Olympia becomes first Washington city to pass polyamory protections

I didn’t look up. But did it involved a horse?

The Enumclaw P.D.’s [response](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Jb4PEmMaM&time_continue=259&source_ve_path=NzY3NTg&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com)

Is enumclaw still doing that.

Voted out like Among Us.

We sure can't afford regular relationships anymore, rent too damn high

To be fair, almost everything is a step or two away from being a scam or cult

I mean I'm sure even at professional farms if you aren't pulling your weight in the labor department you don't get to continue to live/work there Not sure why this would be different?

Honestly from what I’ve heard some of them are lmao.

Self-replicating, even.

The demographic that’s open about it*. Plenty of conservative couples are freaks with open relationships, thirds or whatever. I’ve seen it everywhere on dating apps, at bars, clubs, or even with some of my coworkers. All from living in MAGA country in Fl.

As a person who has been in a few poly relationships, expense is a HUGE part of the picture. Why would I be concerned that my partner is dating two other people if they are all paying rent?

More times than I'd have ever liked to

This is the kind of issue that you don't really think is a problem unless you're personally affected, since it's so niche. Thank goodness for people who provide ample context, coz I was in the same boat as you.

As a poly person myself thanks for checking in. In addition to the "family" definition for FHA purposes there are still protections we could use beyond this. Ill also admit that with everything coming after trans and other LGBT+ folks right now in the U.S. these protections are not even close to our top priority. But if anyone happens to be drafting some legislation and reading this thread some other stuff we could use IMO: - some blanket HIPPA waiver like spouses have for hearing my medical information and such. - some acknowledgement of poly lifestyles in fostering, adoption, and child welfare regulations and guidelines. If everyone is consenting, free, and communicative (the *ethical* part of *ethical non monogamy*) then the relationship is not harmful to the child. It should be acknowledged and accepted as part of these standards in order to: 1) disincentivize poly people hiding their other partners from CPS, potentially omitting people who should have gotten a background check before a child is around them. 2) to distinguish family-centered practices (dating and supporting another caregiver for the child) from family-harming practices (unsanctioned affairs that take a caregiver out of the home and away from the child). 3) get more loving families in the pool of foster and adoptive parents - Tax benefits: this one is obviously a logistical nightmare but it is unfair that marriage as a union of property and finances doesn't really have a > 2 option. It leaves poorer partners in vulnerable positions. Why would you move in as a third, forth, etc. and contribute to a home if you dont have protections of divorce? If we don't want to call it marriage to assuage the religious folks that's ok by me. But I want to be able to join finances, and file taxes jointly, with more than 1 other person with something roughly as straightforward and convenient as marriage rather than trying to contract for all those things. I want to be able to dissolve that too like we do during divorce with comparable protections. - Protected class: like this FHA definition, but broader. Just like other nontraditional sexualities and orientations, poly people shouldn't be discriminated against just because they're poly. This probably fits best at intermediate scrutiny like gender, to leave room for folks to set realistic number limits: ie. You can give people a +1 on an invite, even if some attendees have several partners, without calling that discrimination. But you couldn't ban a throuple from eating at your restaurant just because it grosses you out. Right now, there's nothing illegal about discriminating against someone just for dating 2 people in and of itself, so it would be a great improvement. Theres lots of other things obviously but that's a good start IMO.

didn't ~~Harlan Ellison or somebody~~ [Heinlein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress) write a sci fi book back in like the ~~80s~~ 60s where people were getting around inheritance tax by "line marriages" too

Two very different things, polyamory and swinging. Yes, people are openly poly to various degrees. Generally speaking, it might not come up at all or it might be the first thing you hear

I know people who are openly poly and it's roughly the same as being openly gay. You tell people it matters, but you're not like "Hi, I'm Steve and I'm gay" when you're at the bank, or something.

