NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Polygamy

"They hope to show the world that polyfidelity is an acceptable choice of love."

"Polyfidelity."  No, unfortunately, it isn't a paradoxical movie title along the order of "True Lies."

It is a word being used to describe the relationship of the "throuple" - three 'married' lesbian women - from Massachusetts, in this article in The Daily MailOf course, the article's headline highlights a distinct piece of news about the group's relationship: they are presently expecting a child through one of the women's IVF conception by anonymous donor sperm. The three are named Brynn, Doll, and Kitten, and here's a snippet of their story [emphases added]:

PolyfidelityIt was back in 2009 that Brynn first met Doll through an online dating site. Senior Software Designer and Engineer, Brynn had been married twice before to women and both experiences had made her acknowledge that monogamous relationships weren't for her.

Meanwhile Fashion Designer, Doll had known that she was polygamous since high school....

Brynn and Doll dated for eight months before moving in together. Two years later, they purchased a house together. 

Having both enjoyed polygamous relationships before, Doll and Brynn looked for a third woman to join them. After a few failed liaisons, Doll and Brynn created an OKCupid couple's profile. Eventually, they received a message from Kitten. 

... Kitten says: 'My second boyfriend and I had been together for several years but a few months before our wedding, he called the whole thing off without explanation. At first, I was distraught but now, I'm grateful for what he did. 

'The whole break-up forced me to really think about who I was and I realised that I had not been honest to myself. On reflection, I realised that I hadn't been happy in my previous monogamous relationships and I discovered that I was poly.

'I set up an OKCupid profile for myself and began dating an awesome woman with the happy consent of her husband. They were a lovely couple but we ended the relationship after I had to move away. 

'Soon after that amicable break-up, I came across Doll's and Kitten's OKCupid profile and saw they were looking for a third member to join their 'Super Hero Group'.

You may recognize the name of the dating site, OKCupid, from the relatively recent news about Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich having been forced to step down following protests of his having contributed $1,000 to support Proposition 8.

OK Cupid

OKCupid was involved in leading the charge protesting Eich's appointment, and was positively hyperbolic in their exasperated moral outrage and indignation. OKCupid caused all Firefox users to see a screen during their protest that included this message:

Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

At the time, OKCupid's word choice - mentioning "gay relationships" when speaking of "creating love," as opposed to mentioning gay couples - was careful and calculated: because they don't limit their mission to bringing couples together, but all manner of relationships. In this one story alone, the site is credited with facilitating two separate poly-amorous relationships.

That's  just one part of what makes this article so important:

It isn't just that these sorts of relationships are going to become more and more common as the norms of marriage are dismantled by the radicals out to redefine that sacred institution.

It isn't just that the calls for legal redefinition to include unions of 3 or more people will inevitably increase in the wake of same-sex 'marriage.'

Rather, we should note the irony and the telling fact that the company that posted such angry words and reacted so indignantly to Brendan Eich is a company that is so far out of touch with most Americans values that it facilitates bringing married couples together with random strangers for romantic and sexual trysts.

Of course, a final important point worth reflecting on in light of this article is the matter of the welfare of children. One wonders, for example, what confusion might attend the future children of these women, at least two of whom admit to having been serial polygamists - and who plan to have three kids, probably all by IVF and anonymous sperm donation. That's three kids, each with 'three mothers' - and each denied his or her fundamental and basic human right to the love of both a mom and a dad.

Are we content to go quietly down a road of legal reconstruction that will one day attempt to tell us that there is no difference between being raised in such an environment and being raised by one's own biological parents - that even to suggest as much is the equivalent of bigotry and hate-speech? After all, what logically stands in the way? If fatherhood is unimportant, and two moms can serve just as well, then wouldn't it follow that three moms is even better?

Will the American People Make 2014 the Turning Point for Marriage

The Daily Caller published NOM president Brian Brown’s end-of-the-year Op-ed, where he discusses how pivotal 2014 will be for marriage.  Brown writes:

Marriage in 2014The American people know how important marriage is to the country, and to families. We’re fed up with the elite telling us marriage must be abandoned in the name of “equality.” America needs men and women to come together, produce children, and raise those children with the love and support of both a mother and a father. That’s what marriage does, and that is profoundly good for the country.

Looking back at what the courts did in 2013, and could do again in 2014 to undermine marriage, Brian makes it clear that the only way to protect marriage from activist justices is to amend the U.S. Constitution.  He continues:

Regardless of what the Court does, the survival of marriage as the nation has always known it may well depend on whether the American people can again be roused to take action. They’d need to do more than sign a petition — they’d need to demand that their political leaders amend the US constitution to preserve marriage.

There is, of course, already a federal Marriage Protection Amendment, authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, working its way through Congress. If you haven't taken action to urge your legislators to enact this important law, please do so right away!

