NYC judge rules "polyamorous" unions entitled to same legal protections as 2-person relationships a.k.a Chad now can have harems by law

[LoneFox]

NYC judge rules on polyamorous relationships: Perhaps 'time has arrived'

A decision from New York City's eviction court has come down on the side of polyamorous unions. The case, West 49th St., LLC v. O'Neill, involved three individuals.

news.yahoo.com

Do you know what this ACTUALLY means? Chad will now LEGALLY have harems like an arab sultan and the rest of us will have to watch it and and maybe pay for "social helps" to support his multiple children with our taxes

Remember this, remember it carefully, Remember that you aren't "entitled" to love and affection, but Chad can have literal harems. HOW DOES THAT MAKES YOU FEEL? You aren't worth shit, your feelings aren't worth shit, your needs aren't worth shit, and your actions aren't worth shit all because you weren't born tall, blue eyed and with the right facial structure.

And yes, the "Judge" is a woman, Judge Karen May Bacdaya.

 

[PPEcel]

Remember that this was in New York state court and an application of New York state law, not the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. That said, this was an act of legislating from the bench, so to speak, and an appellate court should overturn this absurd ruling.

 

[LoneFox]

Remember that this was in New York state court and an application of New York state law, not the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. That said, this was an act of legislating from the bench, so to speak, and an appellate court should overturn this absurd ruling.

It always starts like this... homo "marriage" depenalization of abortion, trans children, and many other degeneracies, it starts somewhere and then become nationwide and later on exported to other countries... There is people pushing for this very hard behind the political scene and they won't stop until someone stops them

 

[KetamineAddictYoda]

Remember that this was in New York state court and an application of New York state law, not the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. That said, this was an act of legislating from the bench, so to speak, and an appellate court should overturn this absurd ruling.

Even if that will come true, this ruling is a sign of what is to come. You think they'll stop here? No, they've unleashed the floodgates.

 

[KetamineAddictYoda]

"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 continued. "Do all nontraditional relationships have to comprise or include only two primary persons?"

"Those decisions (Obergefell v. Hogdes), however, open the door for consideration of other relational constructs; and, perhaps, the time has arrived," Bacdayan said, citing a passage from Justice John Roberts' Obergefell dissent.

"If not having the opportunity to marry serves to disrespect and subordinate gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn't the same imposition of this disability … serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?" Roberts wrote.

Liberals ask these questions but cannot fathom the answer. To them, these exclusions exist for the sole purpose of discrimination. They're like an angry child who doesn't understand why his parents bar him from riding a bicycle he is too short for. Unfortunately for liberals, natural laws do exist and must be enforced. Porn, abortion, sexualization, faggots, single mothers, no fault divorce, and other retarded ideas are an affront against natural laws and have never been imagined in the history of civilization for good reason. The consequences of liberalism is drastic and numerous, with the most important being that "developed" countries fail to reach even the 2.1 births per women necessary for stable demographics. If this were an animal species being observed by scientists, we'd be seriously conerned. With humans, we pride ourselves on such achievements while ignoring any serious detriments. But laws that promote such degeneracy cannot be overturned, let alone questioned. Liberals are as dogmatic as the religions they despise. But unlike liberals, religions understands the needed role of a stable family for the purposes of reproduction. These liberal soycieties will persist so long as hordes of migrants come to replace the dying native populations. When the well runs dry, there will be serious and overwhelming consequences to confront. Think of it as another tragedy of the commons; everyone can indulge in their perverse fantasies, yet it will come to the detriment of all.

 

[shii410]

Polyamorous marriages are all 300lbs soy twitter liberals not Chads

 

[Indari]

why does the government interfere in relationships?