped themselves to fit the needs of the state, and cleaned themselves up.
monograms lesbian
Lol monogamous
Oo nice. One more step away from Christian nationalism.
Well, this thread revealed the real assholery and goals of beings on the threadiverse, we aren’t surprised, but are dissapointed.
They always love to come out of the wood work, sealion, strawbeing, be ableist and twist words and argue in bad faith.
If it doesn’t involve you/y&/you&/yall/y’all maybe butt out next time, yeah?
Please go kindly unfuck your/y&r/you&r/yall/y’all selves :)
Sometimes I still am surprised by how many people willingly comment without reading the post in full.
Yes, but it sadly wasn’t just that, we got our words twisted by bad faith actors who are only here to be assholes, at least according to their moderation history.
Sadly nothing was done about some of them.
That’s a shame, I’m sorry they twisted your words like that. On the surface, Lemmy seems very progressive and left-leaning, but just below is a lot of simmering hatred, willful misunderstanding, and bigotry. Luckily there are at least an equal amount of users that are inquisitive and kind and knowledgeable and those users keep me around, including y’all :) I really enjoyed our conversation here yesterday!
Thanks, we enjoyed it too!
Yeah, we have noticed a lot of users here (in the threadiverse we mean) hate to have anything they aren’t used to, or just want to argue and bully or harass others sadly.
We have had some good experiences like with you, but many hate even being asked kindly to stop being harmful and we just don’t get it.
It’s gotten to the point where we are shocked when others reacted well to our requests, or that mods actually do anything about users who show a clear pattern of bullshit behaviour.
I can’t see how this is anything but a good thing. Less tolerance for discrimination against people for shit that doesn’t matter to anyone but themselves is fabulous news.
Agreed. Still incomplete, especially around romantic orientations, but very good news indeed…
Polyamory is going to bring a host of legal questions around marriage law. I wonder how this is all going to work.
All cool things though!
My question is, why was the government ever involved in personal commitments?
But sure, if straight couples are getting married with legal benefits, LGBTQIA+ couples+ oughta get in on that, too.
And to get ahead of the strawman stupid conservatives might create, animals and children cannot meaningfully consent and thus should not enter into lifelong commitments.
I’mma say the thing they hate. The reflexive property: love is love. 🙂❤️
the laws banning poly-marriage, as I understand, were largely targeted at Mormons, and in the context of a cult, I can see how that would be a reasonable restriction
@arctanthrope Pretty sure monogamy rules in France target specific groups, but…
How is a law system that target a specific minorised culture or group of people, instead of a proven harm, be reasonable ?The social “harm,” in the case of the Mormons, was that Brigham Young declared polygamy a requirement for going to heaven, which meant that every man needed at least two wives. Older and more established “patriarchs” would marry anyone from literal children to widows and divorcees. This led to some dubious practices for “acquiring wives” since the population can only support so many one-to-many marriages. Additionally, the Church originally would only sanction marriages within the Church, so you’d have to find not one, but multiple women of your own localized cult to marry. Divorce among Mormons during this time was actually common (which probably didn’t help their case with the other Christians back east who deemed divorce a social problem).
The scale of polygamy in Utah during that time was staggering and Brigham Young had around 56 wives (the number is disputed and changes depending on the source and the criteria). Naturally, this formal, institutionalized approach to polygamy created an environment where abuse was rampant. Anna Eliza Young, one of Brigham’s 56 wives, even sued him for neglect and abuse after they divorced. She was then excommunicated from the LDS church after divorcing him.
But the real reason Mormon polygamy was soecifixally outlawed was because Brigham Young was an autocrat and was well on his way to building a rival country in Utah. The US obviously wanted Utah to remain a territory, but the Mormons were pushing for the creation of their Zion (the Biblical refuge from persecution and wandering, similar to but not the same as the state of Israel; this ventures off deep into Mormon theology territory and it’s best not to go there). The US civil war was also going on and the Union figured that a territory going rogue and establishing a new landlocked country wasn’t ideal. So even though Mormon polygamy became federally prohibited it wasn’t enforced until Utah petitioned to become a US state.
