, there should assurancesthat this is a bona fide domestic relationship,(25) entered into with the assumption of all rights and obligations of that status(subject to contracts between the parties) and a genuine sharing of lives.In practice the potential economic and legal obligations of the RDP, as well as the social and emotional implications of theRDP, are likely to greatly restrict its use in non-conjugal relationships. However, there may be situations, especially involvingseeking access to employment-related benefits for a domestic partner, where those in non-conjugal relationships (such as anadult child and a parent) will want to enter into this status. Canada has an increasingly broad, pluralistic and functionalapproach to the definition of "the family,"(26) and if two adults wish to assume this legal status by entering an RDP, with itsrights and obligations, it seems difficult to justify denying them this opportunity. While those in a non-conjugal RDP should not be precluded from having rights and responsibilities in regard to children,such as adoption, the nature of the relationship is a legitimate "best interests" factor to take into account in deciding aboutwhether such a couple should be permitted have a relationship with that child.(27) If RDP legislation is enacted, questions will arise about whether it should be possible to have more than one domesticpartner at a time, either as a result of a communal living arrangement, a polygamous relationship or some forms of serialrelationships. Indeed, at least implicitly these issues will have to be addressed when the courts or legislatures deal withallowing same sex partners to marry. Why should the state privilege domestic relationships with only two adults? At least in its initial legislative form, practical and social considerations suggest that a person should only be able to have one"legal partner" or "spouse" at a time (i.e. in only one RDP or marriage at a time, with only on...
