![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skibbleyI was at Polyday on Saturday and facilitated a session on The Politics of Polyamory
Grant will be leading a discussion abut how we want law and policy to relate to our poly lives in the short and longer term, mapping out what our community wants in terms of rights, general access and acceptance.
About 40 people showed up. I was mainly facilitating but also took a few notes so others may add or correct. I use poly, non-monogamy and similar interchangeably here.
- Polyamory is not a protected characteristic in terms of the Equality Act - do we want it to be or are we mainly being left alone? We could be sacked for it. One person chooses not to disclose their relationship shape as while their education employer don't seem to have a problem with it, HR and union suggest doing so could attract publicity and lead to pressure on the employer. Anyone working with or having children could more strongly attract moral outrage.
Where does the state take an interest in relationships now? Immigration, state pension, benefits...
Some employers or other organisations have procedures to be used against anyone who brings the organisation into disrepute - how might reputational damage be used as a concept against us? Does this open us up to bullying?
We spoke about marriage and the choices made when campaigns happened around civil partnership. Marriage may be more sacrosanct and defended than civil partnership. What was and is pragmatic at the time but make future changes we might want more difficult? A recent consultation on property law and unmarried couples was a missed opportunity for representation and influence. When we miss an opportunity it can be a long time before similar comes again.
Is there a coherent understanding of what "marriage" means in a legal sense in our communities?
Child access / custody could be a time relationships are contested. Could evidence of non-monogamy be used against people? Do lawyers understand non-monogamy? Might we introduce them and related professionals in disputes to some of the concepts and arguments that might come up before they do?
Do we want to stand up over the parapet at this time? Would reactionary forces use us as a scapegoat?
Some issues would be eased by some wider political changes: for example if everyone had basic income and for example disabled people had enough money to live their lives fully rather than barely covering "need" then that would give more independence of where to live and who with, and help people getting away from abusive situations.
Perhaps changes to electoral systems such as proportional representation could combat inflammatory politics? This was not universally agreed.
One person noted that Covid restrictions were the first time meeting his partners had been criminalised. Others in the room already had experience of being criminalised or policed for other reasons. Some were aware of non-monogamy being discussed and actively disparaged during planning for covid. Others felt we were passively affected by ignorant policymakers.
We talked about what information is published about us and who controls that. A journalist has reported on a previous Polyday. Online currents and algorithms can affect what people are presented with as well as more traditional editorial decisions.
We were aware, and it was being documented, that polyamory was being much more discussed in the press over time. Coverage can be sensationalistic or not about non-celebrities. Could we get messages out about being non-threatening or otherwise having similar issues to everyone else? We could try for more and better representation in popular media and also perhaps more understanding of everyday and happily boring poly life.
Coming back to electoral systems, elections are not the only opportunities to participate in democracy. Citizens assemblies and juries were mentioned.
We came back a few times to the broad diversity of ways we and others do non-monogamy and definitions could be discussed and some agreement found or we might at least be clear that we don't have agreed and useful definitions.
Some organisations such as the NHS use forms and boxes that we don't all fit in well. Other gender, sexuality and relationship divergent people and groups can have similar problems. Changing forms and tech can be slow and expensive, though we might piggyback onto existing update and review cycles.
We can study and share how to work with or around existing systems. Some people have more access to resources and knowledge of how to get them than others.
Our economic choices as a movement could be significant.
For policy, it might be important to be part of wider coalitions. We heard examples of Australian and Aotearoa[a] / New Zealand indigenous campaigns and coalitions working successfully to have official systems better recognise the range of relationships how they are understood in different communities and challenge assumptions. Examples include less individualist ways of working after violence. Some policies get picked up far away in corporate settings which can spread good practice.
We were aware, sometimes from personal experience, of legal understandings and protections for relationships other than monogamous ones. Local law and policymakers can be informed by other places. Examples include civil solidarity pacts (PACS) in France, Seattle in USA and Lewisham in London.
We might widen the frameworks of understanding of families that go then into e.g. employment law and wondered what the process of adoption of ideas and policies might be.
We may find ourself balancing movements towards reforming systems against abolishing them completely - for example allowing more than one partner to immigrate or getting rid of immigration barriers completely and allowing free movement for all.
What are the benefits of any changes but also what are the costs of campaigning or of any changes?
We talked about the social model of disability as an example of an important change of understanding that can feed into practice. We talked about getting more access for disabled people giving more access for everyone and how this might be the case for polyamory related expansion.
From union work, I noted some ideas discussed seemed to have more enthusiasm or anger attached to them and this could inform priorities and gathering to organise. We also have limited energy and resources as always and some have more than others.
Some are speaking of cultivating interested politicians or civil servants or equivalent - for example those with portfolios or personal interests in equalities, families or similar subjects.
We noted some people such as trans people just existed for a long time and legal and political spotlights could be harmful or restrictive as well as possibly helpful at different times. Are we at risk of being used or seen as a wedge issues?
Non-traditional relationships have been known for a long time and sometimes documented or spoken about.
