The rising popularity and public awareness of consensual nonmonogamies is a double-edged sword for many people in CNM relationships. On the one hand, more public awareness translates to greater discrimination because CNM is more recognizable and some people view it as a rising threat. On the other hand, the significant upswing in public awareness and number of people engaging in CNM means that more people are advocating for equal rights and protection against discrimination. Currently there are no legal protections at the federal or state level for CNM relationships, or many other forms of relationship diversity.
Discrimination
My own and many others’ research has uncovered significant stigma and discrimination against people in CNM relationships. At the personal level, this stigma can mean that folks in CNM relationships are ostracized from their families of origin, expelled from friend groups, and excommunicated from their religious congregations. This is not to say that everyone who engages in CNM experiences these difficulties, but research indicates that a significant proportion of folks in CNM relationships experience some kind of negative social fallout from the relational nonconformity.
While these social stigmas can have significant and painful emotional consequences, they are slightly less likely to have the financial consequences that outright discrimination holds. Discrimination facing people in CNM relationships crossed personal and social boundaries, ranging from pressure to conceal their nonmonogamous relationships and “relationship invalidation,” to lower access to adequate mental and physical healthcare as well as housing and employment discrimination. In a 2025 community survey of people in CNM relationships in the United States that the Organization for Polyamory and Ethical Nonmonogamy (OPEN) conducted, a staggering 61% of respondents reported that they experienced stigma or discrimination based on their CNM relational status, with almost 10% of them reporting housing discrimination. That same survey found that the other most common forms of discrimination against CNM folks are found in unequal deployment and treatment under federal services (8.5%) and employment discrimination (6.7%).
Protections
Given that these experiences of stigma and discrimination can make people vulnerable to negative personal and social outcomes, community members in CNM relationships are advocating for protections against mistreatment. Similar to members of LGBTQ+ populations who have struggled for decades to gain rights equal to those of sexual majority populations, folks in CNM relationships are attempting to institute laws and policies to shield themselves and their families from harm.
Since 2023 when Somerville Massachusetts made history by being the first municipality to craft protections for people in CNM relationships, momentum towards equality has been building. Other cities have taken note and passed similar measures, including Cambridge Massachusetts, Berkeley California, Oakland California, West Hollywood California, Astoria Oregon, Portland Oregon,* and Olympia Washington. While the scope of the protections each city offers varies, these provisions usually cover city services, employment, public accommodations, and real estate transactions. Cities that are currently considering passing similar non-discrimination policies include Seattle Washington, Tacoma Washington, Eugene Oregon, and Hazel Park Michegan.
This swell of grassroots organizing is gaining momentum, and OPEN has developed a toolkit that offers guidance for people seeking to further such policies in their own area. This free online kit offers advice on how to identify allies, an overview of the legislative process, how to find a sponsor for the bill, potential challenges that might face organizers, and tips for how to conduct the campaign itself including ideas for troubleshooting, messaging and outreach. Brett Chamberlin, Executive Director of OPEN, sees the future of community organizing on behalf of equal rights for CNM relationships as both urgent and achievable. ‘We’re at an inflection point. The mental health toll of stigma and discrimination is well-documented in our research, and now we have a roadmap for reducing that harm through policy change. City-level wins are building momentum toward state protections, and each new ordinance sends a clear message: non-monogamous families deserve the same dignity and legal recognition as everyone else.
*For full disclosure, please note that I testified before the Portland City Council on behalf of the nondiscrimination proposal. Also, while I am not a member of OPEN, I have contributed to their fundraising efforts.
References
Borgogna, N. C., Aita, S. L., & Aita, L. J. (2021). Minority stress in consensually non-monogamous individuals: Mental health implications. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 39(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2021.1959545
Gupta, S., Tarantino, M., & Sanner, C. (2024). A scoping review of research on polyamory and consensual non‐monogamy: Implications for a more inclusive family science. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 16(2), 151-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12546
Three’s company, too: The emergence of polyamorous partnership ordinances. (2022). Harvard Law Review, 135(5), 1441–1464. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/threes-company-too-the-emergence-of-polyamorous-partnership-ordinances/
Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., Rubin, J. D., & Conley, T. D. (2013). Stigma toward individuals engaged in consensual nonmonogamy: Robust and worthy of additional research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ASAP.12020
Organization for Polyamory and Ethical Non-monogamy. (2025, November 26). 2025 community survey report. https://www.open-love.org/blog/2025-community-survey-report
Rodrigues, D., Fasoli, F., Huic, A., & Lopes, D. (2018). Which partners are more human? Monogamy matters more than sexual orientation for dehumanization in three European countries. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(4), 504-515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0290-0