All of this to say that, historically, the anti-Mormon and anti-polygamy laws in the US require a bit of context to unpack. In general, the US should probably relax its legal position on bigamy and polygamy, but in the end, as another poster pointed out, polygamy makes property claims and inheritance more legally complicated (especially when crossing state lines as is often the case in bigamy). Social attitudes still have a ways to go before anyone will bother with reversing the various anti-polygamy laws from the 19th century.
My question is, why was the government ever involved in personal commitments?
Go back far enough and the answer is almost always inheritance.
Don’t forget sexism
I think your second statement answers the first. 🙂
All the legal protections and multiple inherent contracts that come from having a state-sanctioned marriage, all for $20 ($100?) or whatever for the town/county clerk vs hundreds or much more for enacting every individual contract it stands in for.
I have a long winded reply in my head about how these relationship types are not a new idea, humans have had multiple types of relationships for millennia, etc., etc. But I’m tired, and it’s preaching to the choir at this point. (So to speak, lol)
Yeah. It’s difficult for me to see “traditional marriage” as anything more than financially incentivizing and socially pressuring straight couples to breed. More mindless bodies for the capitalist meat grinders.
Commitments can be lovely and wonderful. Why was the government EVER involved? Because the bible said it was important to do it one way and one way only?
It’s a bit personal for me, admittedly. I don’t think my parents should have had children.
It’s not only about breeding. It recognizes partners as close relatives legally which gives some rights, for example being able to visit their partner in a hospital while they are unconscious. You wouldn’t some rando to be able to do it, but for a hospital to allow partners through they need some proof of that.
You don’t need to be legally married for that, though. I could list anyone I want as a healthcare proxy or emergency contact, and that gives them rights.
If anything, it can be dangerous to trust immediate family with certain decisions by nature of the paperwork they can prove, because they don’t inherently have the person’s wellbeing in mind. E.g. a divorced couple with child, or a couple that is still married but separated and yet to complete the divorce paperwork. Or if the person just has a sensitive issue that they don’t want their family involved with.
That’s basically what it has always been. A program to subsidize breeding.
That’s part of why I hate the idea of tax benefits for married couples in general, because the flip side is that it effectively punishes people for being single. Or I guess just not in a monogamous relationship specifically.
We 100% agree.
True. That’s why communist countries have always allowed gay marriage
lol
Oh honey, that straw man is all projection. Those same conservatives are defending child marriage laws and are responsible for the “white women fuck dogs” stereotype.
Good for them but also
Divorce lawyers, growth market
Marriage laws are handled by the state. They remain unchanged.
This is municipal law. This changes the definitions of the family to be much more inclusive. It expands anti discrimination laws to be more protective of polycules and the like.
This does not, however mean your polycule can get married. We need the legislature for that. Or we need to start collecting signatures.
Why do you think that?
Because it could be a step towards polygamy, which increases the number of partners involved in a divorce. Imagine a scenario where one divorce triggers a separate filing, or a prenup being rendered invalid by the second partner becoming the sole partner, etc etc.
I think divorce aka family lawyers already kind of handle these things as is in the case of merged assets.
It could, yes, but not all polyamorous beings do or want to get married.
Also, even if polygamy (and we mean polygamy not polygyny or polyandry) did happen it’s a huge assumption that the divorce rate would be higher, or the same as monogamous marriages.
It might be healthier, and less likely to cause divorce because beings could be more honest.
The default assumption should be that the rate of divorce will be higher. A couple has two relationships that can go wrong. A 3-person group have three relationships that can go South. A 4-person group have 6 relationships to worry about. Etc.
As far as, “beings could be more honest?” This sounds like poly-supremacist thinking. If you find yourself assuming any group of people is more innately honest or good, it’s time to step back and check your privilege. This is just as bad as someone concluding that poly people are inherently less trustworthy or less capable of commitment, thus concluding that their divorce rate will be higher.
