- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Cambridge Today
By the People, for the People
Cities Recognize Polyamorous Relationships, But Courts Unlikely to Require Constitutional Protection for Plural Marriage
Legal expert argues municipal ordinances allowing polyamorous partnerships do not compel constitutional recognition of plural civil marriage.
Published on Feb. 18, 2026
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
Several cities across the U.S. have passed domestic partnership ordinances that legally recognize polyamorous relationships, granting them many of the same rights as married couples. However, the author argues that current constitutional doctrine, grounded in the nature of civil marriage itself, does not support a fundamental right to plural marriage. Substantive due process and equal protection analyses show that laws limiting civil marriage to two persons are constitutional, as the state has legitimate interests in maintaining a clear, predictable marital framework, reducing risks of inequality and coercion, and upholding the dignity of an exclusive, reciprocal union.
Why it matters
The legal status of polyamorous relationships has become an emerging issue, with some cities taking steps to recognize these non-traditional family structures. However, the author contends that this does not necessarily mean the Constitution requires recognition of plural civil marriage, as the historical understanding and core purpose of marriage as a dyadic union remain valid state interests.
The details
The author argues that under the Supreme Court's history-and-tradition framework, there is no fundamental right to plural civil marriage, as the U.S. has long rejected and criminalized polygamy. The "mutual belonging" model of marriage as an exclusive, reciprocal union of two people serves legitimate state interests in administrability, protecting against vulnerabilities, and maintaining a stable civil-marriage regime. Equal protection analysis also shows that plural-marriage bans are subject to rational-basis review, as they do not target a suspect class but rather regulate the numerical and structural nature of the institution. The state's interests in clarity, reducing inequality, and upholding the dignity of the marital bond justify the two-person limit.
- In 2020, Somerville, Massachusetts became the first city to pass a domestic partnership ordinance recognizing polyamorous relationships.
- Cambridge, Massachusetts and Berkeley, California soon followed with similar measures.
The players
Joshua Villanueva
JURIST's Washington, DC Correspondent and an LL.M. candidate at The George Washington University Law School.
Somerville, Massachusetts
The first city to pass a domestic partnership ordinance recognizing polyamorous relationships.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
A city that passed a domestic partnership ordinance recognizing polyamorous relationships after Somerville.
Berkeley, California
A city that passed a domestic partnership ordinance recognizing polyamorous relationships after Somerville.
The takeaway
While some cities have taken steps to legally recognize polyamorous relationships, the author argues that current constitutional doctrine does not support a fundamental right to plural civil marriage. The state's legitimate interests in maintaining the traditional dyadic structure of marriage, reducing risks of inequality and coercion, and upholding the dignity of an exclusive, reciprocal union justify laws limiting marriage to two persons.





