Yes, Trans Exhibitionists Showing Their Junk To Kids Is Directly Downstream Of Redefining Marriage

Indulging and endorsing falsehoods about the nature of marriage and sex only leads to more lies and more injuries.

Slippery slope: New York City judge argues the 'time has arrived' to legally recognize polyamory relationships



A recent decision in New York City's eviction court has come down squarely in favor of recognizing legal rights for polyamorous relationships.

Trial court Judge Karen May Bacdayan concluded in the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal protections extended to two-person relationships.

The case involves three men and a dispute with an apartment building company. Scott Anderson and Markyus O'Neill lived together in a New York City Apartment. Anderson held the lease and was married to another man, Robert Romano, who lived at a different address. After Anderson died, the apartment building company argued that O'Neill did not have a right to renew the lease because he was just Anderson's "roommate." But O'Neill contends he was a "non-traditional family member" who should have the right to renew the lease.

Bacdayan held that there needs to be a hearing to determine whether Anderson had a polyamorous relationship with the other men.

The judge referred to a previous landmark decision by the New York State Court of Apeals, Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co., which in 1989 recognized that two-person, same-sex relationships were entitled to legal recognition.

"Braschi is widely regarded as a catalyst for the legal challenges and changes that ensued," Bacdayan wrote in her opinion. "By the end of 2014, gay marriage was legal in 35 states through either legislation or state court action. Obergefell v Hodges (2015), the seminal Supreme Court decision that established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, was also heralded as groundbreaking."

"However, Braschi and its progeny and Obergefell limit their holdings to two-person relationships," she added. "The instant case presents the distinct and complex issue of significant multi-person relationships."

Bacdayan suggested that the plurality in Braschi only extended legal protections to same-sex couples with "normal familial characteristics" to avoid going "too far." But she questioned why the law should not go further.

“Why then," the judged asked, "except for the very real possibility of implicit majoritarian animus, is the limitation of two persons inserted into the definition of a family-like relationship for the purposes of receiving the same protections from eviction accorded to legally formalized or blood relationships?" Is ‘two’ a ‘code word’ for monogamy? Why does a person have to be committed to one other person in only certain prescribed ways in order to enjoy stability in housing after the departure of a loved one?”

She went on to say that "the Braschi court's referral to 'normal familial activities' reveals an intent to limit the application of noneviction protections to someone who can demonstrate a traditional marriage but for their sexual orientation." Though in 1989 the Braschi decision was called "a radical leap," Bacdayan ruled that ultimately it was "rooted in traditional ideology."

"However, what was 'normal' or 'nontraditional' in 1989 is not a barometer for what is normal or nontraditional now," Bacdayan wrote. "Indeed, the definition of 'family' has morphed considerably since 1989."

Citing the decriminalization of polygamy in Utah, the recognition of polyamorous domestic partners by Sommerville and Cambridge, Massachusetts, and laws that acknowledge a child can have more than two legal parents, Bacdayan said the "broadening recognition" of polyamorous relationships" "begs the question" of why a man who claims to have been involved in a same-sex throuple should not qualify for the legal protections of New York City's rent control laws "under a more inclusive interpretation of a family."

"In sum, the problem with Braschi and Obergefell is that they recognize only two-person relationships," the judge wrote. "Those decisions, while revolutionary, still adhered to the majoritarian, societal view that only two people can have a family-like relationship; that only people who are 'committed' in a way defined by certain traditional factors qualify for protection from 'one of the harshest decrees known to the law—eviction from one's home.'"

"Those decisions," she added, "open the door for consideration of other relational constructs; and, perhaps, the time has arrived."

Republicans Are Playing Right Into Democrats’ Hand On Gay Marriage

Congressional Republicans are faltering as Democrats attempt to expand legal protections for same-sex unions.

Horowitz: Trump-appointed judge: Idaho can't block men from competing in women's sports

Another day, another failure of those conservatives who chose the “appoint better judges” route rather than scrapping judicial supremacy over our culture.

We are living in a time when states and cities can indefinitely mandate draconian “face coverings” on our own mouths and noses, along with a full panoply of restrictions on life, liberty, and property. Yet the courts have been silent because those are real constitutional rights that are being infringed upon, and old-fashioned inalienable rights are not in vogue. What is cool to the black-robed tyrants, including some GOP appointees, is the “right” for men to participate in female sports. Presumably, so long as they wear masks while they are running the track.