I think the divorce rate among poly people will be higher, but not because of any innate property of the poly people themselves. Each poly relationship is in fact many relationships. And every relationship carries the risk of breakup.
As far as, “beings could be more honest?” This sounds like poly-supremacist thinking. If you find yourself assuming any group of people is more innately honest or good, it’s time to step back and check your privilege.
Fair, however, it does seem to us that a lot of seemingly monogamous beings cheat because they can’t be honest, as in they aren’t allowed to be, at least in part.
If anything, polyamory would create even more opportunities for dishonesty. With just two people, if one starts to loathe the other, they can just break up. With multiple partners, there’s pressure to hold your tongue for the sake of maintaining the relationship with the others. The idea that poly people are inherently more honest is weird. As is referring to humans as “beings,” when 99.99% would be pretty weirded out by you referring to them as such. I’m a human, not whatever the fuck a “being” is. That sounds like species equivalent of degendering.
It was my first thought but only because I’m poly and have seen some insane breakups.
deleted by creator
Great! I hope they are happy! Although I’ve not seen a poly relationship workout for long, but more power to those who can make it work.
I’ve seen it fail more often than not, but what I’ve noticed is that opening up a monogamous relationship is almost always an attempt to cope with critical relationship issues. These are doomed. The ones I’ve seen work long term are always ones where people begin their relationships with a mutual understanding/desire for non-monogamy.
People don’t tend to talk or seek advice about relationships that are healthy, they just enjoy them. That’s why you end up hearing about when it doesn’t work more than when it works.
Yep, exactly, we have two partners and are happy with them. We do often specify partners though because like you said often beings don’t talk about polyamorous relationships that work out.
So we think it’s important to push back on the narrative these self-righteous monogamous beings want to push, that monogamy is the only way to be good, pure and have relationships that work out.
As if monogamous beings never cheat, break up, or are toxic, but lol, we guess it’s better to lie about it than be honest that we want multiple partners or can love multiple beings 🙄.
Believe us we have seen lots of unhealthy polyamorous beings and relationships too, we know why it happens and really wish they’d learn and grow from it, but we are happily unmarried and polyamorous, and still going after quite a few years.
Monogamy? In this economy?
/s, kind of, not really, honestly if I could talk my SO into it for someone else to split rent with I happily would, but also watch a lot of anime that turns out to be harem anime and boy would I have a heck of a time with that.
We don’t recommend going from monogamy to polyamory without having done a lot of work in therapy, and deconstructing societal scripts around relationships, expectations, consent and boundaries.
That is respecting more boundaries, not just sex, and understanding what is and isn’t a boundary.
Beings trying to put ‘boundaries’ on what they are allowed to do with other beings for example isn’t actually a boundary it’s just an attempt to control other’s behaviour because they’re afraid of losing them instead of trusting them or realising that beings should be allowed to make their own choices, even if it means against you.
This may sound doomery in that like they will choose to no longer be with you, but in our experience that is usually caused by holding on too tightly instead of letting beings be free.
We have been on both ends of the ‘too tightly’ side and it was never nice.
Removed by mod
we are happily unmarried and polyamorous, and still going after quite a few years.
Love to see it!
Yeah there’s statistically a lot more unhappy and unhealthy monogamous relationships than there are poly relationships. I think more people would find happiness if we moved away from this societal expectation of monogamy over anything else.
Well, that might be part of the problem, but the main problem is the toxic ‘norms’ and social scripts around relationships whether they are monogamous, polyamorous, relationship anarchist (though less with this one because breaking down social scripts and removing toxic norms is the whole point of it), or otherwise.
That’s the real cause so many problems happen in relationships, not the type of relationship but the assumptions and expectations so many have and that they refuse to take no for an answer, don’t respect boundaries and limits, or just refuse to be honest with themselves or others, and refuse to get therapy etc too.
You said it better than I could :)
We have thought long and deeply about relationships and why they work or don’t.
