What Does "Marriage Equality" Mean for Bisexuals?


I've wondered, when it comes to LGBT "equality", we hear an awful lot about L and G "equality" and never anything about "B" equality.

Terence Jeffrey of CNSNews asks the same question of President Obama:

"...So, what does Obama's "marriage equality" mean for bisexuals?

According to Merriam-Webster, homosexual means "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." Bisexual means "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes."

Obama, we now know, believes homosexual men have a "right" to marry other men, and homosexual women have a "right" to marry other women. So, who does he believe bisexuals have a "right" to marry?

In Obama's world, does a bisexual man have a "right" to enter into a bigamous union with one other man and one woman? Or can the state force him to limit his marriage to the union of just two people?

And if that is the case, how would Obama, within his philosophy of government, justify prohibiting a bisexual from forming a tripartite marriage?"

So what gives? What does marriage equality for bisexuals look like?


  1. Good News
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    I really wish you wouldn't ask that question. Yet we could see that one coming a mile away.

    As far as Obama goes, he'll do whatever.
    That's his new Presidential slogan by the way: “Obama – Whatever”.

  2. tam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    It means they'll be able to marry the person they fall in love with and want to build a life with, regardless of whether that person is a man or a woman. In other words, the same thing it means for straights and gays.

    Isn't that obvious? Could you be more specific about the uncertainty that led you to ask the question?

  3. Son of Adam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink


    It also means that the state has declared that marriage is nothing more than coupling and that the procreation and rearing of children under the guidance of both their natural parents is an irrelevant byproduct - secondary in importance to the law. And that is harmful to children.

  4. Layne
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Tam, there's no uncertainty. Just another made-up problem, as they have once again shown their anti-LGBT animus by generalizing all bisexuals as incapable of monogamy. They think the same of gays and lesbians, so is it really all that shocking?

  5. Randy E King
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink


    All of the research available on this topic paints those that embrace your depravity as being "incapable of monogamy”; whereas all you have as a rebuttal is "no it isn't" and "so what." It comes as little surprise that you do not value children; the very nature of your proclivity renders the argument moot.

  6. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Tam, they feed off of and feed each other negative sterotypes. This is what fills their coffers with anti-gay hateful bigots money. They know how to get money, it is to freak the anti-gay bigots out by talking about gay Americans eguality. The KKK does/did the same thing...talking about "OMG a Black getting the same rights as a White" then their racial bigot followers give them money, by the KKK saying they will fight this from occuring. It's civil rights history relived. it's disgusting!

  7. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Once so-called SS"M" is legalized, marriage is defined by whatever the parties deem it to be. Any restriction on the number of parties would be deemed arbitrary and unlawful.

    Why? Because the couples aspect of marriage is based on the procreative capacity of a male and a female. If procreation is not linked to marriage, then there is no reason to make marriage open solely to couples.

    At that point, marriage is meaningless, a mere agreement between any number of people to stay together as long as they feel like it.

  8. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Hey Lame -

    Your inference of animus is ignorant and insulting to the people posting well-reasoned arguments here.

    Your claimed victimhood is insulting to homosexuals.

  9. Garrett
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    "Well-reasoned arguments" like calling people "Lame"?

  10. Vast Variety
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Bisexual doesn't mean they are attracted to more than one person at a time. It just means they aren't limited by gender of who they love.

  11. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Garrett - "Lame" wasn't an argument; but it does apply to your comment.

  12. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Hey Garrett - Why don't you reply to my comment at #5 instead?

  13. Adina Hoshour
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Gays are seeking to redefine marriage, but they are spitting mad when polyamorists do the same. If marriage is to redefined, it is open to redefinition by any group of persons wishing to make their own claim upon that institution. This is the slipper slope we have often warned of and were mocked for doing so. Behold the hypocrisy:

  14. Emily
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    Oh, it's easy to say where "B" marriage is politically.

    If the bisexual person falls in love with a person of the opposite sex, as they are sometimes wont to do, they'll marry that person (which is currently legal.)