I live in the Pacific Northwest, so take what I say about the rest of the country with a grain of salt. People are generally very okay with it here in the strip west of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington where most of the people live in the two states (including the cities of Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, and Eugene). When it comes to who you sleep with here, the cultural attitude is pretty much as long as it's a you problem and not a me problem, we don't care. If you want to be in a poly relationship, great for you. In this narrow region (which is not representative of the entire Pacific Northwest or even the entirety of Oregon and Washington), we generally feel that government services should be accommodating within reason to non-traditional family structures. I think a vast majority of polycules are destined to end in disaster, but that's the polycule's problem, not mine. This is painting with a very broad brush here, but is more or less the regional vibe. Now, the rest of the country is not as open to non-traditional family structures as the western portion of the Pacific Northwest. We're definitely the region most tolerant of it in the country, and we have a good argument for being more tolerant of these structures than any other region of similar population on the planet. For this law in particular, Portland is passing something similar. Basically, it is already not allowed to discriminate based on "family structure" in the city, but it broadens the definition of family structure. The exact text of the new, broader definition is: "Family or relationship structure means the actual or perceived involvement, or lack thereof, of consenting individuals in intimate personal relationships. Intimate personal relationships include, but are not limited to, multi-partner or multi-parent families and relationships, step-families, multigenerational households, diverse family structures, consensually nonmonogamous relationships, and consensual sexual and/or intimate relationships, including asexual and aromantic relationships." It essentially is a catchall that applies to step families, non-married couples, non-romantic life partners, multi-generational households, step-parents, and, of course, poly families. There actually was a big debate over whether to include poly families because they would be protected by it even if not specifically called out and some counselors didn't want the media spectacle. Also, because it is a city law, the scope of situations it can apply to is very narrow. It essentially is only for things like hospital room visits, renting homes, employment and stuff like that. Meaningful, but it's not changing state or federal tax code and inheritance laws.

I've been in a three person relationship for almost twenty years. We raised my two children (their mom is my ex-wife) from when the youngest was 2. They just had two dads and a mom but otherwise it wasn't that weird. Here in the PNW I almost know more people that are poly than ones that are mono. I don't even live in a big city.

My friends little sister was in a throuple. Then the other girl got pregnant and the guy divorced her and married the other girl because he felt they needed to be more traditional now that they were having a kid...

Years ago it was Americans saying "that's way too European" when they heard about something like this. Lol. I'm assuming you're from somewhere else entirely.

That's not poly, that's just swinging. I'm in a poly relationship right now and none of us are swingers. Being "openly poly" is just doing relationship stuff in public with more than one person. Going out for a date, going to the movies together, eating at a nice restaurant, holding hands.

>Are people openly poly? Yes >I'm not American so I feel like I'm behind on this sort of stuff so for me a poly couple is the kind that goes to swinger clubs on the weekends but nobody in their life "knows" about their lifestyle. Nope. >I can't imagine being a kid in that sort of arrangement. Its not much different than having a parent with friends. Or a beloved auntie who is a figure in your life. Its typically less fraught than step parents.

In more liberal and free cities yes, my wife and I are poly but don't talk about it in our professional lives obviously.  There is a huge poly community where we live and many are open about it, some are more secretive. It really depends on their situation. I agree with the kids however, we don't want children and don't have a desire to meet any potential partners' children if they have them. 

For a slightly different example of a "diverse family" these protections would help - I worked with a guy who, with his (gay) partner and a lesbian couple collectively raise a kid who was born through surrogacy. So the kid is the child of both of these couples though the bio mother and father will never be in a romantic or sexual relationship and they all form one household. There are lots of instances of situations like that, people in various relationship situations who cohabit or whatever, same as any other relationship except it's just not limited to two people!

The poly people I've met have been pretty open about it if you know them well enough to meet their partners. Years ago in college I became class buddies with a retired guy who had mentioned his young children to me in class but nothing else about his family. Then I went over to his place to work on a project and he introduced me to his wife and his girlfriend (the wife was the one who introduced the girlfriend to the relationship). The girlfriend had a different boyfriend as well but their personal set of boundaries were different so he wasn't involved with the married couple.

That's what gay couples tried. Sometimes it works, sometimes the hospital tells you to f*** off and they don't care what paperwork you have.

Perhaps, but why doesn't monogamous people have to deal with attorneys for basic necessities like this?

why does somebody selling a house give a shit how many people are in a bedroom?

Well I’m not a believer in making laws for the exceptions. That punishes everyone instead of a select few. Other marriage requirements wouldn’t be changed and people can still be exploited or groomed outside of polygamy. I just think it’s a bit hypocritical is all to stay okay to this but no to marriage. Pick a side, either it is okay or it isn’t. I can see the concern there though.

Depends on how rich your polyamorist host family is 😉