Third Massachusetts locale approves multi-domestic partnerships

Arlington, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston adjoining Cambridge and Somerville, has just joined those two cities in offering legal recognition to domestic partnerships of three or more people.

Arlington had no domestic partnership provision at all. Last night (April 28, 2021) its Representative Town Meeting voted to enact one — and also voted to amend it by adding the language "two or more" people, thanks to heads-up work by local poly activists.

The amendment with the key wording, from the sponsor's powerpoint video presented last night at Arlington Town Meeting. The amendment also included removing Section 10 from the proposed bylaw because that section's language paralleled domestic-partnered families to married families. Some feared that this wording might give the state attorney general grounds for finding a conflict with the state's anti-bigamy laws.

The "two or more" amendment, offered by local polyfamily member Amos Meeks, passed Town Meeting by a lopsided vote of 192-37. The entire bylaw as amended then passed 221-11.  

Because this is a new town bylaw, it does not yet go into effect. The town has 30 days to submit it for approval to state Attorney General Maura Healy, who then has 90 days to vet it for any conflict with state law. No problem is expected. (Somerville and Cambridge did not have to go through this procedure because they are cities, not towns, and passed city ordinances, not bylaws.)

Here is the full bylaw as passed. Here is Meeks's full "two or more" amendment. 

Congrats, folks! Who's next?

Update: Three days later there has been practically no media attention to this event. That's also what happened after Cambridge passed its ordinance in March, and totally unlike what happened when Somerville set the precedent last June; that event made headlines nationwide and even overseas. I guess that's normalization.

The two exceptions I find are in the local Patch.com, which had this brief mention, and in the Arlington Advocate, which ran a longer story: Town Meeting approves domestic partnership for relationships with more than two people (April 30, by way of WickedLocal.com). Here's most of it. As always, the boldfacing is mine:

By Jesse Collings

In what could be a watershed moment for multi-person relationships, Arlington became the first town in Massachusetts [Somerville and Cambridge are cities] to approve domestic partnerships of more than two people when Town Meeting approved an amendment to a warrant article Wednesday, April 28. 

The motion states the town will recognize domestic partnerships containing two or more people, which is more inclusive of people in polyamorous relationships or other non-traditional family situations. The town recognition helps people in those relationships achieve the same kind of civil rights permitted to married couples, including visitation rights at health care facilities and access to children's school records. 

Somerville and Cambridge are the only communities in Massachusetts recognizing domestic partnerships between more than two people. However, those were proposed through city ordinances, which can only be removed if appealed by private residents. Because Arlington is a town, the motion approved at Town Meeting is subject to review and approval from the state  Attorney General's office, and without any town having approved this type of motion before, Arlington will be in unprecedented legal ground when the AG reviews it. 

Originally, the article proposed at Town Meeting was to solely recognize domestic partnerships of two people. Town Meeting member Amos Meeks proposed the amendment extending the definition of recognized domestic partnerships to people who are in polyamorous relationships. Meeks said he worked with Town Meeting member Guillermo Hamlin and the Rainbow Commission, who helped put together the original article, as well as the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition, an organization promoting the rights of people in polyamorous relationships. 

Meeks, who said he lives together with his two life partners, said the formal recognition would help him and anyone else in a similar relationship achieve certain civic rights, such as getting onto the insurance plans of their partners. 

"I wanted to get dental insurance through one of my partners' employers, but they required proof of a domestic partnership. Registering a domestic partnership that would not exclude a member of my family only became an option when Somerville passed their domestic partnership ordinance this past year, and I'm excited to be able to register our domestic partnership with Arlington once the bylaw goes into effect," Meeks said. 

Meeks said that childcare can also be a legal challenge for people in polyamorous relationships, and further legitimacy of their domestic partnership can make that process easier.

"I can't speak directly to anyone else's experiences, but I think legal barriers around childcare and parenting are a challenge for many people. By providing some legal recognition of the family relationship for domestic partnerships with children and by providing rights that make co-parenting kids and interacting with schools easier I think that bylaws like this one are a big step towards helping families with children," Meeks said.

...Meeks said that future measures, such as introducing protections for people in polyamorous relationships in the workplace and in child custody situations, are important improvements to be made. However, the approval at Town Meeting and the potential approval from the AG is a big step forward. 

"We are a family by any reasonable sense of the word, but not in the eyes of the town or the state. I think a really important part of laws like this is just recognition and external validation," Meeks said. "(When the amendment was approved) I felt welcomed and accepted by my neighbors. I felt proud to be part of this community, and I felt extremely grateful for the support of my fellow Town Meeting Members, especially those who helped craft the article and those who spoke up in favor of it."

----------------------------------------------------------

●  In other legal news... The ten-year-old Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association has put out a Canada-wide call for polyam people and households to declare themselves as such for Canada's national Census Day, May 11. Personal census information (such as this) is kept private.

The CPAA Encourages Polyamorous Individuals to Participate in Canadian Census Day (May 11)

April 22, 2021 –  Statistics Canada conducts the census every five years. This study is essential for maintaining an equitable distribution of electoral boundaries, estimates the demand for services (and allocation of government funding), and provides information about the population and housing characteristics within geographic areas. This supports planning, administration, policy development and evaluation activities of government at all levels.

Why should Polyamorous Individuals Complete the Census?

We strongly encourage all polyamorous individuals residing in Canada to complete the census. We view this year’s census as an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of advocacy for the needs of polyamorous individuals and families in Canada. Data pertaining to multi-adult households, multi-parent families, and the prevalence of non-nuclear family structures is important for regional districts in terms of future planning for housing capacity, schools, and essential infrastructure.