Creating bespoke rules for all types of non-monogamy could be excessively detailed and broader protections and options might be better. One person spoke about how leave policies at work had been positively changed.
We spoke about choosing timing and having watershed times of change at any time. We spoke about being a positive politics of human love and connection against division and hate or against algorithmic and impersonal trends.
International connections can be helpful and informative - e.g. UK Polyamory Association (UKPA) speaking to a US campaigning organisation about their committee of lawyers working together.
Demographic surveys are in process via UKPA and elsewhere to inform policymakers about who we are and what we do. Other organisations, including the press, also commission surveys which might include sex and relationships. Some questions about attitude to polyamory are being asked by survey organisations - though we again run into difficulties with definitions within non-monogamy.
One large group of potential allies are single people - why should certain relationships be privileged?
Sometimes we might be speaking more about philosophy rather than specific law.
One approach would be to ask why two people is the only number imagined and if things applied to two could work with three or more.
Other campaigns have been asked by those involved in policy: how many people are affected, how much are they affected and what costs might be involved if things were changed?
It may be useful to listen to people who have genuine concerns about us to find out what their concerns are and if they can be addressed.
It was suggested we should think about who we include and welcome politically now and who we exclude and how we feel about changing this in the future. Are there people we disagree with in other ways or dislike who we could have constructive dialogue with or form coalitions with? Are there people and groups we would consider it too harmful in some ways to include or debate with?
We can think of movements, not just individuals.
We noted campaigns where resources are put into cases to set legal precedent. We were also aware of warnings not to get precedent set against us.
We spoke about how some groups have managed to avoid division on some issues and others have been perhaps less effective due to disagreements and this has been studied and explained in accessible ways.
Issues around national identification bring up ideas of proxies and delegation that could be useful to us, as can the existing provisions for lasting power of attorney.
We spoke briefly about how legal change can follow cultural change and how we might effect that. For example in children's education various alternatives have been tried and sex education has been taken on by communities rather than just using official channels.
Some might prefer to not offer explanations of poly unless asked rather than initiating conversations.
There was appetite for this conversation to continue. I agreed to write some notes and spoke with the Polyday organisers about them sending a post-polyday email to attendees which could include a survey of ways people might like to talk again - for example more face-to-face sessions, a policy working group to put some sample policies together or various types of online spaces and ways of organising and moderating (including seeing who wishes to volunteer to make them happen).
Grant will be leading a discussion abut how we want law and policy to relate to our poly lives in the short and longer term, mapping out what our community wants in terms of rights, general access and acceptance.
About 40 people showed up. I was mainly facilitating but also took a few notes so others may add or correct. I use poly, non-monogamy and similar interchangeably here.
- Polyamory is not a protected characteristic in terms of the Equality Act - do we want it to be or are we mainly being left alone? We could be sacked for it. One person chooses not to disclose their relationship shape as while their education employer don't seem to have a problem with it, HR and union suggest doing so could attract publicity and lead to pressure on the employer. Anyone working with or having children could more strongly attract moral outrage.
Where does the state take an interest in relationships now? Immigration, state pension, benefits...
Some employers or other organisations have procedures to be used against anyone who brings the organisation into disrepute - how might reputational damage be used as a concept against us? Does this open us up to bullying?
We spoke about marriage and the choices made when campaigns happened around civil partnership. Marriage may be more sacrosanct and defended than civil partnership. What was and is pragmatic at the time but make future changes we might want more difficult? A recent consultation on property law and unmarried couples was a missed opportunity for representation and influence. When we miss an opportunity it can be a long time before similar comes again.
Is there a coherent understanding of what "marriage" means in a legal sense in our communities?
Child access / custody could be a time relationships are contested. Could evidence of non-monogamy be used against people? Do lawyers understand non-monogamy? Might we introduce them and related professionals in disputes to some of the concepts and arguments that might come up before they do?
Do we want to stand up over the parapet at this time? Would reactionary forces use us as a scapegoat?
Some issues would be eased by some wider political changes: for example if everyone had basic income and for example disabled people had enough money to live their lives fully rather than barely covering "need" then that would give more independence of where to live and who with, and help people getting away from abusive situations.
Perhaps changes to electoral systems such as proportional representation could combat inflammatory politics? This was not universally agreed.
One person noted that Covid restrictions were the first time meeting his partners had been criminalised. Others in the room already had experience of being criminalised or policed for other reasons. Some were aware of non-monogamy being discussed and actively disparaged during planning for covid. Others felt we were passively affected by ignorant policymakers.
We talked about what information is published about us and who controls that. A journalist has reported on a previous Polyday. Online currents and algorithms can affect what people are presented with as well as more traditional editorial decisions.
We were aware, and it was being documented, that polyamory was being much more discussed in the press over time. Coverage can be sensationalistic or not about non-celebrities. Could we get messages out about being non-threatening or otherwise having similar issues to everyone else? We could try for more and better representation in popular media and also perhaps more understanding of everyday and happily boring poly life.
