• Kimberly Rhoten (GRS’26)

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

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English.

There are 6 comments on POV: Somerville, Mass., Delivers a Big Victory for Those in Polyamorous Relationships

  1. I respect your desire to be inclusive to all people, but as a society we have to draw some lines. Polyamorous relationships are without a doubt past that line. If you want to expand things like hospital and jail visitation rights that’s fine, but that does not require the redefinition of partnership.

    1. One simple question: Why?

      If polyamorous relationships are indeed “without a doubt past the line,” as you say, then you should have no trouble explaining in clear, concise and incontrovertible terms why the definition of partnership should not depend, first and foremost, on the values, desires, and choices of the individuals who freely choose to enter into it.

  2. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially in terms of benefits. Since there is no limit on the number of people who can be in a polyamorous relationship, there is no limit on the number of people who could receive benefits. For example, if X is in a polyamorous relationship with 20 people who do not have health insurance, ix X works for thecitiy it would seem all 20 would be entitled to receive health insurance coverage and any other benefits a spouse would eligible to receive.

    1. I mean – there’s a difference between a polyamorous relationship and the domestic partnerships being outlined here. It’s not as simple as saying “I’m dating!” It also has no bearing on the ability to charge additional premiums for additional members being added to said plan.

      While I would not say your concerns are invalid, your framing leaves much to be desired. The high number is something that’ll be quite unlikely considering the conditions and personal risks of adding additional individuals who would have rights to shared property, etc just to give access to their health insurance.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *