Massachusetts City Council Recognizes Polyamorous Domestic Partnerships

"Domestic partnership" means the entity formed by two or more persons who meet the following criteria and jointly file a registration statement proclaiming that: 1. They are in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship; ... 5. They consider themselves to be a family.

Two towns in Massachusetts now recognize polyamorous domestic partnerships, flagged on a religious law blog because to some this is a sign of "so it begins" since same sex marriage is now a thing (well, it was a thing for a while now). Other than getting the label, I'm not sure exactly what that brings. The summary here speaks of visitation (schools, corrections, hospitals) from what I can tell.

“Once the law and culture says the male-female aspect of marriage violates justice and equality, we haven’t ‘expanded’ marriage, we’ve fundamentally redefined what it is. And those redefinitions have no principled stopping point,” he said.

Usual scare-mongering. The idea of a wider view of marriage and domestic arrangements were already around in the 19th Century in various utopian communities.  More recently, free love was a thing in the 1960s.  The changing nature of sexual and social relationships here is not merely a matter of the society and the government recognizing same sex marriage is part of marriage overall.  To the degree things have been "redefined," the same sex aspect is relatively trivial.  Things do change, of course.

In a wider sense, "domestic partnerships" were long a reality in form if not legal reality.  A "family," for instance, calls to mind the show Full House (three guys with kids).  It also involves many families over the years, of varying kinds.  Consider the reference in the 1970s Supreme Court case of Moore v. East Cleveland: "of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children." And, these were at times honorary terms, not just blood relations.   

We already have means of recognizing "domestic partnerships" that go beyond the standard traditional dual married couple scenario.  The legal term here already covers broad reach in various jurisdictions and can involve as I understand it in some places siblings or the like.  At the very least, that is a potential approach.  It was a means to start the road to same sex marriage as well.  But, again, if a couple along with a third person (let's say the sibling of one) set up a household and raised a few children, we already can imagine it logical to recognize it as a family unit.   

The implication here is we are dealing with sexual relationships. The specific move was supported by a LGBTQ+ commission too.  But, as shown above, it is not somehow uniquely a concern there. That group might be particularly sympathetic to an open-minded view (some gays and lesbians less supportive of marriage, perhaps) of relationships, but it overlaps with many others.  In a weaker form, let's say, consider a couple raising a child who is the biological child of a third.  This need not be a Ross/two lesbians Friends scenario.  It is a common reality with mixed families. The couple might have basic custody but the third person still might have a significant role in the child's life.  

We then have multiple adults who live with each other and form a family.  This too is not atypical and not just something that involves sexual relationships.  It very well might in some fashion.  But, it need not.  These people can have certain legal connections such as property-wise in housing. The domestic partnership is a more wider recognition of such relationships and can already be done by private agreement.  

Marriage is important since it is a basic easily understandable union that can simplify things on a legal basis.  A multiple unit organization here is more complicated.  But, it does reflect many people's lives, and not just you know Mormon polygamy or something.  It might seem like a dangerous slippery slope but especially a limited form domestic partnership of this sort to me is a logical thing to establish.  It would arise in various instances, including let's say care of elderly people or those with special needs and so forth that many who are rather conservative would find quite sensible. 

And, that was long a part of marriage itself -- marriages came in different shapes and sizes.  Having one type of marriage didn't make other types not secure.  Legally, a young person could marry an old one, if that was helpful.  People could marry for legal reasons even if they didn't love or even emotionally care for an individual.  Domestic partnerships are a wide example of this, one also with a varied possibilities.  

There are emotional, relationship, legal and so on aspects here. As seen above, the Supreme Court recognized broad family relationships for quite some time as having constitutional value.  There is also an acceptance of the right to form intimate relationships involving multiple people that involves a sexual nature. This isn't something invented as Justice Alito might suggest "after the invention of cell phones.  The novelty of the polyamorous domestic partnership concept (the title of the blog entry cited but the rules go beyond "polygamy" itself) is in reality much less so when one thinks about this in a broader sense.  

The wider existence of "family" here exists now.  The recognition as a legal unit is sensible even if it seen as some sudden 21st Century slippery slope as a result of same sex marriage or something.  

ETA: This column discusses this issue as well.