Cambridge Makes A Good Start

There is no good reason to deny polyamorous people access to civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriage, if so desired. 

Cambridge, Massachusetts has taken a step forward in this civil rights issue. Elizabeth Nolan Brown at Reason.com reports...

The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, will become the second municipality in the country to legalize domestic partnerships between three or more people. On Monday, Cambridge City Council approved an ordinance amending the city's existing statute to stipulate that a domestic partnership needn't only include two partners.

Excellent! Unfortunately, the law still discriminates. 

Now, a domestic partnership in Cambridge "means the entity formed by two or more persons" who are not related and file a registration declaring that they're "in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship," are "not in a domestic partnership with others outside this partnership," and "consider themselves to be a family."

There is no good reason to excluded related people from this. 

The new language removes the requirement that all individuals in a domestic partnership must reside together. It also does away with a section declaring that domestic partners must submit to the city various pieces of evidence proving their familial relationship.

Good.

"The ordinance was developed with detailed input from the newly formed Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition (PLAC), and is the first of what advocates hope will be a wave of legal recognition for polyamorous families and relationships in 2021," said PLAC—a coalition comprised of the Chosen Family Law Center, the Harvard Law School LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic, and members of the American Psychological Association's Committee on Consensual Non-Monogamy—in a statement.

It's good to see progress, even if it isn't perfect. 

"The lack of legal protection makes non-nuclear families especially vulnerable to stigma and discrimination in employment, health care, housing, and social life," notes Diana Adams, executive director of the Chosen Family Law Center. "I have represented hundreds of clients who have been discriminated against because they're polyamorous, whether that meant being unable to visit their life partner in the hospital, losing child custody in court battles, or losing their job. Legal recognition of these families reduces social stigma and provides families with the stability we all deserve."

It is hateful to discriminate against people because of who they love. 

Every city, every state or province or territory, every country needs to support full marriage equality.

Massachusetts Is Still Wasting Public Resources Prosecuting Consenting Adults

Here we go again. While a couple of states and many modern countries have decided not to waste public resources prosecuting consenting adults for having sex in private with each other, Massachusetts remains one of those states that stupidly enforces unconstitutional and unjust laws. Of course, this also means outing the people who were having sex with each other to the international new media, including their pictures, and the bigots have taken to places like the Facebook account of one of the people to spew their hatred. 

The earliest coverage of this round appears to come from Cliff Clark at sentinelandenterprise.com...

FITCHBURG — A mother and her son are facing the possibility of spending 20 years in prison after being caught having sex by the man’s wife, according to police and court documents.

That first sentence tells us a lot. 

1) He was cheating on his wife.
2) They weren't careful about where they were cheating.
3) Police were willing to make this a government matter.
4) The prosecutor was willing make this a government matter.
5) The court is willing to make this a government matter. 
6) Any prison time for consensual sex is ridiculous. Twenty years is outrageous. Incest laws need an overhaul.
7) The news media thinks this is newsworthy.

We think it is newsworthy, too, because it is a waste of public resources to make this a criminal case.

From a Lawyer

I have made it clear in this blog that I'm not a lawyer and I'm not offering legal advice (see my disclaimer way down at the bottom of the blog.)

But... a lawyer sent along an email that just might be useful for some of the couples I've interviewed and whose rights this blog is about.

Here is what one David A. Robinson, J.D., member of the Connecticut Bar, wrote...