The current census options do not allow for the inclusion of polyamory or data about multi-partner relationships, families, or other forms of open relationships. In order to advocate our need for inclusion, we need to demonstrate our numbers. Our hope is that in areas with a high concentration of polyamorous individuals and families (such as Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal), the responses we suggest below will be statistically significant enough to warrant polyamory-inclusivity by Statistics Canada studies in the future.

As more data is gathered about the numbers of polyamorous individuals within Canada, we at the CPAA will be better resourced with data that demonstrates the importance of our legal advocacy work, including working towards legal and cultural changes that permit multiple parents to be listed on birth & adoption certificates, and that allow for polyamorous partners to be legally recognized as family, common-law, and next-of-kin, without contracts of marriage. 

The census asks for basic information about your age, your relationships with the people you live with, your sex assigned at birth, your gender, what languages you speak, and a few other pieces of biographical data. If you receive the long form census (1 in 5 households receive this) you will be asked for additional information regarding disabilities, employment, and education. All identifying information is kept private, and you do not need to use your legal name to answer (a nickname, for example, is fine).

In both the short and long forms of the census, one resident is asked to complete the census on behalf of all occupants. You will be asked to list the occupants of your home and then describe their relationship to you. We are recommending that all polyamorous individuals who cohabit with any partner (regardless of whether they are married, common law, etc.) choose "Other Relationship" and write in specifics from the following, as appropriate:
Polyamorous Partner
Polyamorous Spouse
Polyamorous Metamour
Polyamorous Co-parent
Polyamorous Family Member

For more detailed information, see the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association website: http://polyadvocacy.ca/polyamourous-2021-census-participation/

_________________________
 Don't miss Polyamory in the News!
 SUBSCRIBE by a feed, or
 SUBSCRIBE by email
_________________________

[Permalink]

Friday Polyamory News Roundup – Lockdown impacts overt and subtle, teen poly, choosing a group-wedding venue, unicorn hunters find a better way, and more

               

Carla Ten Eyck Photography

Welcome to Friday Polynews Roundup for July 31, 2020.

●  The big poly news this week was the Cambridge, Mass., City Council voting 6-0-2 to move forward on an ordinance allowing groups of three or more people to form legal domestic partnerships, much like neighboring Somerville did a month ago. The lopsided vote is said to mean the council will very likely enact the change at its next meeting September 14th. See report.   

●  Meanwhile BU Today, the official daily website of Boston University, hosted a Point Of View piece by lawyer and BU PhD student Kimberly Rhoten on the Somerville developments. POV: Somerville, Mass., Delivers a Big Victory for Those in Polyamorous Relationships (July 30)

...First, the legislation allows any number of consenting adults to be recognized as a family by the city. ... Although the definitive number of polyamorous households and families living in Somerville is currently unknown, polyamorous Facebook, Meetup, and other social media groups in the area boast thousands of members. As Somerville Councillor Lance Davis aptly stated in regard to these communities and residents, the new ordinance “validates their existence, it validates the way they love.”

Anastasia_M / iStock

Second, there is no city requirement, nor is it necessarily presumed, that persons in a domestic partnership be involved in a romantic relationship; instead, applying partners need only be in “a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship.” As such, chosen families and expanded kinship networks may finally achieve legal recognition and governmental protections. 

Third, nonnuclear families (e.g., stepfamilies, multigenerational families), in addition to polyamorous families, could see significant benefits from the city’s expansive definition of domestic partnerships. The new ordinance gives persons in domestic partnerships the same rights and privileges that Somerville gives to married persons. As a result, these new privileges include, but are not limited to: hospital and jail visitation rights, bereavement leave (for city employees, and potentially, from private employers), and health insurance (for city employees, and potentially, from private employers). Further, Somerville’s Human Rights Commission is now mandated to look into instances of discrimination against persons in domestic partnerships.

...Yet there are still miles left to go. This legislation does not offer comprehensive antidiscrimination protections that would extend to all facets of polyamorous persons’ lives (e.g., housing, employment). For example, under the new Somerville legislation, a private employer is still within their legal rights to fire a polyamorous employee on the basis of their relationship structure. This, of course, may likely disincentivize polyamorous persons from notifying their human resources department of their multiple partnerships, preventing employee benefits (e.g., bereavement leave) from reaching their partners. Second, the Somerville ordinance does not prevent private companies from narrowly providing health insurance benefits to only married spouses of their employees. ...

As interest, awareness, and participation in polyamory increases, other jurisdictions, both within and outside of Massachusetts, may likely follow Somerville’s lead. For instance, cities in California (e.g., Berkeley) have already adopted (but have not yet implemented) antidiscrimination legislation to protect residents with nontraditional relationship structures, including polyamory; Somerville’s new ordinance may inspire further action.

...It is estimated that between 4 and 5 percent of the US population currently participates in some form of open relationship; this is roughly equivalent to the percentage of Americans who identify as LGBT. With increasing legal recognition of this substantial population, more American families can live their lives safely....

Kimberly Rhoten (GRS’26) is an attorney and PhD candidate in sociology; they can be reached at krhoten@bu.edu.

●  Expect to see more advice columns like this: In Slate's parenting column "Care and Feeding," I Think My Teenager Might Be in a Polyamorous Relationship (July 27).

"I’m worried she’s too young for this sort of thing. Should I talk to her about it?"