    If the bisexual person falls in love with a person of the same sex, as they are sometimes wont to do, they'll marry that person (which is currently legal in DC and a handful of states, and probably not long from now all 50).

    See? easy.

  15. Adina Hoshour
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    No, Emily, it's not easy. Where do you draw the line?
    Polyamorists (as I noted in the attached link above) are seeking their own rights to marriage as a 3-some or more. There is no line. There are no boundaries when we remove the definition of marriage being as being between one man and one woman. In the meantime, the APA seeks to de-stigmatize pedophilia and relegate it to another acceptable alternative lifestyle

  16. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Emily -

    Easy, except what does the law do when a bisexual states that he/she has fallen in love with two people?

    That is, on what legal basis can the law deny that bisexual to "marry" more than one person?

  17. Jason D
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    argument from ignorance. Bisexuals are rarely, if ever, 50/50 split down the center with two relationships running with a man and a woman simultaneously.

    What about bisexuals? Many of them are already married to a person of the opposite sex. Probability works out that way: there are simply more opportunities for them to find an opposite sex partner than a same sex one.
    Others in states which allow are married to someone of the same sex. Once we have marriage equality federally, that will cover almost all bisexuals.

  18. Reformed
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Pure smear campaign on NOM's part. As if only straight people can form bonds as committed pairs, ya know? One wonder's what they call their own special orientation. I bet they are born that way though, attacted to just the one person and never having to choose. How convenient for them that that one person showed up at the right time when they were looking.)

    Enough of the no gov't interest in pair bonding. It isn't good for everyone to be single, and it isn't good for every woman to be married to the same man, and every other man to be married to the same woman.

    After marriage equality, NOM cannot fight against bigamy because of their prior statements. Fear not, we will present the case for pair bonding (or coupling if you want to choose a word that seems a little less serious).

  19. David Argue
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    @overcameSSA - that is the key point in this whole arguement. The only reason marriage now consists of two people is that there are two different genders of humans. Once you take that out of the picture, the number 2 has no meaning whatsoever. And, if we can legislate the gender difference out of marriage, that is based on science and biology, how hard will it be down the line to legislate out a man made number system?

  20. Layne
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Overcame, you pretending to be straight is insulting. As to your original comment, please tell me how procreation is "linked" to a marriage between two (straight) senior citizens.

  21. Carlos
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    A bi-sexual person will have the same right as everone, to marry the one person they love.

    If they fall in love with two people, they will be denied the right to marry two people, just like everone else.

    No discrimination, everyone treated the same.

    Equality for all.

  22. Son of Adam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Just like every individual can marry a member of the opposite sex, Carlos. No one can marry the same sex regardless of sexual preference.

    No discrimination, everyone is treated the same.

    But that doesn''t stop you and others from crying foul, does it?

  23. Layne
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    "But that doesn''t stop you and others from crying foul, does it?" -- That's because the only gay men who married straight women after 1962 were closested, slightly demented religious types like that Josh Weed whose blog NOM linked to a few weeks back. The rest of us look at such a proposition and scoff the same way a Jewish person would if you responded to their request to pray by pointing to a Church.

  24. Son of Adam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    The only reason marriage is between two people in the first place is because there are two genders: male and female. But now that gender and precreation are considered irrelevant byproducts of the institution, what is the point of maintaning such a numerical standard? How is that not a throwback to the old fashioned notion that putting men and women together so they can procreate children and raise them as a mother and a father has any importance and relevance to human society whatsoever?

    SS"M" activists can dodge the issue all the want. But it is only a matter of time before they have to explain how keeping marriage between only two people is not based on arbitrary discrimination if gender and procreation is indeed irrelevant to the institution.

  25. Son of Adam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    "The rest of us look at such a proposition and scoff the same way a Jewish person would if you responded to their request to pray by pointing to a Church."

    The freedom of religion is a constitutional right under the 1st amendment, Lame. - not the freedom of homosexuality. It has no more authority to redefine marriage than polygamy or incest.

