First Civil Union Between Three Partners in Brazil Sparks Outrage


Gay activists say it is absurd to argue that redefining marriage to be genderless opens the door to legal polygamous unions. Now it has happened. So what do they say?

Controversy has been sparked as the first civil union between three separate partners was registered in Tupã, in the Northwestern region of Sao Paulo state, Brazil last week. The three-person union has shocked religious groups in the country, and sparked further concerns that the traditional family unit is being further eroded by the current day society.

The actual declaration of the union between the man and two women was in fact made three months ago, but it finally became public this week.

Notary officer, Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, has explained that the three partners lived together and wanted to publicly declare their status in order to guarantee their rights. Checks were conducted to see if there was any legal impediment to the unions and the notary office has confirmed that none were found.

Attorney Nathaniel Batista dos Santos Junior oversaw the legal process of creating the three-way declaration. -- Global Christian Post


  1. Jon
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    It seems like a 3-way division of property agreement, without the government granting it any of the rights that a marriage would be granted. NOM is making a bigger deal out of this than it is.

    Also, with regards to the claim that making marriage genderless opens the door for polygamous arrangements, it's an important point that polygamists (at least the ones I know of) are all heterosexual, and polygamous arrangements are separate marriages between the same man and multiple women. That is, it is multiple man-woman marriages that exist alongside one another. To me, this seems fundamentally different than legalizing same-sex marriage, and it would be possible to legalize polygamy without legalizing SSM. Basically, I think both sides are somewhat right. Legalizing SSM, and expanding the legal definition of marriage, will no doubt lead to the consideration of further expansion (polygamy?). At the same time, the fight to legalize polygamy is not related to the fight to legalize SSM in any other way. That is, pro-SSMers can be for or against legalizing polygamy as well, there's no reason a position on SSM would necessitate the same or a different position on polygamy.

    Moreover, we already have a polygamous family with their own reality tv show in America. If that family signed a multi-way property distribution agreement, would that be illegal in the US? I don't think it would be, but I'm not a legal scholar, so I can't say for sure.

    My position is this: polygamy, like traditional marriage, is a family arrangement between consenting adults. This ingredient -- consenting adults -- makes it fundamentally different than bestiality or adult/child unions that many NOM-supporters like to talk about occurring in the aftermath of SSM-legalization. Personally, I don't think that in theory there is anything necessarily morally wrong with polygamous marriage. I do, however, have questions/concerns about its legalization: How would tax benefits / other benefits of 2-person marriage work for larger groups of people? How would this change if you had multiple people all married to everyone else in the group, or one man who is individually married to multiple women (as in the tv show sister wives)? Is polygamy, in practice, always unfair/detrimental for women?

    In other words, the legalization of polygamy would require a lot of changes to marriage laws, and more research into how polygamous arrangements function. The same cannot be said of SSM.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Pay no attention to that man behind the green curtain!

  3. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Consider, that SSM DOES impact both marriage laws (annullment law, divorce law, consanguinity law, etc.) as well as family law (inheritance law, paternity rights, presumption of paternity law, etc.). Neutering marriage causes fundamental changes to laws, wherein both a bride and a groom are presumed to both appear in a marriage. If the govt. ceases to recognize the fundamental differences between males and females in marriage law, all sorts of apple carts will be tipped, because, at the end of the day, marriage is fundamentally the basis of laws surrounding procreation.

  4. Kim
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    So according to Brian Brown, the one man-one woman arrangement is unique because it keeps a child together with its parents. So what's wrong with polygamy since the child is kept with both its parents? I'm playing devils advocate here, because as I commented elsewhere, the state can't design marriage, but when the people themselves are convinced that the two ends of sexual union can be separated apart, that is the procreative aspect and the unitive aspect, then you get the state being forced to recognize arrangements that focus only on the unitive aspect (i.e. same sex marriage) and/or arrangements that are all about the procreative aspect (i.e. polygamy, it's probably about economics too, but most polygamists have lots of kids, so clearly the procreative aspect is a huge focus in those relationships!). It is the people themselves that have to ultimately finally come to realize that the only rational marriage arrangement that best serves the parties involved (adults and children alike) and the best interests of society is the life-long exclusive union of a man and a woman who are open to life. When the people finally reclaim this understanding, then our marriage laws will once again be crafted in such a way to promote the best interests of all our citizens. Until then, I'm afraid we are stuck with the onslaught of many bad effects from this marriage confusion, not the least of which will be the severe restriction of our religious liberties. The rational understanding of marriage will eventually come back into popularity, but not in our generation or likely the next one either.