Slate / Getty

By Michelle Herman

Dear Care and Feeding,

...One evening when they were all at our house, on the way to our basement laundry room I found all three of them flushed and rapidly disentangling on the rec room couch. ... There was another occasion in which the boys dropped off a jointly purchased gift for her.

...Our family’s values are quite progressive and queer-friendly, but a potential romantic triad (or the aftermath of one) seems like a lot for an adolescent to handle. ... Teenagers being as they are, it seems like addressing this directly or offering unasked-for advice might be a fast way to slam the door shut. This feels like advanced placement parenting....

—Liberal but Maybe Not That Liberal

Dear LbMNTL,

The best perk of my day job teaching at a large public university (and in particular teaching classes in which my students write candidly about their lives, then sit around in a seminar room talking about what they’ve written) is that I have a unique, on-the-front-lines view into the way older teenagers and young adults experience the world. And let me tell you: It is sometimes downright perplexing to an adult whose sense of how things work and are supposed to work was shaped by another generation’s customs, ideas, and understanding of pretty much everything.

...So I am here, speaking from the trenches, to tell you that multipartnered romantic relationships among young people only a year or two older than your daughter are ever more common. I know this is astonishing ... but even in Ohio, where I teach, young people will casually mention their (plural) “partners.” ... If you have a teenager who is (or was) trying out a polyamorous relationship, the time has come for you to gather some information. Try this article in Teen Vogue for starters and this polyamory primer. (You say you want to advise her, but you won’t be able to do that if you don’t know anything about what she’s up to—or why she might be up to it.)

...Does she seem anxious, unhappy, scared, or depressed?

... If the answer is no, then what I’m going to suggest will probably sound scary to you. But if the channels of communication between the two of you have consistently been open, and she knows you to be a (genuinely) progressive and queer-friendly person, it would be wise to be direct with her. “Hey, I’ve noticed that only Jordan has been coming around lately, when it seemed like you were in a relationship with both Jordan and Jason. What happened?” If you can pull that off casually, it might lead to a real conversation. That is: If she doesn’t think it’s freaking you out, she might be willing to come out to you.

If, however, you have reason to believe that she is troubled—that this is a crisis for her—you’re going to have to take a different approach. Say something along the lines of: “I hope you know you can talk to me about anything. I have a feeling something’s worrying you/making you unhappy. Whatever it is, I’m here for you. There’s nothing you could tell me that would shock me, I promise. The only thing in the world that matters to me is your happiness and well-being.”

And work hard on meaning every word of that. ...

●  And there was more on the topic we can't get enough of. On Refinery29 came The Polyamorous Community On How Lockdown Has Impacted Their Relationships (July 24). 

Meg O'Donnell

By Megan Wallace

...As it turns out, being with your partner 24/7 – especially while worrying about your health and staring down the "worst recession since the Great Depression" – is not only pretty toxic but has UK lawyers reporting a 42% spike in divorce enquiries.

...On the one hand, polyamorous people normally report high contentment levels, particularly around sexual satisfaction and intimacy, which could no doubt help with the strain of lockdown. On the other, they’ve also been facing a set of specific challenges that many monogamous people won't have even considered.

...For Ryan, 31, who enjoys two committed, long-term partnerships – one with a 'primary' live-in, same-sex partner and another with a 'secondary' partner, a girlfriend living in a different city, both of whom also have additional partners – the fundamental question of who to go into lockdown with was tricky.

"My primary and I had discussed whether or not we might have our secondaries isolate with us for a period of time, but they each have their own households and it didn't work out restrictions- or travel-wise," Ryan explains. "It also might not have been fair on their partners, and my girlfriend is a mother of one, so further factors [such as childcare] would have needed to be considered." As a result, Ryan was separated from his girlfriend throughout lockdown, keeping in touch primarily through texts, voice notes and video calls, and his primary partner was separated from his boyfriend – who he would normally see multiple times a week – save for digital communication and the occasional hand-delivered care package. ...

[Said Amy,] "Throughout lockdown I’ve been living with a partner who I only started dating in January. I guess we made that decision because we had a lot of 'new relationship energy' and chemistry, and it felt like isolating apart could kill the momentum of the relationship," she says. "At first I was really freaking out about the pandemic and began worrying that we’d rushed things by moving in. But in hindsight I think it’s worked. We’re both pretty easy-going and it’s been way easier living with a new partner than someone I have a lot of history and, dare I say, 'baggage' with." 
    

For some, lockdown has been particularly damaging, as is the case with ethically non-monogamous Alex, 32. A well-known figure in London’s poly community for his work with kink, queer and poly-positive party Crossbreed, Alex’s own relationships have suffered due to the pandemic. The past few months have been a period of significant stress, seeing him not only fall ill with the virus but fear for his livelihood as a member of the nightlife economy. ... 'I didn’t have the energy or presence of mind to be there for one of my partners in the way they wanted me to be," Alex recalls.

..."I’m quite good at reading people in real life," he says. ... "During lockdown... there was a deterioration of communication between me and some of my partners, which is not something I really could have avoided."

...Ryan suggests, [Ahem,] "Rather than reading about other people's experiences and putting questions to [poly] forums, I personally get a lot more out of directly communicating to my partners about my feelings and needs."

●  In the South Seattle Emerald (and BTW, Seattle ought to be ripe for the next domestic-partnership expansion), comes Navigating Consensual Non-Monogamy During COVID-19 (July 30). The article is long. Excerpts from near the beginning:

Vlad Verano

By Alexa Peters 

...Seattle, for its part, has a robust non-monogamous community, evidenced by many local, online groups around polyamory, open relationships, relationship anarchy, and other styles. ...

