The city’s Legislative Matters Committee is considering changes to the Code of Ordinances to ensure the rights of alternative family structures.

By Jim Clark

On February 14, the Somerville City Council’s Legislative Matters Committee convened for their regularly scheduled meeting. Committee Chairperson Ward 6 Councilor Lance L. Davis, Vice Chair Councilor At-Large Charlotte Kelly, Ward 2 Councilor J.T. Scott, Ward 1 Councilor Matthew McLaughlin and At-Large Councilor Willie Burnley Jr. were all present virtually for the meeting.

At the top of the agenda, four Code of Ordinances amendments concerning “Relationship Status” were discussed:
1) An order that the City Solicitor work with the Council to amend the Code of Ordinances to include non-discrimination provisions based on relationship status.
2) An ordinance amending Section 1-4 of the Code of Ordinances to add definitions for relationship status and intimate personal relationship.
3) An ordinance amending Section 2-326 of the Code of Ordinances, related to the Personnel program.
4) An ordinance amending Sections 7-41, 7-43, 7-44, and 7-47 of the Code of Ordinances, related to Fair Housing.

Each of the agenda items were sponsored by Councilors Burnley Jr. and Scott.

After pointing out the irony of these items being taken up on Valentine’s Day, Councilor Burnley Jr. spoke in favor of them saying, “These items are in a lot of ways follow-ups to the work previous councils have done as it pertains to multi-partner relationships. In 2020, the Council passed a domestic partnership ordinance that allows for multiple – in this case more than two – partners to enter into a domestic partnership.

“That was in my view fantastic, amazing,” Burnley Jr. continued. “It filled a gap that needed to be filled, but then subsequently in some way created another, or enlarged another, because while we allowed individuals to be in domestic partnerships with more than one person, we did not codify in any way non-discrimination ordinances to ensure that those relationships were protected in the same way that monogamous relationships are protected.

Speaking further on the item, Burnley Jr. added, “So, the items that we have before us, they very much hinge upon having a definition, which is the second item, amending Section 1-4, to create a definition for relationship status. I will say, there has been a little bit of changing of the terminology of relationship status. I’m hoping to perhaps substitute it for a different term, which is family and relationship structure, just because it’s a little bit more encompassing of the wide berth of various relationships, and structures of relationships that people have in our community.”

“What we’re basically looking at here is a broad definition of family and relationship structures that includes households that have multiple parents beyond two” Burnley Jr. added. “Maybe a married couple, one of them has a girlfriend, non-monogamy, and other family structures that are seen as non-typical are marginalized. And ensuring that there is no governmental discrimination for anyone who, for example, acts upon the law that we passed in 2020 to have a domestic partnership with more than one other person. In particular, these items go into ensuring that there’s non-discrimination in our personnel programs, the city’s hiring, fair housing for the city, biased policing, making sure that our controlled enforcement mechanisms do not discriminate against individuals based on their relationship status, or the structure of their family, as well as quite frankly our city’s ethics policies.”

Burnley Jr. concluded by saying, “I find that one quite humorous because the change in adding this definition to the ethics code would effectively make it so that an individual who has five boyfriends can’t just put all those boyfriends on a board then rule over – I don’t know – the Somerville Bicycle Advisory Council. And that’s also important. So, this is really just filling in the gaps to make sure that we’re not thinking on the marginalized communities that exist in our community, and that we advance rights for folks so we make sure that they can act upon them without judgement from the state.”

After hearing further sponsored comments, the Committee referred the items for additional consideration at a future meeting.