  26. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Lame -

    Ah, yes, first the animus attacks, then the resort to the exceptions to the rule. Sorry, those arguments don't play here because they're, well.....lame.

  27. Layne
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Last I checked, polygamy and incest are criminal offenses. Homosexuality is not, and hasn't been in years. I know how much you NOMers want L v. Tex overturned, but that's just not going to happen and same-sex relationships between two consenting adults are as legal (and Constitutionally protected) as the straight equivalent. Sorry, cowboy.

  28. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Lame - Careful with your Jewish prayer analogy; you're making the case that homosexuality is learned, adopted behavior. We all know the truth, of course; we all remember when homosexuals had no objection to arguing on behalf of their sexual PREFERENCE.

  29. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    The opposition is extremely bigoted toward polygamists. It's noteworthy how quickly they accuse others of being ignorant, then just as quickly engage in the same behavior.

    Polygamists are currently using exactly the same legal arguments as are the so-called same-sex "marriage" redefiners.

  30. Son of Adam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    No, homosexual relationships are not illegal - but neither are polyamorous relationships. So could you please tell me why a polyamourous group has any less of a right to have the law changed and have marriage redefined to include polygamy and bigamy, Lame?

    And Lawrence vs. Texas has absolutely nothing to do with SS"M".

  31. Layne
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    @Overcame: Gee, I thought homosexuality WAS learned! Isn't that what they taught you in ex-gay therapy? That you were abused and didn't get enough Daddy love? I'm not going to have a serious debate about sexuality with someone who thinks his gayness was a disease that he was cured of and is now pretending to be straight.

    @Barb: If polygamists want to fight the same battles we fought, in court case after court case, more power to them. Polygamy has been a felony since the 19th Century. If they wanna fight to get polygamy de-criminalized and legalized, they can go for it. Free country, isn't it? It's what we have the courts for, isn't it? Doesn't mean it's gonna work for them. Their fate is the hands of the judges. Not us.

  32. Layne
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    SoA, please see my reply to Barb. Polyamorous groups have the right to fight to have whatever laws they want to changed to suit their needs. I'm not stopping them any more than I'm stopping pro-life groups from overturning Roe v Wade.

    I support Roe v Wade, but if a group or groups want to fight to overturn it, let them! I'm certainly not going to get in their way.

    But as I said above, just because they're fighting the same battles we're fighting doesn't mean it's going to work out in their favor. That has everything to do with the respective judges in their cases and nothing to do with the LGBT community.

  33. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Lame -

    No ex-gay therapy for me, sorry. Worked things out myself; didn't like the life I was leading, so I changed it. Happily married for over a dozen years with my own kids and loooooving every minute of it! You want to keep defending your existence and trying to force people to accept your lifestyle, go for it.

  34. Good News
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Obama's daughter asked him a pertinent question. “What if a tricycle wants to get married?” He put serious reflexion to the question and answers that he's evolving on the issue. His daughter's advice to him is that three sounds logical.

  35. Layne
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    @Overcame: I'm not defending my existance to anybody, nor do I feel the need to. I'm soo glad you were able to cure yourself of the gay. Hey, if you ever get a break from your awesomely straight life, you might want to give George Rekers, Alan Chambers, John Smid, Larry Craig and Ted Haggard a call. They could desperately use your help.

    You might not know the names, but the first three are/were all heavy-hitters in the ex-gay movement, and swore up and down, like you, that the gay could be cured. Then Rekers got caught with a rentboy and Chambers and Smid both separately admitted they've still got the gay and have NEVER seen anyone change from gay to straight. And of course you know all about Craig and Haggard.

    You must know something they don't! LOL...

  36. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Good News, you're on a roll :)

  37. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Lame -

    Don't you know the names of the thousands and thousands of others who gave it up and never looked back? No, because the vast majority of them have moved on and want to forget their sad, misguided pasts. But, once again, you rely on the exceptions to the rule to make your case.

  38. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, I personally know 2 people who have given up the gay lifestyle and never looked back. But, of course, the opposition will never acknowledge that it's possible. It's contrary to their narrative.