...Though he considers himself a practitioner of non-hierarchical polyamory, in which no one partner is more important than another, [Darren] Brown says the pandemic has forced him to prioritize his wife, the partner he lives with, over his other partners. ...

“COVID really lays bare that we have these philosophies, but they don’t [always] line up,” said Brown. “Like, we kind of present [like], ‘Oh, I’m non-hierarchical, I’m not going to put one person in front of the other,’ but when COVID says ‘Who are you going to spend the next six weeks with?’ we all made that decision.”

...This COVID-induced philosophical dissonance, as well as the toll the social distancing has on relationships, has had very real mental health effects for Brown and other polyamorous folks. ...

...Comings, Brown, and other polyamorous individuals also note that the circumstances have offered opportunities for growth, namely by bringing incompatibilities with certain partners to the forefront and encouraging more transparency within polycules.

“I did have a third partner, but [that ended because] … when you take away the physical chemistry, what’s left is put under a microscope,” said Comings. ...

●  On a happier note, Offbeat Bride this morning, in response to a reader's question, published How to find a venue for your polyamorous wedding (July 31).

Carla Ten Eyck Photography

...Weddings don't all look alike, as we know — and polyamorous ceremonies can be even more varied! Here are a few of the structures of the real-life poly weddings we've featured in our archives since 2008:

    – Three (or more) single individuals may want to have a ceremony combining their lives into one, as you do.

    – Two single people may choose to marry each other, skipping the "forsaking all others" trappings.

    – A married couple may want to bring another couple or another person into their family with a ceremony.

    – One member of a committed, unmarried couple may marry a third member of the throuple.

    – One member of a married couple may want to have a handfasting ceremony with another person, who will join the original couple.

Selecting a venue for your poly wedding may depend on how many people are involved in the ceremony, and what kind of ceremony it is… But this much is clear: you should be able to have your ceremony. A survey of polyamorous individuals [the Loving More survey of 4,062 polyfolks in done 2012, when the movement was less broad-based than now –Ed.] found that 60% would want to marry multiple people if polyamorous marriages were legal. ...

Poly-friendly venues

Cruise ships may not welcome polyamorous weddings, but here are some other options that Offbeat Bride poly folks have used in the past. (Click through the links to see the examples!)

    – Your home — backyard weddings are some of the sweetest weddings, right?

    – Someone else's home. Click through the link to see a special polyamorous elopement.

    – A brewery or other interesting eating or drinking place.

    – A city park — many parks have gazebos or other structures that can be rented for parties of any kind.

    – A garden at an estate or museum. Many public spaces will allow commitment ceremonies on their grounds.

    – City hall, the site of so many different weddings.

    – Your church or temple — they might surprise you.

How to start the conversation

Is your wedding venue open to polyamorous ceremonies? Ask ahead, and give them some time to figure it out. ...

●  Newsweek ran an autobiographical piece, 'This Is What It's Actually Like to Be Non-Monogamous' (July 19), by Melina Cassidy, a relationship coach and organizer in sex-positive communities in British Columbia, Canada. Over the years some members of the Polyamory Leadership Network have expressed concerns about Cassidy' interactions with community members. She has formed an accountability pod, and any who have concerns about her are invited to contact the pod at http://radicalrelationshipcoaching.ca/accountability/.

By Mel Cassidy

On July 25, 2009 I was at home with my husband. Though it was more than a decade ago, I can vividly remember the lightning that filled the sky, the thunder that roared through the air and deep rumblings that shook the ground. Because that day, something awoke within me.

My husband and I had tried for years to start a family, but on that day I began to wonder whether my desire for a child wasn't actually about creating a new life outside of myself, but was a need to create a new life for myself.

I married when I was 22, to the first man I had a significant relationship with. Growing up I experienced homophobia and negativity around sex, which had the effect of squashing my queer desires and propelling me into a futile attempt to fulfil the heterosexual monogamous "dream."

Yet I knew I was attracted to women and desired multiple partners. I hoped those desires would evaporate when I experienced the "magic" of matrimony, but they never did, and for years I battled with depression and shame around my sexuality.

On that day of the storm, I had a realization that I had never really felt seen, understood, and loved for who I truly was—and that needed to change. ...

●  And lastly, another happy-polyfamily profile popped up in the tabloids. They started as unicorn hunters, then found a better way: Polyamorous mother, 29, who opened her relationship to a female colleague insists they're all parents to each others' five children - and wants her boyfriend to have a baby with their new partner (Daily Mail, July 30). With 19 pix of them. Once again, the tabloid is in the UK but its agent found a polyfam in the US. 

Polyamorous mother Cheyenne Barnes, 29, from Houston,Texas, is raising a combined brood of five after opening her relationship with James Chorman, 34, up to female co-worker Joelle Temporal, 24.

They are raising their 'rainbow family' under one roof with the youngsters referring to the women as 'Mommy Cheyenne' or 'Mommy Joelle'.

And they are hoping to add a sixth child to their brood, as machinist James and insurance agent Joelle are also trying to have a baby together.

Cheyenne said: 'People say we're messing up our kids, but the kids don't care. All they see is three people who love each other – and love them.

'My eldest daughter told me her friends think it's cool she has three parents because, "She can get even more presents." But she doesn't look at it that way. She says she has more people to love her.'

...As the trio all have different parenting styles – with Cheyenne being more of a disciplinarian than her boyfriend and girlfriend – they do disagree from time to time when it comes to decisions about the children, although they work through any clashes using open communication and, occasionally, a vote.