My current partner and myself are monogamish, we pretty routinely keep our relationship open for various situations. I practiced polyamory before that. I appreciate folk who keep an open mind about relationship structures and expectations. Thanks for chiming in on this thread!
Yup, been with my wife for 14 years and she’s had a steady boyfriend for 3 now. We still have relationship problems but that’s the fairly normal communication issues everyone gets through as you grow up together.
What would you consider long?
Removed by mod
What do you consider cheating?
Your submission in “Seattle moves to recognize the rights of polyamorous partners” was removed for
Your comment is unclear, but can be understood as prejudice towards a certain groups of people. Please don’t do that on Blahaj.Zone.
I feel like it’s a pretty common pun in poly circles. My bad. Meant no harm by it.
Nouuuu now I want to know the poly pun!
I was not familiar with the pun and other people weren’t either. Needless to say, in-jokes can lead to such misunderstandings, but I am grateful that you clarified your comment. Thank you.
Mormons have entered the chat
this ain’t about them
would it not also protect them?
Still, they might be affected as well. I honestly wonder if they’ll do a 180 again on the matter of polygamy once such protections are all over Utah.
There’s plenty of Mormons in eastern Washington.
The modern LDS church has put a lot of ideological emphasis on “that was then, this is now”. I really doubt they’d do another doctrine flip, given so much emphasis is placed on presenting as capital ‘n’ Normal Americans.
The polygamist splinter sects, on the other hand…
Now I wonder how they’ll abolish bigamy laws.
Don’t these people have enough already?
“These people”?
Ok I meant it as a troll comment. As in polyamorous people have multiple partners. So they have enough already. 😂
By “theeeeeeeese people”, can you clarify? Also does your answer have three parentheses around it, or unwritten slurs?
I’m just trying to figure out what bag of douchebag to put you in. A douchebag bag, if you will.
Ok I meant it as a troll comment. As in polyamorous people have multiple partners. So they have enough already. 😂
We understand the joke, but sadly us polyamorous beings do not actually have a lot of legal rights.
A lot of places can fire us for being polyamorous and we are unable to grant certain rights to our other partners if we are married to one of those beings.
We are glad this is getting addressed somewhere, but we hope it spreads instead of being contained to one area.
deleted by creator
Which ones are you talking about?
Ok I meant it as a troll comment. As in polyamorous people have multiple partners. So they have enough already. 😂
Right. So it’s a ‘leave some for the rest of us’ type thing.
The downvotes are cause it sounds like you’re saying they already have enough rights and don’t need anymore.
Yes, yes… I had a feeling there would be downvotes. I’m ok with that. Condescending, sarcastic, or troll comments should be voted down.
Couples, polycules, whatever, we don’t need any government involvement at all in this; including with marriage. Get a job.
Anyone in a relationship should have the exact same rights as anyone not in a relationship. It doesn’t matter, don’t they have actual problems to address?
In the US, there are so many things tied to martial status. In some states you have to inform your spouse if you get sterilized. In some states your spouse has to approve life insurance to someone other than them. Spouses can see you in the hospital when you are incapacitated. And on and on.
It would be nice to decouple this from marital status, but that is a lot of work and I doubt there is much appetite for it.
Anyone in a relationship should have the exact same rights as anyone not in a relationship.
They don’t though. Straight mono relationships have significant advantage. Moreso with marriage.
don’t they have actual problems to address?
You literally just highlighted the problem…
It’s a discrimination protection bill. I’m an anarchist so I get the “get government out of this” impulse. Surely there’s a better issue to point your ire towards than an anti-discrimination bill. Or were you just looking for a reason to be mad at the idea of polyamory?
i guess you dont understand what it means being able to add your partners easily as co-owner of your things, being able to be covered by your personal public insurance, going to procedures with you as you are already legally allowed…
2 bed rooms could be enough for a 4 person polycule with 2 people to a bed. This protects them from being discriminated against vs a nuclear family home of 4 people when going to rent or even buy a home. This is what matters.
Stop complaining on the internet and “get a job”
So anyone should have the right to visit anyone in the hospital?