  39. Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Silly NOM. Confusing bisexuality with polygamy... again...

  40. Layne
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    No I don't know their names, Overcame, because I can't seem to find any. Chambers used to say they were hundreds of thousands, then there only thousands, and now he's saying he's never seen anyone turn straight.

    Dr. Niccolosi (another player in this tragi-comedy) was challenged to produce some of these "thousands" and he produced nine people. Yes, that's a 9. Single digit. And none of them were straight.

    Did you see Christian, the "straight" guy Janet Boynes touted as one of her success stories on the "Pray Away The Gay" segment from the Lisa Ling show? Boyfriend is about as straight as the audience at a Lady Gaga concert.

    If you've actually managed to cure yourself, then YOU'RE the exception because even the top experts in the ex-gay movement couldn't do it.

  41. Son of Adam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    "Polyamorous groups have the right to fight to have whatever laws they want to changed to suit their needs. I'm not stopping them any more than I'm stopping pro-life groups from overturning Roe v Wade. "

    Then you shouldn't cry foul when pro family groups like NOM fight to preserve marriage and its relevence to the procreation and rearing of children by their natural parents. That is their right too.

  42. Son of Adam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Here is where you can find many ex gays who testify to their change, Lame. They are living proof that homosexuality is not a universal constant.

  43. RC
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    RJ - NOM confuses everything and anything they don't like with polygamy.

    If it's disagreeable to NOM, it's a gateway drug to polygamy, tricycle marriage, etc.

  44. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Polygamous sects have already tested this in Canada and the courts (which ruled on s-s marriage in 2003) have struck that down. The fundamentalist LDS families in Bountiful, B.C. were not getting their relationships legally recognized. But that may change in the USA should Romney get elected since his great grandfather Miles Park Romney had four wives and 30 children. If it were't for polygamy you would not have Mitt Romney for President.

  45. QueerNE
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    I guess I was never aware that bisexual means polyamorist. Guess I've been out of the loop. Neat discovery, NOM.

  46. Good News
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Lets try to make it less confusing RC.
    If it is logical that a heterosexual is allowed to fulfill his sexual desires in marriage with the sex that he is attracted to, and if it is logical that a homosexual is able to fulfill his sexual desires in marriage with the sex that he is attracted to, than it is logical that a bisexual be allowed to fulfill his sexual desires in marriage with the sexes that he is attracted to. I mean your not going to ask him to choose are you – he was born that way, you weren't! And you have your right to your achieve your fulfillment in your marital union with the person you love, why do you want to take away his rights? Why do you want to limit the person that he is? What are you one of those hateful and bigoted people.

    But I admit its a little off subject. So lets just keep it real simple and real logical, it will be better for all of us (especially our children) - marriage is between a man and a women. That was simple. Now lets see what's on sports.

  47. Richard
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Polygamy was an accepted part of the Bible for pretty much the entire old testament. Of course women were treated merely as property back then and multiple spouses was reserved for men and usually only men of means. The one man, one woman thing was only an accepted Christian view several hundred years after the church was formed. And even then it was common for men, particularly leaders to have consorts. This is all much ado about nothing except taking over private lives and, yes, animus against gays and lesbians.

  48. James H
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    @ RC - You are totally right. "marriage equality" for bisexuals looks like man on dog, or man on toaster, or man on a dozen men. It is just so obvious.

  49. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    First Kings 11:1-3 indicates that King Solomon had 700 hundred wives and 300 hundred concubines, many from lands of which God had previously instructed the Israelites to avoid intermarrying. God knew that such intermarrying would lead to the worship of false gods. Why, then, did Solomon do this? Many NOMers like to claim traditional marriage of the Old Testament. we are with it

  50. Son of Adam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    That's right Richard and Shane. Polygamy is rife in the bible. That gives you even less reason to deny it to those who want to have multiple spouses lest you be bigots and hypocrites.

    On the other hand, marriage as we know it today developed for the sake of establishing a stable family setting for children to be reared in. SS"M", no fault divorce, and yes, polygamy disrupts that.