...Cheyenne continued: 'They get to be the fun ones while I'm the bad guy! I'm pretty fair across the board with each child, regardless of whether or not they are biologically mine.

'I always make sure to have a talk with the kids so they understand what they did wrong and can think about it in the future.'

The throuple are blissfully happy as a blended family of eight, and Joelle still has her heart set on having a baby, but has no plans to fall pregnant until next year....

The original couple started off by going unicorn hunting. It didn't work:

Setting up profiles on several dating apps, the couple soon realised that finding a potential candidate was going to be harder than they had anticipated.

'We started going on dates, but none of them lived up to our expectations,' Cheyenne explained.

'We were looking for a relationship where all three partners were equally invested in one another, but every date we went on, the girl was always more interested in either James or me - never both of us.

'The final nail in the coffin was after we'd spent five or six dates with one particular girl.

'She ended up trying to take James to bed, without me and he just said, "This isn't working".

'We decided maybe we didn't want to do this after all.'

But then Cheyenne "threw herself into her then job at an insurance company, where she met mother-of-one Joelle." They gradually bonded as work friends, and things developed naturally from there. Eventually, "We went to the bedroom as a trio, and it was surprisingly natural. It was the first time for all of us, but it all felt so natural."

...Keen to encourage more understanding about polyamory, Cheyenne said: 'Some people try and sabotage our relationship by saying it won't work out or it's not normal.

'We've been together a year and we're going strong. We have no intention of this not working out.

'I just hope that by sharing our story it becomes more normalised and poly people are treated equally without all the negativity.'

James admits, 'It's been difficult at times, but you work through it because you love two people.'

And while Joelle still faces negative reactions, she insists the relationship is worth it. ... 'People have told my daughter from a previous relationship that Cheyenne isn't her mother, and that hurts.

'But no matter how challenging it gets, I feel like we're in a good place in our relationship and that's worth fighting for.'

That's Friday Polynews Roundup for now. Stay safe, don't be a knucklehead, and don't breathe knuckleheads' microdroplets.

[Permalink]

Somerville, Mass., Recognizes Polyamorous Domestic Partnerships

The city of Somerville, Massachusetts, has just passed a domestic partnership ordinance that includes polyamorous partnerships of more than two. Somerville is a progressive, densely populated city of 81,000 bordering Cambridge and Boston. From the Somerville Journal today (July 1), via WickedLocal.com:

(Somerville High School, next to City Hall)

The Somerville City Council unanimously approved an ordinance with language inclusive to polyamorous domestic partnerships.

By Julia Taliesin

On June 29, Somerville quietly became one of the first cities in the nation – if not the first – to recognize polyamorous domestic partnerships.

The historic move was a result of a few subtle language shifts. For example, instead of being defined as an “entity formed by two persons,” Somerville’s ordinance defines a domestic partnership as an “entity formed by people,” replaces “he and she” with “they,” replaces “both” with “all,” and contains other inclusive language.

On June 25, the City Council passed the ordinance recognizing domestic partnerships unanimously, and on June 29 Mayor Joe Curtatone signed it into municipal law. The city is in the process of changing the application to include space for more than two partners, but polyamorous partners will be able to file soon.

Ward 6 Councilor Lance Davis, who chairs the Legislative Matters committee that reviewed the ordinance, said this began by just wanting to draft an ordinance recognizing domestic partnerships. Somerville didn’t have one, and a constituent request moved the council to work with the city on an ordinance.

“During our initial conversations, a couple things jumped out,” said Davis. “The first draft required domestic partners to notify the city of any change of address, which struck me as not in line with what married folks have to do, and required that they reside together, which again struck me as something I’m not required to do as a married person, so we got rid of those provisions.”

Other changes came later. Davis said it’s not usually like him to let legislation sit once it’s been worked out, but something told him to give this one some time.

About an hour before the June 25 council meeting, he heard from fellow Councilor J.T. Scott.

″[He] reached out and said, ‘Why is this two?’ And I said, ‘I don’t have a good answer,’” said Davis. “I tripped over my words a bit, and played devil’s advocate, but I had no good reason. So, I pulled it out, went through quickly making whatever word changes necessary to make it not gendered or limited to two people.”

The ordinance passed unanimously.

“I’ve consistently felt that when society and government tries to define what is or is not a family, we’ve historically done a very poor job of doing so,” said Davis. “It hasn’t gone well, and it’s not a business that government should be in, so that guided my thinking on this.”

Leading the way

The changes are small, but powerful: If you put the Cambridge and Somerville ordinances side-by-side they appear nearly identical save for a few differences, namely that the Cambridge ordinance defines a domestic partnership as including only “two persons” and requires partners to live together.

It’s the first time that family law attorney Andy Izenson has seen a municipality do anything like this. Izenson is the senior legal director, vice president, and secretary of the nonprofit Chosen Family Law Center in New York. The center also has an initiative, the Poly Families Project, which offers direct, affordable legal support to polyamorous families across the country.

“I think it’s pretty amazing – strategies like this are the best chance we have of moving towards a legal understanding of family that’s as comprehensive as it needs to be to serve all families,” said Izenson. “I’ve seen a few other small-scale or local entities that have taken steps towards recognizing that relationships between adults are not only between two adults, but this is the first time I have seen this strategy brought to fruition.”

Izenson noted states recognizing third-parent adoptions action that is close to offering broader rights to families, but pointed out that most gains in “marriage equality” have all been carefully defined as between two people.