G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The greatest political storm flutters only a fringe of humanity. But an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children literally alter the destiny of nations.”

In 2014, ordinary men and women across this country will need to step up and demand that their political leaders amend the Constitution to preserve marriage.  And when they do, they will alter the destiny of this nation.

 

Another Polygamy Reality Show? Just What We Need...

From articles praising polygamous unions in the media to teaching elementary school children about "happy triples," it's become clear that new, more extreme steps are being taken to normalize the practice of polygamy and further promote the redefinition of marriage.

The latest example is a new reality show that's been picked up by TLC detailing the lives of a Utah polygamist with five wives and twenty-four children.

In addition to the Browns and now the Williams family, TLC also has done a special featuring the Darger family of Utah. HBO's fictional show about a polygamous family, 'Big Love,' ran for five seasons.

Following the recent court ruling, Williams said now is the time for polygamists to show they are deserving of the recognition by putting an end to the misogyny rampant among the culture and putting women on equal footing as men.

'Women are not a commodity and they shouldn't be treated as such,' said Williams, 43, a project manager in his brother's construction business. 'There needs to be complete symmetry within a marriage.' -Mail Online

What if a Man, ‘Married’ to a Man, Wants to Marry a Woman?

This hypothetical question was posed to the Attorney General of North Dakota who responded by filing an opinion stating that in North Dakota a person in a same-sex ‘marriage’ from another state can come to North Dakota and legally marry a person of the opposite sex WITHOUT divorcing the same gender partner first.

SilhouettesAttorney General Wayne Stenehjem, in a letter opinion, wrote:

"For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion because explicitly prohibited by state constitution and statutes, an individual’s previously valid same-sex marriage in another state is not legally recognized in North Dakota and he or she may be issued a valid marriage license here. Further, it is my opinion that since the North Dakota Constitution prohibits the recognition of such a union, the individual would not be committing a criminal violation in this state by indicating he or she was “Single/Never Married” on a signed marriage application."

Read the full opinion here.

As if same-sex ‘marriage’ and polygamy weren’t enough, try navigating the legal morass that will follow when the question moves from the hypothetical to reality.

The National Organization for Marriage Reacts to Federal Judge Legalizing Polygamy, Cites Same-Sex Marriage Rationale

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 16, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"For years, we have warned of the importance of preserving the norms of marriage and its definition as the union of one man and one woman. Now we see the next step in the path of consequences for abandoning those norms. Left on its current course, in a few years marriage could be unrecognizable." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned the December 13th decision by a federal district court judge to strike down Utah's polygamy ban as unconstitutional. While the decision in Brown v. Buhman by U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups on Friday stops short of mandating legally-enforceable plural marriages, it relies on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage to require the state to allow polygamous "spiritual marriages" and "religious cohabitation" and ultimately tees up the issue for the US Supreme Court to further redefine marriage. The case stems from the relationship of "Sister Wives" who claim "marriage" to a single husband and are featured on a prominent cable television network.

"This decision is the next step along the path blazed by same-sex marriage advocates who have convinced federal judges to transform the societal norm of marriage as the union of one man and one woman designed primarily for the benefit of any children produced of their union into an institution that recognizes intimate, romantic relationships between consenting adults," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "For years, we have warned of the importance of preserving the norms of marriage and its definition as the union of one man and one woman. Now we see the next step in the path of consequences for abandoning those norms. Left on its current course, in a few years marriage could be unrecognizable."

Brown explained that Friday's decision stops short of imposing state-sanctioned polygamous marriages because the plaintiffs in the case did not specifically seek such relief. However, Brown said that with this decision advocates for polygamist marriage tee up the issue for the US Supreme Court to find polygamists entitled to official state-recognition of their plural 'marriages' just like gay and lesbian couples have been able to do in several states that have redefined marriage. The polygamy decision relies in large part on the same legal rationale utilized to impose same-sex marriage.

"There's no doubt that the arguments for same-sex marriage were a template for this case," Brown said. "Once marriage is determined to be primarily about providing government recognition and benefits for loving, committed relationships, there is simply no principled way not to extend 'marriage' to everyone, no matter the nature of their relationship. People in polygamist, plural marriages are just a short step away now from winning official marriage rights. Adult incest practitioners will have similar claims, as will adult siblings and other close relations. Lost in this disastrous push to transform marriage into the satisfaction of adult sexual desires are the interests of children, and their right to the love of one mother and one father."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Matille Thebolt (x143), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Huffington Post Admits We’re Right

Whenever we talk about the effects of redefining marriage -- the normalization and legalization of polygamy, threats to religious liberty, lawsuits against small business owners, etc. -- same-sex marriage advocates counter by insisting these threats aren't real. They claim we're overreacting so that they can falsely assuage the legitimate concerns of Americans who value their first amendment rights. But the truth is, most SSM activists know exactly what's in the cards once marriage is redefined.