  51. Vast Variety
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Polygamy is generally a social or religious choice. That's what makes it different than marriage equality for LGBT individuals.

  52. Good News
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Interesting on Mitt, @Shane. But at least he knows what marriage is: a man and a woman with potential for children. And he's accepted our nations law of one man and one woman.

    An idea:
    Polygamist marriages where outlawed because strong, committed and large biological families that are educated together are a threat to a central government. (Look what the Mormons did in a century or two.) And now strong and independent biological families with two parents (especially home schoolers) are today seen as a threat to central government rule, so its time to take a hack at them. Break the family, break the biological link. Render them disoriented and easy to manipulate. Nice for the state and powers that be. But not very nice for mom and dad trying to raise an independent family (and naively expecting their government to lend them a helping hand). That's part of this war today, the state on the family. And they have the gay activist up on the front lines, while they sit high and dry in their towers.
    Just an idea...

  53. Layne
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Good News, I don't recall anybody advocating that straight marriage be outlawed, but please keep smoking whatever you're smoking. Probably makes sense to somebody...

  54. David Argue
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    @Richard - Actually, one man-one woman was the way it started in the Bible. I agree that it was present in most of the Old Testament, but it didn't start until Lamech, which was about 5 generations from Adam. The Church was just trying to get back to the original concept of the way it should be.

  55. Richard
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Don't forget Lilth- Adam's first wife. You know, the one who wanted equality but was denied and so God went with Eve.

    @Vast Variety- marriage is a social/religious thing period. The definition doesn't change- committed, caring concensual adults in a committed, civilly recognized relationship. The question is who gets to participate. Mariiage equality is not about changing the definition, just who has access.

    If you have a religious issue with accepting, then your church and you don't have to recognize it.

    And the kids will be just fine.

  56. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink


    President Francois Hollande who took office last month in France, had pledged to legalise gay marriage and adoption during his election campaign but had given no timeframe.

    Since Hollande’s Socialists won an absolute majority in parliamentary elections two weeks ago, the conservative UMP party, which had opposed the measure under former president Nicolas Sarkozy, can do little to stop it.

    "Within a year, people of the same sex will be able to marry and adopt children together," Dominique Bertinotti, junior minister for families, told the daily Le Parisien. "They will have the same rights and duties as any married couple."

    Yet another European country to embrace s-s marriage. Perhaps the USA will end up being the ONLY modern western country to outlaw s-s marriage.

  57. AD
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, NOM. I always stop by for my daily dose of comedy.

    Bisexual people fall in love with one person, just like the rest of us do. Nobody has even brought up polygamy, except for you!

  58. John Noe
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 5:20 pm | Permalink


    Just because what is bad for France, does not mean it would have to be bad for the USA. Americia would be doing the right thing. There is an old saying that two wrongs do not make a right. Just because France has gone evil does not mean we should do the same thing.

  59. Son of Adam
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    If Europe wants to flush their economy, culture, and morals down the toilet, Shane, that's their business. That doesn't mean we have to emulate them.

    Why do you think we parted ways with them in 1776?

  60. Good News
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    @Lyne 48
    You don't have to outlaw it to attack it and give it a hurting.

    How can a biological family grow strong, large and deep when the government is teaching the children of that same family (against the parents wishes) that they can have a family without the man-woman union. And that the biological link is of no importance to anyone involved (and to even suggest that it does have importance, is probably showing signs of prejudice). With friends like that helping your biological family grow, who needs enemies.
    The men in the towers know what you apparently do not. That the 80 to 97 percent of the children who where not born that way, can be influenced to go that way, play that way or be distracted by that way. And so deterring the child's upbringing from the parents wishes for their child. It is impossible in our countries environment for a biological family to grow strong and sure, in confidence of its government; they are obliged to struggle against (rather than work with) their own nations educational system.