“There’s a reflexive flinch away from families including more than two partners,” they said.

Izenson called out mainstream media, certain sects of Christianity, and the bottom-line of capitalism for maintaining this cultural flinch. For example, health insurance companies are incentivized to limit the definition of family so they do not have to cover more people.
Regardless, Izenson is hopeful that this move indicates even a small change in the way we think about the legal rights of families.

“There are two kinds of legal advocacy: the bottom-up kind and the top-down kind. Top-down meaning law that comes from the Supreme Court...which, in terms of day-to-day life is more reflective of culture change than leading the way. This type of bottom-up work – local people making policy regarding their neighbors – that’s the sort of thing that’s not only reflective of a culture shift, but a shift towards acceptance and support of a broader variety of families.”

The original article (July 1). A sidebar notes that under Massachusetts law, domestic partners are not legally considered family and do not have many of the rights and responsibilities of the married. For instance they do not inherit a partner’s assets by default; the partner must write a will.

The ordinance itself.

--------------------------------

More ambitious local efforts have been bubbling elsewhere. As that article in Real Clear Investigations reported on April 22, 

Activists are already working with elected officials in more than a dozen local governments, especially in California, to expand local anti-discrimination ordinances to include a new protected class, “relationship structure,” said Berkeley psychologist and poly activist Dave Doleshal.

Most efforts are at the informal stage but the city of Berkeley did consider a formal proposal to extend protections in housing, employment, business practices, city facilities or education to swingers, polyamorists and other non-monogamists. The proposal stalled last year amid concerns that it would have required employers to provide health insurance to numerous sexual and romantic partners outside of marriage.

The Boston area has had a notable polyamory scene for at least 25 years, though it remains more scattered and unorganized than in many other progressive cities. Cambridge and Somerville, sometimes nicknamed "Camberville," have long had a significant poly presence and so have their suburbs just to the north.

So about that ordinance: Cambridge, are you next? And how about those suburbs, Medford and Malden?

--------------------------------

Update next day: The story made this morning's Boston Globe: Somerville recognizes polyamorous relationships in new domestic partnership ordinance (online July 1).  For a while it was the paper's second-most-read story online.

There's little in this brief piece that's new from the Somerville Journal story, but here are bits that are:

By Jeremy C. Fox

...The city had never had a domestic partnership ordinance before, [City Councilor Lance] Davis said, unlike Boston, Cambridge, and many other Massachusetts cities that introduced such policies before same-sex marriage became legal in the state in 2004.

The issue arose recently because of the coronavirus pandemic, as Somerville residents in committed relationships who aren’t married approached Davis and other councilors with concerns about being able to visit sick partners in the hospital, he said.

The inclusion of relationships between more than two consenting adults was added just before the meeting at the suggestion of Councilor J.T. Scott, according to Davis. ...

...So far, the public response to the measure has been entirely positive, Davis said.

“I got an e-mail from someone at my church that said, ‘Wow, this is amazing. Thank you so much for doing this,’ " he said. 

And now in the New York Times: A Massachusetts City Decides to Recognize Polyamorous Relationships (July 2)

Ronaldo Schemidt/ AFP

By Ellen Berry

Under its new domestic partnership ordinance, the city of Somerville now grants polyamorous groups the rights held by spouses in marriage, such as the right to confer health insurance benefits or make hospital visits.

[JT Scott said], “Here in Somerville, families sometimes look like one man and one woman, but sometimes it looks like two people everyone on the block thinks are sisters because they’ve lived together forever, or sometimes it’s an aunt and an uncle, or an aunt and two uncles, raising two kids.”

He said he knew of at least two dozen polyamorous households in Somerville, which has a population of about 80,000.

“This is simply allowing that change, allowing people to say, ‘This is my partner and this is my other partner,’” he said. “It has a legal bearing, so when one of them is sick, they can both go to the hospital.”

...Under the new ordinance, city employees in polyamorous relationships would be able to extend health benefits to multiple partners. But it is not clear, Davis said, whether private employers will follow the city’s lead.

“Based on the conversations I’ve had,” he said, “the most important aspect is that the city is legally recognizing and validating people’s existence. That’s the first time this is happening.”

He said he had considered the possibility that a large number of people — say, 20 — would approach the city and ask to be registered as domestic partners.

“I say, well what if they do?” Davis said. “I see no reason to think that is more of an issue than two people.”

...[JT] Scott, the councilman, said he had been inundated by calls and messages all day, including from lawyers interested in pursuing a similar measure at the state or federal level.

Under the ordinance, domestic partners, whether in groupings of two or more, would not necessarily be romantic partners.

And CNN:  A Massachusetts city will recognize polyamorous relationships as part of new domestic partnership ordinance (July 2):

"Folks live in polyamorous relationships and have for probably forever. Right now, our laws deny their existence and that doesn't strike me as the right way to write laws at any level," said Davis. "Hopefully this gives folks a legal foundation from which to have discussion. Maybe others will follow our lead."

A 2-minute video report from Boston's NBC News-10: 

Fox News:  Massachusetts city recognizes polyamorous relationships in new domestic partnership ordinance (July 2):

A left-leaning Massachusetts city has declared it will recognize polyamorous relationships following a unanimous city council vote, according to reports Wednesday. ...

Also USA Today, CBS News.... and now as far as New Zealand and Vietnam.

------------------------------------------

The Globe has just followed up with a short feature quoting some well-known poly community leaders locally and elsewhere: Somerville’s new polyamory-friendly policy a ‘turning point' (July 2):

Somerville City Hall

By Zoe Greenberg

A new domestic partnership policy in Somerville that recognizes polyamorous relationships is a powerful symbol, advocates and academics said, though the specifics of its protections remain limited.