  5. Ash
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    SSMers haven’t even squared same-sex couples with the presumption of paternity in places where ssm is legalized, yet they believe that something like tax benefits cannot accommodate more than two people. In the Netherlands, which also granted cohabitation contracts to trios, lesbians are demanding that the presumption be twisted to apply to their unions (some jurisdictions reform the presumption when ssm is legalized, and others try to continue reserving it for opposite-sexed unions, as did the Netherlands).

    So, we see that even after a decade of ssm, consequences show up. But Brazil didn’t take a decade. Family diversity advocates have an itch, and same-sex couples alone can’t scratch it. If LGBTs really believe that the end goal of ssm is parity between real marriages and same-sex unions, then they are sorely mistaken.

    What’s the purpose in having one’s relationship put on the marriage pedestal if the real intent of your puppet masters is to eventually overload and collapse the pedestal?

  6. Bob
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    This is a government financial union. Read any OTHER article about it and it's clear that they just wanted their bank accounts, property and what they share together to be combined. No one even knows if they are "lovers".

    As everyone who supports same sex marriage will tell you, leave the "polygamy" fight to PEOPLE WHO WANT POLYGAMY. Gay people don't want that. PERIOD. We have told you over and over that's not what we want. You have no right to just say "I don't believe you" and spread around things not based in fact.

    Stop being so extreme and let people live their lives and be treated equally on the foundation of LOVE - NOT SEX.

  7. Publius
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    Re comment nr. 1
    “…the legalization of polygamy would require a lot of changes to marriage laws…The same cannot be said of SSM.”

    SSM would be a bigger change than polygamy. Polygamy does not require replacing father and mother by parent 1 and parent 2 (one of whom is inevitably not biologically related to the child while excluding a third party who is biologically related to the child) and husband and wife by partner 1 and partner 2. De-gendering family law would affect almost every aspect of family law.

    If children are involved, SSM is a form of polygamy involving three people, but where one biological parent is banned from the marriage and lacks rights to the child. This hardly sounds fair to the excluded party.

  8. Dave
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    There are many forces that make things happen in the world, and drawing logical conclusions from premises is one of them. Only willful ignorance can lead somebody to deny that SSM will lead to polygamy. Those who say differently are not arguing in good faith.

  9. Posted August 28, 2012 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    They don't care. Marriage means nothing to them, so why would they care about this?

  10. ForTraditionalMarriage
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    Gays crack me up! They are intrinsically atheistic and don't care about God's definition of marriage. Their whole argument is that marriage should be based on state laws and not biblical principals.. In that case, it is a free fall. Let everyone have their cake. If a bi-sexual man/woman want an extra partner - why not? Hey, they are in the same bucket with the rest of you homosexuals. Why should they be denied their rights? Homosexuals arguing about the legality of polygamy is too funny. smdh

  11. ForTraditionalMarriage
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

    Another thing: the biggest argument I hear from supporters of SSM is, "Africans Americans" got their civil rights, but they are ignoring us." They are a bunch of bigots. Why wouldn't polygamous make the same argument. If the LGBT is not supportive of polygamous then aren't you also bigots. it works both ways, and opens door for all types of perversion.

  12. M. Jones
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    They said it wouldn't happen and it did! The perversion extremists won't be happy until America becomes another Sodom and Gomorrah.

  13. Dafydd
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 2:48 am | Permalink

    I am of a polygamous and polyandrous culture. It is my human right to marry and to live with the women that I love, as is it their right to marry the men that they love. It is my right to immigrate my wives into my country because women of my country will not participate in polygamy. The laws of my government permit none of this. Extra martial sex is not permitted in my culture. This means that my marriage life and sex life is seriously obstructed.

  14. Michelle Roberts
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Mormans in Brazil?

  15. Jon
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    What about traditionally married couples where one partner is infertile, who opt for IVF? The law already deals with situations where you have a married couple with a child that is only biologically related to one of the two.

