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.
64 Comments
toomanypancakes@crazypeople.online · 58 pts · 1d
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.
Estiar@sh.itjust.works · 46 pts · 1d
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!
SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today · 42 pts · 1d
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. 🙂❤️
arctanthrope@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 1d
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
banter6888@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 1d
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)
SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 1d
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.
deadcream@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 21h
It's not only about breeding. It recognizes partners as close relatives legally which gives some rights, for example being able to visit their partner in a hospital while they are unconscious. You wouldn't some rando to be able to do it, but for a hospital to allow partners through they need some proof of that.
zikzak025@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 16h
You don't need to be legally married for that, though. I could list anyone I want as a healthcare proxy or emergency contact, and that gives them rights.
If anything, it can be dangerous to trust immediate family with certain decisions by nature of the paperwork they can prove, because they don't inherently have the person's wellbeing in mind. E.g. a divorced couple with child, or a couple that is still married but separated and yet to complete the divorce paperwork. Or if the person just has a sensitive issue that they don't want their family involved with.
zikzak025@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
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.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 12h
True. That's why communist countries have always allowed gay marriage
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 12h
lol
AppleTea@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 13h
Go back far enough and the answer is almost always inheritance.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9h
Don’t forget sexism
JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 1d
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.
AppleTea@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 13h
Good for them but also
Divorce lawyers, growth market
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 12h
Why do you think that?
CrimeIsLegalNow@ani.social · 3 pts · 10h
Because it could be a step towards polygamy, which increases the number of partners involved in a divorce. Imagine a scenario where one divorce triggers a separate filing, or a prenup being rendered invalid by the second partner becoming the sole partner, etc etc.
I think divorce aka family lawyers already kind of handle these things as is in the case of merged assets.
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 9h
It could, yes, but not all polyamorous beings do or want to get married.
Also, even if polygamy (and we mean polygamy not polygyny or polyandry) did happen it's a huge assumption that the divorce rate would be higher, or the same as monogamous marriages.
It might be healthier, and less likely to cause divorce because beings could be more honest.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 9h
The default assumption should be that the rate of divorce will be higher. A couple has two relationships that can go wrong. A 3-person group have three relationships that can go South. A 4-person group have 6 relationships to worry about. Etc.
As far as, "beings could be more honest?" This sounds like poly-supremacist thinking. If you find yourself assuming any group of people is more innately honest or good, it's time to step back and check your privilege. This is just as bad as someone concluding that poly people are inherently less trustworthy or less capable of commitment, thus concluding that their divorce rate will be higher.
I think the divorce rate among poly people will be higher, but not because of any innate property of the poly people themselves. Each poly relationship is in fact many relationships. And every relationship carries the risk of breakup.
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 7h
Fair, however, it does seem to us that a lot of seemingly monogamous beings cheat because they can't be honest, as in they aren't allowed to be, at least in part.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 7h
If anything, polyamory would create even more opportunities for dishonesty. With just two people, if one starts to loathe the other, they can just break up. With multiple partners, there's pressure to hold your tongue for the sake of maintaining the relationship with the others. The idea that poly people are inherently more honest is weird. As is referring to humans as "beings," when 99.99% would be pretty weirded out by you referring to them as such. I'm a human, not whatever the fuck a "being" is. That sounds like species equivalent of degendering.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9h
It was my first thought but only because I’m poly and have seen some insane breakups.
shadesver@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 12h
alapakala@quokk.au · 7 pts · 13h
Now I wonder how they’ll abolish bigamy laws.
winkly@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
Mormons have entered the chat
jahtnamas@slrpnk.net · 14 pts · 1d
this ain't about them
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1d
would it not also protect them?
Allero@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 23h
Still, they might be affected as well. I honestly wonder if they'll do a 180 again on the matter of polygamy once such protections are all over Utah.
AppleTea@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 13h
The modern LDS church has put a lot of ideological emphasis on "that was then, this is now". I really doubt they'd do another doctrine flip, given so much emphasis is placed on presenting as capital 'n' Normal Americans.
The polygamist splinter sects, on the other hand...
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9h
There’s plenty of Mormons in eastern Washington.
DementedSociety@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 16h
Great! I hope they are happy! Although I've not seen a poly relationship workout for long, but more power to those who can make it work.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 12h
People don't tend to talk or seek advice about relationships that are healthy, they just enjoy them. That's why you end up hearing about when it doesn't work more than when it works.
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 12h
Yep, exactly, we have two partners and are happy with them. We do often specify partners though because like you said often beings don't talk about polyamorous relationships that work out.
So we think it's important to push back on the narrative these self-righteous monogamous beings want to push, that monogamy is the only way to be good, pure and have relationships that work out.
As if monogamous beings never cheat, break up, or are toxic, but lol, we guess it's better to lie about it than be honest that we want multiple partners or can love multiple beings 🙄.
Believe us we have seen lots of unhealthy polyamorous beings and relationships too, we know why it happens and really wish they'd learn and grow from it, but we are happily unmarried and polyamorous, and still going after quite a few years.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 12h
Love to see it!
