California City Approves Protections for Polyamorous Arrangements

T he West Hollywood City Council unanimously approved an ordinance that allows multi-partner relationships (like a so-called throuple) to formally register as a domestic relationship and receive certain legal protections at the local level, such as visitation rights in jail and rental privileges. A “multi-partner relationship,” per the ordinance, requires that the individuals involved share “the common necessities of life,” are over age 18, are competent enough to enter a contract, are all participating consensually, are “responsible for one another’s welfare,” and are not related by blood or a member of an already declared partnership. There is no expressed limit to the number of individuals who may be involved in a recognized multi-partner relationship, and people living outside the city can register their relationship.

The idea of protections for polyamory was brought to Councilmember Chelsea Lee Byers last year by Christina Fialho, an attorney who founded the “Rewrite the BiLine” organization that “reshape[s] cultural norms and drive[s] policy change” through media narratives to “advance health equity, economic opportunity, and civil rights for bi+ people and non-nuclear families.” Fialho told the Los Angeles Times that “this law is just the beginning. . . . I think it makes it possible for people to dream about a future they once thought was out of reach.” According to public records, the city council deemed it “necessary” to recognize “diverse relationship structures,” such as those involving more than two adults, because they are “becoming increasingly common.” The city frames the ordinance as an anti-discrimination measure with symbolic value:

The City finds that there is both tangible and symbolic value in the registration of such multi-partner domestic relationships, as it allows for the formal recognition and protection of such relationships, serves as a public declaration of commitment within such relationships, and creates a floor of protections with an eye towards the future recognition of these relationships on the local, state, and federal level. It is the intent of the City to eliminate discrimination against individuals in multi-partner domestic relationships in housing, City jails, and City health care facilities, consistent with existing local protections provided to domestic partnerships under the City’s municipal code.

But perhaps the policy is not flexible enough to appreciate the full range of nontraditional relationships practiced today. The Los Angeles Times reports that Megan Katz, a librarian who lives in West Hollywood, explained how the ordinance does not accommodate her current arrangement: She has two children with a marital spouse, whom she calls a “nesting partner,” and she has a partner with whom she does not live. “One of my pet peeves is this popular conception that polyamory is only ‘triads’ or ‘throuples,’” Katz told the newspaper, adding that, “yes, there are triads who are happy and thriving, but many people are in discrete dyads.” In other words, Katz said that an individual may be a member of more than one romantic couple simultaneously, though not all parties are in a relationship with one another — something like test-drive polygamy for the people who don’t want to actually commit to concurrent marriages. Councilmember Byers has reportedly clarified that she would pursue amendments so that “multiple twosomes” (in the framing of the Los Angeles Times) can be registered, which seemingly would recognize polygamous structures in addition to polyamory.

West Hollywood is not the first city to recognize polyamorous relationships; both Somerville and Cambridge in Massachusetts have recognized multi-partner arrangements to extend some of the rights and privileges enjoyed by marital unions.

And so the thing that defenders of marriage warned would happen after a decision like Obergefell is in fact happening, even though progressives insisted it would never happen. Not only were conservatives’ predictions dismissed as unserious “slippery slope fallacies,” but those who expressed opposition to same-sex marriage were also condemned as homophobic bigots. Accommodating homosexual partnerships under the banner of “marriage,” progressives explained, would simply extend the values of stable commitment to a broader segment of the population.

But conservatives knew better: Abandoning one component of the marriage definition — specifically the sexes of those involved — would then allow for all other features, such as number and permanence, to be similarly discarded. Though the West Hollywood ordinance does not formally recognize a registered polyamorous relationship as a “marriage,” it is difficult to see how the post-Obergefell legal landscape can prevent the eventual expansion of “marriage” in law to encompass multi-person unions. The operating logic today is that “marriage” is merely a state-recognized contractual relationship involving love and commitment. Given that, then why should it be limited to romantic relationships with only two adults involved? Since “love is love,” per the activists, there’s no limiting principle in place that restricts marriage in terms of number. (Yet the progressives who are supposedly so accepting of untempered sexuality also insist that a great wrong has been committed when a man with money dates a girl a bit younger than him, or when a professor marries a former student, or even when a guy whose job is to tinker with spreadsheets asks out the secretary who obviously spends an hour on her makeup each morning.)

Underlying the West Hollywood ordinance are broader questions about social arrangements. Is marriage a categorically different type of interpersonal relationship, and what is the best structure of a family? Some conservatives have excused themselves from the conversation about marriage because, in their assessment, the Obergefell decision (along with general public approval of same-sex relationships) means that ship has sailed. But perhaps the ship is heading toward a turbulent storm that will force us to reevaluate the course of travel. The law is a teacher that informs conduct and culture; the increasing pressure to recognize polygamy and polyamory will prompt us to debate, again, what we want the law to teach about sexual ethics, romantic partnerships, and family formation. Somewhat ironically, I agree with what “Rewrite the Bi-Line” founder Christina Fialho said of the ordinance: “This law is just the beginning. . . . I think it makes it possible for people to dream about a future they once thought was out of reach.”