...“The Somerville ordinance is an exciting turning point for people who are polyamorous or in multipartner families,” said Diana Adams, the executive director of the Chosen Family Law Center in New York. “There has been tremendous momentum and energy and hope for this for many years.”

Adams said the law center hoped to push similar ordinances in other small, progressive cities, in a strategy similar to the one that secured the legalization of same-sex marriage across the country. Polyamory refers to people in consenting relationships with multiple partners.

While it broadens and reframes the idea of who counts as a family, the legal protections conferred by the ordinance seem to be narrow, said Kimberly Rhoten, an attorney and graduate student at Boston University who focuses on how the law relates to gender and sexual minorities.

Any benefit that the city provides to domestic partners — like hospital or prison visits — can now also apply to multiple partners in a domestic partnership. But private employers aren’t required to provide health insurance for domestic partners. So one of the primary concerns that prompted the ordinance, accessing health insurance during the coronavirus pandemic, remains unaddressed, Rhoten said. And the question of how the ordinance might affect state and federal family leave is unclear, she said.

“It’s a signaling boost for this community that the city is recognizing more than two partnerships,” Rhoten said. “However there are legal pitfalls involved with the ordinance. We’ll wait and see what happens.”

...Under the ordinance, people qualify for a domestic partnership if they “consider themselves to be a family” and are “in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship.” It does not require that domestic partners be in a romantic relationship.

...Some described it as one piece of a much broader movement for LGBTQ rights.

“I would say that polyamory and consensual non-monogamy in general is riding on the coattails of queer liberation,” said Elisabeth ‘Eli’ Sheff, an international expert on children growing up in polyamorous families and author of the book “The Polyamorists Next Door.” “I definitely see it as a trend towards greater recognition of existing diversity.”

That recognition is one of the crucial parts of the new ordinance, said Jay Sekora, who runs the group Poly Boston, which has about 500 members and hosted dinner outings and discussion group in pre-pandemic times. ...

“I was really excited that a town in my state would recognize the fact that families can’t be defined by government restricting the number of people, or the genders of the people involved, or anything like that,” said Valerie White, the executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, which is based in Sharon. White said she has been practicing non-monogamy since the 1960s.

Update July 8:  Somerville's other newspaper, the Somerville Times, has published a very detailed account of the process by which the ordinance was written. Nothing new of interest, but here it is for anyone researching the details: City approves polyamorous domestic relationship recognition (July 8).

It includes a link to an official City of Somerville page linking to the ordinance itself and listing the six, mostly one-word little amendments that were made late in the game to include multi-partnerships, turning a barely noticeable bit of local city business into landmark news that has flown around the world. 

[Permalink]

Advice column: Lying mono gal upset at honest poly guy

"Love Letters" is an advice column in the Boston Globe by Meredith Goldstein. She posts questions and her answers online in advance, invites readers to comment, and includes some of their comments in the print edition a few days later.

This one, just up this morning, cries out for informative replies from the poly community. Here's an opportunity for public education.

In its entirety:

He doesn’t want ‘traditional monogamy’

Q: Back in October I met a man at a social function. We exchanged numbers and have been dating ever since. He told me in the beginning that he came from a "poly background," and at first I didn't see anything wrong with that because we had just started dating and I wasn't sure this was serious or not.

Since then, we have become more and more serious. Recently, while at his house, I noticed a few things that seemed out of place and even brought it to his attention. He didn't address it at the time but decided to tell me the next day while I was at work that he is not "monogamous" and would like to know my feelings on that. It took me a few days to regain my composure and explain my feelings about the situation. While I informed him that I would like to be monogamous, he simply stated that he is not compatible with traditional monogamy. It was either I accept him as polyamorous or nothing at all. Thinking that the age difference (he's 11 years younger) was at play here and that all he wanted was to "have his cake and eat it too," I pressed on, calling his bluff and saying that I would be willing to accept this polyamorous situation.

We talked quite a bit about the situation and I thought we were moving forward and making plans for Valentine's Day, when he texted me out of the blue saying he was having anxiety about my not being "mature" enough to accept his need to be poly. This entire situation has given me great anxiety and is causing me to lose sleep. I have made great concessions for this relationship and do not feel like he is making any on his end. At what point do I stop making concessions and give up the relationship?

– AnxietyStricken

A: "At what point do I stop making concessions and give up the relationship?"

Now. You give up the relationship now.

Why do you end the relationship now? Because you don't want to date a guy who's polyamorous.

You want to be in a committed, monogamous relationship, which means you're with the wrong person. This man has been quite clear about his boundaries (or lack thereof), but instead of trusting him and paying attention, you're trying to "call his bluff." Why would he bluff?

It's time to believe everything he says and then make decisions accordingly. There's no reason to lose sleep when he's given you all the information you need.

– Meredith

Readers? Is this about having cake and eating it? Should she stick around?

Here's the original (March 11, 2016), with the link at its bottom to comment to the Boston Globe. Comments you post here on my site will not be seen by the newspaper.

[Permalink]

Advice column: "My girlfriend practiced polyamory"

For her "Love Letters" column in the Boston Globe, Meredith Goldstein posts questions and her answers to them on the paper's website, then adds reader comments in the version that goes to print. This showed up on the site today:

My girlfriend practiced polyamory

...She's a 9 or a 10 in every way. But her past lifestyle experience is vastly different from mine. She left an abusive husband five years ago and began a polyamorous lifestyle with "friends."...

