The US Cities Where Polyamorous Relationships Have Legal Protections - Newsweek

West Hollywood has approved an ordinance creating a local registration process for multi-partner domestic relationships, with certain visitation and tenant protections. The City Council approved it unanimously on November 2, according to coverage of the meeting. The measure builds on a separate West Hollywood ordinance adopted in March that prohibits discrimination based on family or relationship structure.

"It is hereby declared as the public policy of the City of West Hollywood that it is necessary to recognize and protect the right and opportunity of all persons to have multi-partner domestic relationships formally recognized and respected, and to be free from discrimination on account of their partnership in a multi-partner domestic relationship," the ordinance states.

"Diverse relationship structures, including relationship structures involving more than two adults engaged in a loving, committed, and consensual relationship, are becoming increasingly common."

The new measure adds West Hollywood to a growing group of local governments that have adopted protections for polyamorous relationships or broader family structures. A recent Barnes & Thornburg LLP legal analysis identified 10: Berkeley, Oakland and West Hollywood in California; Cambridge and Somerville in Massachusetts; Hazel Park in Michigan; Astoria and Portland in Oregon; and Olympia and Seattle in Washington. Their laws differ in scope, and some create a local registry while others focus on discrimination.

“It's a landmark ordinance and really puts and continues to elevate West Hollywood as a city that is here to support queer people and queer families as they evolve in their needs,” said West Hollywood City Council member Chelsea Byers. “I think that's a real joy that we can bring to people—that they can live in a greater sense of being seen and understood.”

Newsweek has reached out to West Hollywood officials, the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition and legal experts for comment via email outside office hours.

The ordinance defines multi-partner domestic relationships and creates a registration process for relationships involving three or more people. It extends certain local protections, including hospital and jail visitation rights and safeguards related to rent adjustments and tenancy termination. The city’s agenda describes the measure as amending its municipal code to establish the registry and protections.

The ordinance does not make a registered group legally married or replace state and federal marriage or domestic-partnership laws. It also does not automatically provide the rights attached to marriage under state or federal law, such as federal tax or immigration benefits. West Hollywood’s agenda indicates that the city clerk is to schedule a separate public hearing to set a registration fee, so the approval creates the framework for the registry but does not itself establish all the steps for registration.

The 10 jurisdictions identified in the legal analysis have adopted measures covering family or relationship structure, but protections vary by location. Some amend local anti-discrimination laws, while others also allow people in multi-partner relationships to register with the municipality.

Portland’s ordinance covers family or relationship structure in employment, housing and public accommodations. Seattle’s measure, passed in September, expanded the city’s definition of sexual orientation to include consensual relationships involving multiple partners. The cities’ wording and coverage are not identical, so the legal protections available depend on where someone lives or works.

Several Massachusetts municipalities have also created multi-partner domestic-partnership registries. Somerville adopted the first in 2020, followed by Cambridge and Arlington. Those local registries provide a way to formally record relationships and may connect registrants to certain municipal benefits, but registration is not the same as marriage and does not automatically confer state or federal benefits.

The legal changes address discrimination and practical barriers that can affect people whose relationships do not fit a two-person model. Housing rules, workplace policies and access to partners in health care settings may rely on narrow definitions of family or next of kin. Local governments have used their own ordinances to address some of those issues within their jurisdictions.

The result is a patchwork rather than a nationwide standard. Federal employment law does not expressly list relationship structure as a protected category, and local ordinances cannot by themselves change state or federal rules governing marriage and other legal benefits. The recent legal analysis says the ordinances also do not require employers to extend health insurance benefits to multiple partners.