Harvard Law School Supports Advocacy Group Seeking Legal Protections for People in Polyamorous Relationships
“Cambridge, Massachusetts, the home of Harvard University, recognized polyamorous relationships officially in March.”
Harvard Law is focused like a laser on one of the pressing legal issues of our time.
Campus Reform reports:
Harvard Law supports advocacy for polyamorous relationships
Harvard Law is supporting a legal advocacy group seeking to advance “legal protections for people in polyamorous relationships.”
As documented by Harvard Law Today, Master of Law student Natasha Aggarwal worked with the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition (PLAC), which is supported by the Harvard Law’s LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic. The coalition “seeks to advance the civil and human rights of polyamorous individuals, communities, and families through legislative advocacy, public policy, and public education.”
Polyamory, as defined by Harvard Law Today, is “a form of non-monogamous relationship involving more than two adult partners at the same time, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.”
Cambridge, Massachusetts, the home of Harvard University, recognized polyamorous relationships officially in March.
PLAC was launched by a psychologist and five lawyers. Among the members of the founding team is Harvard Law lecturer Alexander Chen, who teaches “Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and the Law” and co-drafted AB 2119 — legislation that made California “the first state to guarantee access to transition-related health care for trans youth in foster care.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Yes, that’s fine, but will they support Elwood when he marries Harvey!
Harvard Law is now officially a joke
“Cambridge, Massachusetts, the home of Harvard University, recognized polyamorous relationships officially in March.”
How does a city government “recognize relationships?” They can’t issue marriage licenses for it, the state won’t let them. All it probably means is that if one of the is a city employee, the rest get insurance. Whatever.
Cambridge has a habit of issuing ridiculous town resolutions.
Back in the late ’70s, Cambridge declared itself a “no nuke zone” — despite already having more nuclear reactors within its boundaries than any other municipality in the United States. (There was one at Harvard, one at MIT, and one other I don’t recall where.) And they did exactly nothing to chase the nukes out of town.
Then in the late ’80s, they decided to declare themselves a “no violence zone.” Pointing out their inverse success at being a “no nuke zone,” we advised them they probably didn’t want to do that.
Time to manufacture some “No Common Sense Zone” signs to place at the borders of the town.
A bus with only one psychologist and five lawyers as passengers but all other seats being empty drives off a cliff ,,,,, “lost opportunity.”
I had understood that bigamy was illegal in most states and territories. (This was particularly an important legal development in Utah.) Could someone please explain the difference between a “recognized polyamory relationship” and a bigamous relationship?
Sure. A recognized polyamorous relationship requires no formal licensing by government. Bigamy is marriage fraud, and involves official marriage licenses.
Other than the recent gay marriage thing, Massachusetts marriage law is not what one might term licentious. I always thought it strange that the Commonwealth prohibited a man from marrying his mother-in-law… not just because scientifically there is no health/genetic rationale for the prohibition, but because legally once a man becomes single again, he has no mother-in-law.
Utah recently decriminalized polygamy as well:
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-polygamy-utah-decriminalized-20200513-64vq5ptw4bf6bi2fkijpfrpchu-story.html
Legalizing plural marriage is the obvious next step after legalizing same-sex marriages. In legalizing same-sex marriages, government has declared that marriage is simply a contract that can be entered into by any two consenting adults.
The obvious question is: Why not more than two consenting adults?