Yeah there's statistically a lot more unhappy and unhealthy monogamous relationships than there are poly relationships. I think more people would find happiness if we moved away from this societal expectation of monogamy over anything else.
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 12h
Well, that might be part of the problem, but the main problem is the toxic 'norms' and social scripts around relationships whether they are monogamous, polyamorous, relationship anarchist (though less with this one because breaking down social scripts and removing toxic norms is the whole point of it), or otherwise.
That's the real cause so many problems happen in relationships, not the type of relationship but the assumptions and expectations so many have and that they refuse to take no for an answer, don't respect boundaries and limits, or just refuse to be honest with themselves or others, and refuse to get therapy etc too.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 12h
You said it better than I could :)
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 12h
We have thought long and deeply about relationships and why they work or don't.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 12h
My current partner and myself are monogamish, we pretty routinely keep our relationship open for various situations. I practiced polyamory before that. I appreciate folk who keep an open mind about relationship structures and expectations. Thanks for chiming in on this thread!
Manalith@midwest.social · 2 pts · 11h
Monogamy? In this economy?
/s, kind of, not really, honestly if I could talk my SO into it for someone else to split rent with I happily would, but also watch a lot of anime that turns out to be harem anime and boy would I have a heck of a time with that.
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 9h
We don't recommend going from monogamy to polyamory without having done a lot of work in therapy, and deconstructing societal scripts around relationships, expectations, consent and boundaries.
That is respecting more boundaries, not just sex, and understanding what is and isn't a boundary.
Beings trying to put 'boundaries' on what they are allowed to do with other beings for example isn't actually a boundary it's just an attempt to control other's behaviour because they're afraid of losing them instead of trusting them or realising that beings should be allowed to make their own choices, even if it means against you.
This may sound doomery in that like they will choose to no longer be with you, but in our experience that is usually caused by holding on too tightly instead of letting beings be free.
We have been on both ends of the 'too tightly' side and it was never nice.
Gaslov@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6h
pyr0ball@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 7h
Yup, been with my wife for 14 years and she's had a steady boyfriend for 3 now. We still have relationship problems but that's the fairly normal communication issues everyone gets through as you grow up together.
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 12h
What would you consider long?
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 5h
I've seen it fail more often than not, but what I've noticed is that opening up a monogamous relationship is almost always an attempt to cope with critical relationship issues. These are doomed. The ones I've seen work long term are always ones where people begin their relationships with a mutual understanding/desire for non-monogamy.
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · -8 pts · 13h
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 12h
What do you consider cheating?
squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 9h
Your submission in "Seattle moves to recognize the rights of polyamorous partners" was removed for
Your comment is unclear, but can be understood as prejudice towards a certain groups of people. Please don't do that on Blahaj.Zone.
mangobanana@discuss.online · 6 pts · 6h
Honestly as a monogamous ilesbian in a 27 year marriage, I will never understand why you can't be married to multiple people of you want to be? So much for land of the free huh
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 5h
mangobanana@discuss.online · 1 pts · 1h
Lol monogamous
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · -25 pts · 1d
Don’t these people have enough already?
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 1d
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.
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
Ok I meant it as a troll comment. As in polyamorous people have multiple partners. So they have enough already. 😂
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 12h
We understand the joke, but sadly us polyamorous beings do not actually have a lot of legal rights.
A lot of places can fire us for being polyamorous and we are unable to grant certain rights to our other partners if we are married to one of those beings.
We are glad this is getting addressed somewhere, but we hope it spreads instead of being contained to one area.
SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 1d
"These people"?
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Ok I meant it as a troll comment. As in polyamorous people have multiple partners. So they have enough already. 😂
athatet@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Which ones are you talking about?
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Ok I meant it as a troll comment. As in polyamorous people have multiple partners. So they have enough already. 😂
athatet@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 13h
Right. So it’s a ‘leave some for the rest of us’ type thing.
The downvotes are cause it sounds like you’re saying they already have enough rights and don’t need anymore.
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11h
Yes, yes… I had a feeling there would be downvotes. I’m ok with that. Condescending, sarcastic, or troll comments should be voted down.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 23h
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · -30 pts · 1d
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?
ada@piefed.blahaj.zone · 28 pts · 1d
They don't though. Straight mono relationships have significant advantage. Moreso with marriage.
You literally just highlighted the problem...
BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 1d
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?
echedeylr@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 22h
i guess you dont understand what it means being able to add your partners easily as co-owner of your things, being able to be covered by your personal public insurance, going to procedures with you as you are already legally allowed...
Flames5123@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 22h
2 bed rooms could be enough for a 4 person polycule with 2 people to a bed. This protects them from being discriminated against vs a nuclear family home of 4 people when going to rent or even buy a home. This is what matters.
Stop complaining on the internet and “get a job”
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9h
So anyone should have the right to visit anyone in the hospital?