This NY Judge’s Polygamy Ruling Shouldn’t Surprise You
Remember when we were told that all same-sex couples wanted were civil unions?
And then it was just marriages—but nothing more!
And anyone who suggested we would quickly find ourselves headed down a slippery slope was denounced, as well, you know. Homophobe, transphobe, etc.
Well, the slippery slope is here. Now we have a state court in New York saying that your secret boyfriend—not the man you married in a legally binding commitment —may acquire all your property and privileges when you die.
New York City resident Scott Anderson was married to Robert Romano—not Markyus O’Neill. That is, until Anderson died, and O’Neill faced eviction.
Markyus O’Neill had been living with Anderson in what used to be called an illicit, extra-marital affair. Only Anderson’s name was on the apartment lease, so when he died, the leaseholder expected O’Neill to move out. New York law has granted tenant succession rights to unmarried partners since 1980. It reworked the succession rights in 1989 to include that a “nontraditional family member”—in other words, your same-sex partner—may be repositioned as lessee. Anderson had a husband, and it was not O’Neill.
However, Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co. made “nontraditional family member” easily arguable in court in a variety of ways: longevity of relationship, intermingling of finances, calling oneself “family” in writing or out loud. It didn’t take much for O’Neill to prove that he was the “nontraditional family member” of Scott Anderson’s.
His “evidence?”
Cocktails and banter. Spamalot tickets. Watching old movies and making breakfast together. Giving Anderson “walking around money” whenever he asked.
It doesn’t matter that West 49th St. calls the evidence a “fairytale,” which some might call a poor choice of words. But the “fairytale” was enough for Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan to rule in O’Neill’s favor. Now, the company must grant O’Neill access to what tabloids used to call a “love nest.”
But wait, wasn’t Anderson already in a marriage?
That’s correct. However, Bacdayan’s ruling expands the already broad strokes painted by Braschi. West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill states legal partnerships are no longer limited to two lovers. Though he may have thought otherwise while he was still living, now, under the law, Scott Anderson had two husbands (or husband-like entities).
Polygamy is perfectly normal now in NYC, and no, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.
The married couple has always been the most fundamental unit to Western society. That’s why there have been tax benefits and non-eviction protections, not to mention spousal privilege sparing partners from having to testify against one another in judicial proceedings.
But once the core meaning of marriage was severed from that most basic definition, it was inevitable that it would splinter into a million other categories and dimensions dependent on desire. 2015’s Obergefell was gender. Braschi was, well, everything you could possibly imagine.
Want a tax break, or cheap health insurance? Convince the court you and your roommate are married. All you need is a photo from a Thanksgiving meal together, and you’re in the clear.
Want a better pension? File jointly next tax season. You brought her cousin soup when he had COVID, after all. So you’re married.
Want to hop on your late lover’s lease? Suddenly, that concept once known as cheating-on-your-spouse-for-an-entire-decade is now merely a polyamorous common law marriage.
The Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co. ruling is ridiculous, but it’s been around since 1989 and won’t be going anywhere anytime soon. A more fluid definition of marriage has grown more desirable to the general public over the past two decades.
For one, permanency is out the window. Last year, a divorce occurred in the United States every 13 seconds.
Polyamory as a plus permeates the younger generations. More commonly known as “hookup culture” or an “open relationship,” it keeps things casual between two (or more!) partners. No feelings involved, and no one gets hurt, right? I mean, just ask Will Smith how it’s working out for him.
And if you thought we were in the clear sticking to human-human relationships, think again! According to the Guardian, you can improve your health and well-being if you tie the knot with your dog instead of your person.
If we’re not careful, I fear age will be the next qualifier out the window. And then can incest be far behind?
But neither the NY ruling by Judge Bacdayan nor the general public’s lunacy surrounding marriage should surprise us. It’s straight out of the Marxist handbook, and we’ve been headed this way for decades now.
Marx envisioned a civilization, such as it was, where marriage has no place. No husbands, and definitely no wives. Where lovers function like land. One big commune, hippie style, free love. Cocktails and banter, sure. Commitment, definitely not.
Abolish the husband-wife institution, and you’ve conquered Western society. Simple as that.
New York’s decades-old Braschi appears only to screw over a landlord or expectant heir. The communist reality is much deeper, and Marx must be applauding its every use somewhere in the Great Beyond. O’Neill’s new, polyamorous ruling? Even better!