    If the parents only had a word to name the man-woman union, they would have the most important and effective tool to help them in their work within in a hostile environment. And it is precisely that word which the government is taking away from them. Taking away from the parents the possibility to clearly teach the child, in needed simplicity, that there is a fundamental difference between these two unions which makes them in no way alike.

    Today when a kindergartener asks his teacher what marriage is, they will learn that ones sex has nothing to do with it. And at the same time the child will be given absolutely no way to name in word what their mommy and daddy are (for here the sexes are of fundamental importance). They will be given nothing to name what the united two people who gave him life are, what the two people who share his genes are. These same two people who love him and raise him and look after him. When only a few years ago he could have said that they are married, and so say “that is what I want to be when I grow up.” The only remark that the kindergarten teacher of today will be allowed to tell him after such a statement is, “that's nice, do you want to marry a boy or a girl”. And in so doing, completely ignoring the child's wishes that are asking for and needing recognition understood (and not disorientation). And so weakening his own awareness of what he wants.

    But I don't think that that post is going to clear anything up for you Lyne. Unless you have good intentions, a good dose of concentration or something good to smoke.

  61. SC Guy
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    The term 'bisexual' simply refers to a perverted person and is a reminder of the fact that the so-called LGBT people are perverts and don't believe in sexual chastity or monogamous relationships. It's like saying you believe in having sexual relationships with more than one person. Disgusting.

  62. Randy E King
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    President Bush has called for the end of the marriage tax calling marriage a 'sacred institution recognized by God and man.'

    Wow, this guy can't stop slamming the French.

  63. Marcus
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    NOM, you do not understand how bisexuality works. Being bisexual means you can have either a male OR a female partner, not a male AND a female partner.

  64. maxtex
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    That is a ridiculous question. Bisexuality is not synonymous with polygamy. Polygamy is not the issue here.

    I suspect that you knew that, and were merely trying to be silly and contentious.

  65. dn
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    After reading SC Guy's comment, which NOM's moderators have let stand, I'll say it again.

    NOM: not bigoted, but #1 with bigots

  66. RC
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    SC Guy could use some enlightenment, as well as a more brotherly attitude towards his fellow man.

  67. kostas
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    This is a very foolish post. I thought that NOM was supposed to be a serious, legitimate organization.

  68. ali sanchez
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    It's not even necessarily theoretical. A lesbian couple and the sperm donor. Three parents. And where does the wild left--that promotes homosexual marriage--go to say that the trio are not married?

  69. grandmaliberty
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Lanyne the very word bi sexual means thay can't make up their mind who they are attracted to and now with the way t he world is going maarriage and a menage de deux (?) may be the next ok thing.. it might ever come to a menagerie ...why can't people have a difference of opinion and think the lgtb movement is wrong get you all upset.. free country.. we are entitled to our faith based beliefs... you don't have to agree. just do as we do and tolerate...

  70. Sean
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Wow...another dumb article. Why am I not surprised from someone without a discernible measure of intelligence. Bravo.

  71. RC
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

    grandmaliberty - you appear to be the antithesis of tolerance (and literacy, too, I might add.)

  72. Posted June 30, 2012 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    @Good News

    That was AWESOME. Ever felt like writing an article along the lines of your post to Layne?

  73. Hikaro
    Posted June 30, 2012 at 4:59 am | Permalink

    I find it amusing that the people that call us 1M1W marriage supporters bigoted when we oppose SSM, but they cannot comprehend that other marriage arrangements are possible beyond SSM. Once upon a time, gender was considered inextricably vital to marriage. Why will the number 2 not go the way of gender if we admit SSM? Isn't it entirely possible that the only reason some people fall in love with one person is that society makes them choose between them? I mean, isn't the contention of SSM supporters that the only reason men don't marry men and women don't marry women is because society doesn't let them?

    We as a country need to decide what marriage is for, legally I mean. If it is for people to express love and devotion to one another, then on what legal grounds can we limit marriage with an arbitrary number?