I am not judgmental in any way, nor am I ever jealous. At the same time, in a love affair, I do not share my intimacy, so her lifestyle is in contrast to mine. Simply, if she wishes other men to be intimate with her, I cannot be involved with her. I made my feelings clear, and after a few days she committed herself to our monogamous relationship. Since then, the relationship has intensified wonderfully.

She still remains in contact with some of her "friends," and occasionally goes to lunch or dinner with them – but only as a friend and not a lover (as far as I know).... However, I have not been able to relieve my concern about the situation. I have not had to change my lifestyle for this relationship, whereas she has. And in conversation about this, she freely admits that this is a vast change for her.

...I am about to bring her deeper into my life (financially and emotionally) but I could not stand for her to fall back into her past lifestyle, even briefly, as I would end the relationship over it. Am I setting myself up for an emotional disaster?...

— As far as I know

"She freely admits that this is a vast change for her." Your follow-up question for her should be, "Is this a change you can live with?" That's what you need to discuss before you combine your lives.... She's been transparent about her past and open about her present. She tells you when she sees these "friends," making it clear that she has nothing to hide....

All you can do is listen to your girlfriend and go with your gut. Also remember that a different woman – someone who's only dated one guy at a time – could break your heart and leave you in emotional ruins. Relationships have no guarantee....

Readers? Can this woman maintain a monogamous lifestyle? Are there ever any guarantees?

— Meredith

Read the whole piece (Dec. 8, 2015). As of this afternoon it was the third most-read item on the Globe's local site, boston.com. Already it has 814 comments. Mine is buried in there somewhere.

Update Dec. 11: And here it is in today's print edition.

[Permalink]

Another gay triad goes public. . .

. . .this time outside Boston, on Identities.mic. This isn't the three in Halifax who were in the news last week.

These 3 Gay Men Are in a Successful, Loving Triad Relationship — Here's How It Works

By Mathew Rodriguez

Quick, name a romantic comedy where Sandra Bullock must choose between two romantic partners and decides to end up with both of them — and the two men she chooses want to be with each other too. It's OK: Gregory Rayo, Kai Stenstrum and Mark Aldridge, three gay men in love and living together as a triad outside of Boston, haven't heard of any either.

Gregory Rayo, Kai Stenstrum and Mark Aldridge

...A month or two into their long-distance romance, a guilt-wracked Rayo confessed to hooking up with a friend at a party. That's when Stenstrum (who responded with "Was he hot?") floated the idea of opening the relationship. First, it was sex with other people, and then dating other people.

...Then in March 2014, a Hollywood-sized act of fate occurred. While on a ski trip in New Hampshire with Stenstrum and Aldridge, Rayo conked his head and landed in the hospital, requiring some help at home upon his release. Aldridge, who lived a few miles away from the other two, stayed with Stenstrum and Rayo for the weekend to tend to their mutual beau.

As of that weekend, they made a mutual decision to become a triad. Rayo was relieved of his two-man juggle, and Stenstrum and Aldridge were excited to close the open loop in their three-person arrangement.

...In Nancy Meyers' rom-coms, a character's house reflects a character's inner self. Sunk into a brown sofa, a clean oasis in an accumulation of belongings, Stenstrum made clear what their one-bedroom apartment said about them.

"There's too much stuff all over the place," he said. "We're fitting too many people in too small a place right now."

...Stenstrum said the three were largely in unchartered territory. "We have no books or rom-coms to go off of," he said.

"You need to kind of become comfortable with the fact that you have negative emotions, things like jealousy," Aldridge told Mic.

"Jealousy always gets a bad rap, but it doesn't have to be that way," Scott Kramer, a social worker and psychotherapist who sees polyamorous patients, told Mic. Kramer said every relationship needs a little jealousy to thrive.

"With a healthy jealousy we might be able to say, 'Hey, wait a second, something doesn't feel right or seem right. Let me unpack things and see where this jealousy really comes from,'" he said. "Then talk to the people in the relationship and see if that jealousy is founded or unfounded."

...On most days, Stenstrum cooks and Aldridge scrubs the dishes. "One of our big things is dishes, because we don't have a dishwasher and I have to have things a certain way if I'm going to do dishes," Aldridge said.

"I get upset about that one thing because I've asked [Greg] to make our home together nice and when you don't do that it feels like you haven't listened to me or you don't want to help keep me happy," he said. "I need to feel like we're all on the same team."

"I'm a messy person and I've been trying to undo that part of myself," Rayo said. "I'm getting better by doing more chores around the house."

They said they all prefer to nip conflict in the bud.

"It doesn't usually end up in like one big fight," Stenstrum said. "It's usually like, Mark and I will notice it and start to get frustrated and we sit Greg down and start to talk to him about it."

Aldridge uses Stenstrum as a springboard for solutions. "I go to Kai to make sure I'm not being completely ridiculous," he said.

For Aldridge, who is new to polyamory, this method of conflict is a vast improvement.

"It's been so fantastic to have someone who's not part of the fight but is concerned with the welfare of both parties," Aldridge said. "It's interesting to have a third person who cares about both of you and can kind of help resolve situations and keep you in check and say, 'No, you're being irrational' or 'Your demands are not good demands to make of someone you love.'"...

...The unit did express a tension with their queer, monogamous counterparts. In the time of marriage equality, they said they often have had to fight to be seen as three individuals in one legitimate, loving relationship....

Read the whole article (October 20, 2015).

[Permalink]