On Monday, Judge David C. Nye, a Trump appointee to Idaho’s federal bench, placed a temporary injunction on Idaho’s "Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which bars men who claim they are women from participating in female sports (and vice versa). Nye said that plaintiffs, who include track and field athletes at Boise State University, "are likely to succeed in establishing the Act is unconstitutional as currently written" because, in his estimation, it likely violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Nye claimed that Idaho’s ban is “in stark contrast to the policies of elite athletic bodies that regulate sports both nationally and globally” and that separating sexes by scientific designation "burdens all female athletes with the risk and embarrassment of having to 'verify' their 'biological sex' in order to play women’s sports."

Shockingly, Nye acted as if he really wanted to avoid this controversy, but he contends that the 14th Amendment from 1868 is what compels him to redefine sexuality! “In making this determination, it is not just the constitutional rights of transgender girls and women athletes at issue but, as explained above, the constitutional rights of every girl and woman athlete in Idaho,” Nye wrote.

Remember when we were told that Gorsuch’s opinion in the transgender employment case was just about statutory reading of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and not about creating a constitutional right? Yeah, right. As I warned at the time, the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision served as a green light for lower courts to take it a step further.

Imagine the looks on the faces of those who wrote the 14th Amendment if they were to see how a provision designed to grant freed black slaves equal fundamental rights is being used for state-sponsored gender-swapping. Rep. James F. Wilson, R-Iowa, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee back in the 1860s who helped draft the 14th Amendment, spoke emphatically that it was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.” “It is not the object of this bill to establish new rights, but to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen,” declared Wilson in 1866.

No new principle, indeed! In fact, the only thing this amendment is not used for today is what it was intended – to stop states from crushing individual liberty, as we are seeing with the mask mandates and closures of churches and businesses.

Justice Gorsuch tried to deny that his decision would grow legs beyond the scope of the employment discrimination ruling, but Justice Alito warned that it would affect female sports, among other things. “The effect of the Court’s reasoning may be to force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage, including students who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female and students who are taking male hormones in order to transition from female to male,” wrote Alito in his dissent, citing, among other cases, this budding Idaho lawsuit.

Fast-forward to this week, and the Idaho judge cited Gorsuch’s Bostock decision as part of his rationale for believing transgenderism is enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Noting that while the ruling was in the context of Title VII employment discrimination law, Judge Nye still cited Gorsuch’s operative line to apply it elsewhere: “It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being ... transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” The bottom line is that once you apply that thinking to a statute, it will be applied to the 14th Amendment, and once it’s applied to employment, it will be applied to every facet of life.

Taking a broad look at the state of play in the courts, conservatives must finally recognize the imbalance in political outcomes. Notice how, in blue states, where the governments mandate broad violations of individual liberty, the courts are nowhere to be seen in defending rights that existed since the time of Blackstone. Yet, when red states want to simply protect against novel and destructive policies that are in opposition to individual rights, the federal courts are empowered to swoop in.

Thus, conservatives who are stuck in California where “my body, my right” doesn’t seem to extend to one’s own mouth and nose to breathe fresh air, can’t exactly go to Idaho to find respite. Where the legislators don’t implement the woke leftist agenda, the courts will. The Ninth Circuit has already forced Idaho to pay for a castration “operation” for a male child sex offender sitting in state prison. The Supreme Court refused to reverse that opinion. Likewise, last year, the Supreme Court refused to overturn a Ninth Circuit opinion preventing the city of Boise from cleaning up homeless encampments.

Heads the Left wins, tails the Right loses. Either way, the alt-Left gets its policies enacted in all 50 states.

Putting everything together, the courts of Sodom and Gomorrah believe there is a right for a man to play female sports, a right for a man to secure a taxpayer-funded castration, and a right to camp out on city streets – but no right to open your business or walk freely without a cloth on your own mouth and nose.

At a time when blue states clearly have a license to supplant the Constitution with the Antifa agenda, red states have a responsibility to hold their ground against lawless courts. And no, “but Gorsuch” and “appointing Republican judges” are not the answer. It is the problem.