    When we say "marriage" (when not being devil's advocates) we mean a union between one man and one woman. You mean a union between one man or woman and one man or woman. What right do you have to say we should listen to your revision but not polyamorous groups revision to "a union between any number of people of any gender"? Even a cursory glance at the Wikipedia entry about polyamory shows that polyamorous groups face many of the legal difficulties gays and lesbians do in matters such as parenting/custody.

    If you're going to support SSM, then support it. But stop calling 1M1W people bigots on principle unless you are prepared to support the legal recognition of any configuration of people who want to call their relationship marriage.

  74. Good News
    Posted June 30, 2012 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    @ Mantronikk. Thanks.
    For now “NOM Blog” takes care of all my publishing and editing.

    But of course I'm banging my head trying to figure out how I could do more to stay this current of affairs. (As we all are.) They like that, hoping that I'll eventually bang to hard and have to lay down and call it a day.

    I'll post below the only piece of writing that I ever tried to have published. I dropped a copy off at the International Harold Tribune and The New York Times for their op-ed page. They replied that they could not find a place for it. I don't think they where referring to its length... Maybe I'll give it another try with this piece you liked.

    @ Barb, while I'm on the line, thanks. And thank you to everyone here at NOM and elsewhere for fighting, speaking out, and doing what they can however they can.

  75. Good News
    Posted June 30, 2012 at 6:07 am | Permalink

    To whom it might interest. I submitted this piece to the International Harold Tribune last year. They responded that they could not find a place for it.
    As for Obama, I was as proud as anyone might have been when he was elected, to see America shine again, through its originality, and possibility to inspire the world. For me, if we could get marriage as being between a man and a woman into the US constitution we would again be a shining example of encouragement to the world. But getting that done is going to be a lot harder than wining a presidential election!

    This was in reference to DOMA. At the time I had no idea what that was. I was simply listening to my president speak... I heard, and I wrote this letter to some friends of mine:


    March 3rd 2011

    - That's In A Word -


    On the US Presidents expressed position a couple of weeks ago, that the US constitution is in error, and that the word 'marriage' should simply include the union between any two adults.

    That statement, by the President of the United States (who did not say it out load himself) is the most aggressive and violent call to kill, annihilate and erase from existence one of the most intensely important things that I would expect, without having to question or doubt it, that my country (with all its might, power, intelligence and riches) would help me to protect – the protection of family: my family.
    It is the most outwardly frontal call of aggression and threat that I have ever in my life heard anyone say.
    Oh, I know, its nothing special as words and comments go on the subject these days.
    For me, it will remain a land mark!!!
    Not one toward sexual freedoms, for what a secondary issue that is.

    To not allow one specific word to exist in my culture that defines the absolutely unique union of two bodies that can come together and create life, human life; that also includes in the definition the willingness to try and live out a lifetime together because and for that union of creation, and for the creation itself. Including as well in the definition, those people who by in symbolic union of the two opposite sexes, whether or not they have their own offspring, would wish to express their own love and honor for the idea and example of that unique union.
    To refuse to allow one word alone (among our myriad of words) to express this completely original and unique union – is a giant step toward effacing from the psyche and mind of our children the truth and reality of that unique union.
    Even if it be a minority of people who feel that they care enough for it (and maybe even feel an animal instinct toward it) and therefore logically want one such word to describe it, is of no importance – the truth of the thing exists. In a reasonable society, a word should exist to name it. Not to have a word that defines it is to bring poverty to our language, to our minds, and to realities that we feel in our bodies and existence. It brings on death to us, or the deterioration of the knowledge of who we are. It is simply, to bring on a lie.

    What's in a word? That's in a word!

    The actual word of 'Marriage' is of no importance. Take that word and apply it to other meanings if you want. But in turn invent a word that will define the still unique (old fashioned) mother and father, life time committed (whether realized or not) union. But I fear a new word will not be invented for this cause. For they want to annihilate even the thought of such a uniqueness. In order to wash clean our minds, and especially those of our children. To therefore let the idea prevail, in empty minds, that any and all family combinations are exactly alike and equal - to prepare us for a future...