    I'm not sure I see how SSM would impact any of the marriage laws you mentioned. Which parts of annulment law, divorce law, or consanguinity law depend on gender? The only one that seems clear is the presumption of paternity, because obviously there can be no "presumption of paternity" for SSM couples, since either 1 is the biological father, or neither is the father. I'm still not sure how SSM couples situation (from a purely legal perspective) would be different than a traditionally married couple where 1 partner is infertile.

    As a note, here -- again, I'm not a legal scholar, and I'm not trying to say, "obviously law won't have to change at all to accomodate SSM." I'm just trying to get you to explain what you mean.

  16. Publius
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink


    Of course, the law allows for adoption, but SSM makes a non-adoptive, non-biolgical partner a parent. It does redefine parenthood. Polygamy does not.

    The law already deals with polygamy fines and imprisonment. Why should the law then allow a type of polygamy that reduces a woman to “an easy-bake oven except with no legal rights to the cupcake?” See

    Surrogacy leads to exploitation. "Where will these women come from? Unless the law of supply and demand is repealed, the answer is: where wombs are cheapest. At the moment, this is India, where surrogate motherhood has become a $2.3 billion industry…” This is much worse than polygamy.

    See also

  17. P
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    3 persons civil unions-today and outrage, tomorrow a plank in the democratic party platform!

  18. P
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    3 persons civil unions-today an outrage, tomorrow a plank in the democratic party platform!

  19. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    How about doing a little more homework, Jon, & get back to us. :).

  20. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Thousands of Mormons in Brazil--none practicing polygamy. Haven't for over 100 years.

  21. bman
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    Michelle Roberts->Mormans in Brazil?

    I think there are some Normans in Brazil (and perhaps some Mormons too).

  22. Paul McMichael
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    @Dave etc - polygamy exists in law in countries that currently are vehemently opposed to gay rights. Where is the connection you claim? Polygamy exited in Biblical times when sodomy was punishable by death. Polygamy and heterosexuality are inextricably linked.

  23. Paul McMichael
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    FYI - I am strongly against polygamy on the grounds that it is a vehicle for misogynistic exploitation.

  24. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Paul McM., the only "rights" "gay" people have, are the same rights enjoyed by every other citizen, whether they are attracted to the same sex or the opposite, their choice to participate in either hetero or homosexual behavior (or none), the color of their skin, their sex, their political affiliation (or none), their religion (or none), their age, etc. They also, like every other citizen, have the right not to exercise their rights, including that of marriage. There are no "gay" rights separate from the rights of others. Rights are neither "gay" nor "straight," male or female, religious or irreligious, etc.

  25. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Paul McM., if one argues that SSM is justifiable on the grounds of consent between any two adult parties, there is no argument against the consent between several adults, even one is privately concerned with mysogeny. There are a lot of concerns for the negative consequences of SSM by marriage supporters, but they seem to be so easily dismissed by those who want to promote SSM. Why should concerns over polygamy/polamory be treated any more seriously?

  26. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Jan. 1, 2009: Est. population, 198,739,000; Members, 1,060,556; Stakes, 233; Wards, 1,361; Branches, 488; Missions, 27; Districts, 52; Temples, 5, under construction, 1;Percent LDS, .53, or one in 187; Brazil Area.

    For Michelle. 🙂

    (Some, bman, might even be named "Norman") 😉

  27. Timothy Kincaid
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    "What do they say?"

    They say ask your Mormon board members about that. We gay folk really aren't all that interested.

  28. Timothy Kincaid
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    " The perversion extremists won't be happy until America becomes another Sodom and Gomorrah."

    I'm a bit confused by this. What exactly did Gomorrah do?

  29. Publius
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Re comment nr. 22

    Are there no homosexual relationships with multiple partners? Or are they just too fluid to be called marriages?

    Re comment nr. 23

    See comment nr. 16 for the link between gay marriage and the exploitation of women as surrogates.

  30. Alexander Adams
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    @comment 6

    They don't want polygamy, but that's a side effect. Like gun control advocates don't want more crime but their policies cause more crime. People who support more minimum wage want to help people, but that's not the result. What you want is irrelevant, rather the effects of what you want are relevant...

    Why should love be the legal reason for marriage? See link below.

    Originally published in a Harvard journal its here in html format:

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.