Coming back to electoral systems, elections are not the only opportunities to participate in democracy. Citizens assemblies and juries were mentioned.
We came back a few times to the broad diversity of ways we and others do non-monogamy and definitions could be discussed and some agreement found or we might at least be clear that we don't have agreed and useful definitions.
Some organisations such as the NHS use forms and boxes that we don't all fit in well. Other gender, sexuality and relationship divergent people and groups can have similar problems. Changing forms and tech can be slow and expensive, though we might piggyback onto existing update and review cycles.
We can study and share how to work with or around existing systems. Some people have more access to resources and knowledge of how to get them than others.
Our economic choices as a movement could be significant.
For policy, it might be important to be part of wider coalitions. We heard examples of Australian and Aotearoa[a] / New Zealand indigenous campaigns and coalitions working successfully to have official systems better recognise the range of relationships how they are understood in different communities and challenge assumptions. Examples include less individualist ways of working after violence. Some policies get picked up far away in corporate settings which can spread good practice.
We were aware, sometimes from personal experience, of legal understandings and protections for relationships other than monogamous ones. Local law and policymakers can be informed by other places. Examples include civil solidarity pacts (PACS) in France, Seattle in USA and Lewisham in London.
We might widen the frameworks of understanding of families that go then into e.g. employment law and wondered what the process of adoption of ideas and policies might be.
We may find ourself balancing movements towards reforming systems against abolishing them completely - for example allowing more than one partner to immigrate or getting rid of immigration barriers completely and allowing free movement for all.
What are the benefits of any changes but also what are the costs of campaigning or of any changes?
We talked about the social model of disability as an example of an important change of understanding that can feed into practice. We talked about getting more access for disabled people giving more access for everyone and how this might be the case for polyamory related expansion.
From union work, I noted some ideas discussed seemed to have more enthusiasm or anger attached to them and this could inform priorities and gathering to organise. We also have limited energy and resources as always and some have more than others.
Some are speaking of cultivating interested politicians or civil servants or equivalent - for example those with portfolios or personal interests in equalities, families or similar subjects.
We noted some people such as trans people just existed for a long time and legal and political spotlights could be harmful or restrictive as well as possibly helpful at different times. Are we at risk of being used or seen as a wedge issues?
Non-traditional relationships have been known for a long time and sometimes documented or spoken about.
Creating bespoke rules for all types of non-monogamy could be excessively detailed and broader protections and options might be better. One person spoke about how leave policies at work had been positively changed.
We spoke about choosing timing and having watershed times of change at any time. We spoke about being a positive politics of human love and connection against division and hate or against algorithmic and impersonal trends.
International connections can be helpful and informative - e.g. UK Polyamory Association (UKPA) speaking to a US campaigning organisation about their committee of lawyers working together.
Demographic surveys are in process via UKPA and elsewhere to inform policymakers about who we are and what we do. Other organisations, including the press, also commission surveys which might include sex and relationships. Some questions about attitude to polyamory are being asked by survey organisations - though we again run into difficulties with definitions within non-monogamy.
One large group of potential allies are single people - why should certain relationships be privileged?
Sometimes we might be speaking more about philosophy rather than specific law.
One approach would be to ask why two people is the only number imagined and if things applied to two could work with three or more.
Other campaigns have been asked by those involved in policy: how many people are affected, how much are they affected and what costs might be involved if things were changed?
It may be useful to listen to people who have genuine concerns about us to find out what their concerns are and if they can be addressed.
It was suggested we should think about who we include and welcome politically now and who we exclude and how we feel about changing this in the future. Are there people we disagree with in other ways or dislike who we could have constructive dialogue with or form coalitions with? Are there people and groups we would consider it too harmful in some ways to include or debate with?
We can think of movements, not just individuals.
We noted campaigns where resources are put into cases to set legal precedent. We were also aware of warnings not to get precedent set against us.
We spoke about how some groups have managed to avoid division on some issues and others have been perhaps less effective due to disagreements and this has been studied and explained in accessible ways.
Issues around national identification bring up ideas of proxies and delegation that could be useful to us, as can the existing provisions for lasting power of attorney.
We spoke briefly about how legal change can follow cultural change and how we might effect that. For example in children's education various alternatives have been tried and sex education has been taken on by communities rather than just using official channels.
Some might prefer to not offer explanations of poly unless asked rather than initiating conversations.
There was appetite for this conversation to continue. I agreed to write some notes and spoke with the Polyday organisers about them sending a post-polyday email to attendees which could include a survey of ways people might like to talk again - for example more face-to-face sessions, a policy working group to put some sample policies together or various types of online spaces and ways of organising and moderating (including seeing who wishes to volunteer to make them happen).
no subject
Date: 2026-09-21 09:31 pm (UTC)Thanks; and my take
Date: 2026-09-22 12:19 pm (UTC)I've reposted them, with some thoughts and experiences of my own, over on my blog, if you're interested.
no subject
Date: 2026-09-22 01:53 pm (UTC)