  76. Son of Adam
    Posted June 30, 2012 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    "Polyamorous groups have the right to fight to have whatever laws they want to changed to suit their needs. I'm not stopping them any more than I'm stopping pro-life groups from overturning Roe v Wade."

    In other words, Lame, in your universe, equality means that everything revolves around homosexuals and everyone else is on their own. So much for inclusion and diversity.

  77. bman
    Posted June 30, 2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    tam->It means they'll be able to marry the person they fall in love with .....

    The article is about marrying, "the persons [plural] they fall in love with."

    You seem to think a bisexual could not "love" two persons at the same time or that a threesome could not want to be married to each other.

    See the article, First Trio "Married" In the Netherlands

  78. Zack
    Posted June 30, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Permalink


    The comments on that article were deeply disturbing.

  79. Chairm
    Posted July 1, 2012 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    Polyamory entails groups. Polygamy entails a series of twosomes. Marriage entails integration of man and woman in a comprehensive relationship and as such is limited by to a mating pair ... not a group nor a series of twosaomes.

    The SSM idea does not provide the justifivation for a limit on the number of participants nor on the number of relationships. It swallows polyamory and polygamy (and polygamy-like SSM) without chewing. It is not a slippery slope but beyond the edge of the cliff.

    Picture Wile E. Coyote running in space. He realizes he will drop and then he drops into a puff of dust when he reaches the bottom. No slip sliding down a slope.

  80. Posted July 1, 2012 at 2:42 am | Permalink

    A civilization which is prepared to impose, as law, at the implicit point of a gun, and as the basis for compulsory education of the innocent young, that gender is irrelevant to marriage, and that husbands are either male or female, as also wives, is a doomed civilization.
    To adopt, as law, what is demonstrably false, is insane.

    This kind of insanity crashes civilizations, and in case you had not noticed, our civilization is collapsing.

    The good news?

    Four wins for marriage and a crushing defeat of Barack Obama will serve notice upon the cowardly social engineers that they can back off, or they can experience the wrath of a free people.


  81. M. Jones
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Obama's one term presidency will shortly be relegated to the dust bin of ancient history. Republican landslide come November and the true meaning of marriage restored come next January.

  82. Andy King
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    M. Jones

    I would dispute the "landslide" speculation, given that Romney lacks a significant majority of the Latino vote and Gallup polls for this week put Obama at a four point lead. That said, it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that this year might usher in a Romney presidency.

    If so, then what? As a vocal states-rights advocate, why would Romney interfere with the right of states to determine their own marriage laws? Romney may embrace conservatives' views on marriage, but any attempt to institute a nationwide policy on marriage would open him up to attacks of federal overreach.

    In short, Romney may be your candidate on many issues, but a national "restoration" of marriage just isn't one of them.

  83. Good News
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    Yes, please do.
    And I would like to know how to visit your blog if you'd like to pass on the link...

    Don't know if this correction helps or not? (If this is the one you're thinking of.)
    "And in so doing, completely ignoring the child's wishes that are asking for and needing recognition and understanding (and not disorientation)."

  84. Preserve Marriage
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    "While it is true that regulating the details of traditional marriage historically has been left to the states, it also is true that the federal government has been involved with and injected itself into marriage law when states have deviated from the traditional definition. Thus, for instance, the United States Congress banned polygamy in United States territories when faced with widespread plural marriage in the Utah Territory," -- Paul D. Clement, attorney for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives

  85. Chairm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Bisexual persons are disproportionately represented in the leadership of the polyamorist movement. Why would SSMers dodge the basic problem whereby they demand that society not discriminate between different types of relationships?

    During the trial around the CA marriage amendment at the state supreme court, the SSM litigator said that abolition of marital status would solve the problem that prompted the SSMers to go to court. Equal treatment would be served by abolition of marriage.

    Well, that fits very neatly with the polyamorist demand for equal treatment. Why distinguish between marriage and non-marriage, in the aftermath of an imposition of SSM-as-marriage?

    The SSM idea lacks justification for the special status of marriage. That is the point of the polyamorist movement.