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.
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.
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. 🙂❤️
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.
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
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.
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.
Mormons have entered the chat
this ain’t about them
Don’t these people 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.
“These people”?
Which ones are you talking about?
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?
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?
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…
