Three “married” lesbians in Massachusetts have announced they are expecting the first of several children intended for their polygamous union. But marriage advocates say the story confirms their warnings about the slippery slope created by redefining marriage and granting legal privileges based on a self-identified characteristic like sexual orientation.
The three women – Doll, 30; Brynn, 32; and Kitten, 27 – are not legally married to all the members of the polyamorous coupling, something not permitted under state or federal law.
Brynn and Doll have been together since 2009. However, it is Brynn and Kitten who were legally “married” in a ceremony last August; Doll was “handfasted” to both.
“We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided,” Brynn said.
They consider themselves a “throuple.” Brynn said, “I like to think of us as a romantic committee.”
[. . . ]
Kitten announced that she had used IVF to become pregnant by an anonymous sperm donor. She hopes to bear three children, one for each of the mothers. She expects to deliver the first in July.
Until it occurred, proponents of same-sex “marriage” dismissed the argument that gay “marriage” would undermine monogamy. But Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of The Ruth Institute, said she was not surprised to learn of the trio. “We have been saying for some time that once you remove the gender requirement there is no reason for marriage to be confined to only two people,” Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews.
Like the gay rights movement, the Massachusetts throuple hopes to strike a blow for polyamorous “rights.”
Brynn says she hopes anyone who hears of her story will learn, “Polyfidelity is not something that is seedy or something that's meant to be hidden away. It can be a perfectly acceptable and functional choice of life and love.”
The fidelity and functionality of her relationships has been tested in the past; Brynn has been married to two other women. Still, she says she wants society to accord their relationship the same status as heterosexual marriage.
“The three of us have been brave enough to stand tall and go against what society calls normal,” Brynn said. “We are simply people trying to live the life that we feel is best for us and we deserve the rights afforded to others.”
Like homosexual activists in their bid to redefine marriage, polyamorists seem to present themselves as passive inheritors of a predetermined sexual inclination.
...
“Two of these ladies believe they were 'born' polyamorous,” Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews. “This is a whole new category that has not been legally explored.”
That should give pause as lawmakers in states and cities around the nation create new laws barring “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, often with severe penalties. “Some of us have said for a long time that sexual orientation is a category that people can define themselves into and out of,” she said. Therefore, “lawyers have no business creating a protected class around a trait that you define yourself.”
The announcement is the culmination of the notion that marriage has an infinitely elastic definition, according to Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.
“Ideas have consequences,” George said. Once society rejects the notion of marriage as a conjugal union “with its central structuring norm of sexual complementarity in favor of a concept” that “'love makes a family,' then what possible principled basis could be identified for a norm 'restricting' marriage to two-person partnerships, as opposed to polyamorous sexual ensembles of three or more persons?”
He added that more than 300 'LGBT' scholars and allies, including Gloria Steinem and Barbara Ehrenreich, “have bitten the bullet and said that there is no reason not to further re-shape 'marriage' to include multiple partner unions” by signing the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto.
The 2006 document presents “a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships.”
Among those relationships the document said should be granted equal “recognition and benefits” as heterosexual marriages are “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” and “queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households.”
Proclaiming themselves “part of an interdependent, global community,” signatories admit, “The struggle for same-sex marriage rights is only one part of a larger effort.”
Lesbian author Masha Gessen admitted the gay “marriage” movement used lies and deception to destroy the concept of marriage to the audience of the 2012 Sydney Writer's Festival.
“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie,” she confessed.