HuffPo:

UKThe ink is not yet dry on David Cameron's gay marriage Bill and already two stories in the news this week show that the Bill's critics have been proved right. A wealthy gay couple say they "have launched" legal action to force gay weddings on the Church of England; and the BBC is cheerleading for polyamory (mutiple-partner relationships).

...During the passage of the gay marriage Bill, I was one of those saying that the Church would face litigation. I was accused of scaremongering and of whipping up hysteria. It'll never happen, they said with a straight face. Perhaps they meant it. Perhaps they honestly couldn't see the danger. Perhaps, but I doubt it. The thing is, many people could see the risk, including the Church itself (initially) and leading human rights lawyers.

From "Wedlock" to "Wedlease"?

Redefining marriage means redefining all the basic language that relates to marriage as well. And even coming up with new terms entirely. Ryan T. Anderson expands upon this notion today in the National Review:

Marriage ContractMerriam-Webster is going to have to update the next edition of its dictionary, at least if marriage redefiners have their way. Do you know what the words “monogamish,” “throuple,” and “wedlease” mean? If not, you soon will. After all, the power to redefine words is the power to redefine reality.

Let’s start with “monogamish,” a play on “monogamous.” A 2011 New York Times profile of gay activist Dan Savage, headlined “Married, with Infidelities,” introduced Americans to “monogamish” relationships — in which partners would allow sexual infidelity provided there were honest admissions of it.

The “monogamish” perspective is one of the purported ways in which redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would make marriage better. The article explained: “Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs.” After all, the story added, sexual exclusivity “gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners.”

If a marriage can be sexually open, why should it be limited to two people in the first place? Meet the word “throuple,” which is similar to “couple” but with three people.

...More or less permanent. Indeed, some activists come down in favor of “less.” Consider “wedlease,” a term introduced in early August in an op-ed in theWashington Post. Why should marriage be permanent when so little else in life is? Why not have temporary marriage licenses, as with other contracts? “Why don’t we borrow from real estate and create a marital lease?” the author writes. “Instead of wedlock, a ‘wedlease.’”

Read Anderson's full article here.

"My Two Husbands": Salon Gives Glowing Account of Multi-Spouse Marriages

Back in April, an author for Slate argued that polygamy is the natural next step for "marriage equality". Now, Salon is extolling the virtues of multi-spouse marriage with their piece on a woman who has been married for 16 years to her husband, but also has a boyfriend whom she plans to marry in a “non-legal” way. The slippery slope has arrived:

MyTwoHusbandsSame-sex “marriage” proponents have always scoffed at the idea that redefining marriage would open the door for multi-spouse marriages. “My Two Husbands” by Angi Becker Stevens, not only argues for “poly-amorous” unions but continues to scoff at the foolish “right wing” people who expected people to go there.

The author uses her 9-year-old daughter to deflect criticism. Her daughter dutifully and understandably repeats the adult arguments for same-sex marriage and applies them to her family.

In the style of such articles, the author doesn’t make a case against monogamous marriage on principle, or for multi-spouse “marriage” on principle. Instead, she presents the facts of a particular situation as a fait accompli and challengesyou to argue why it is not so. She felt repressed before and says “I am more fulfilled now and living in a way that feels authentic for me.”

Polyamorous Car FamilyApply a simple thought experiment, and her argument starts to wither. Imagine the article being written by a man bringing a “girlfriend” into his life and convincing his wife to tolerate it. Or imagine a Mormon talking about his repressed relationship with God instead of a political activist talking about her repressed human relationships. Salon wouldn’t have published those pieces.

But they did publish this one.

Because “love makes a marriage” now. And to say otherwise means you’re a hater.

Matt Lewis: Supreme Court Rulings Use Same Arguments as Polygamy

Matthew Lewis in the Daily Caller asks, with the Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA, why doesn't the government have an obligation to honor polygamous 'marriages' as well?

Polygamy

"...The arguments [for gay marriage and polygamy] are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, “Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one
another.” Polygamists couldn’t agree more.

I mean, who are we to say that two or three or even four consenting adults — who want to make a lifelong commitment to love each other — shouldn’t be allowed to do so?

What’s magical about the number two?

In fact, you could argue that there is an even better argument for polygamy than for same sex marriage. For one thing, there’s a long tradition (just look at the heroes of the Old Testament.) It’s also intimately tied to religious practice, which means that by prohibiting polygamy, we might also be undermining the “free exercise thereof.”

Why should we impose our values on others?..."

NYU Professor and SSM 'Expert Witness': "Why Should There Be Marriage At All?"

In a recent debate with Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, NYU Professor and frequently-sought-after "expert witness" in court cases to redefine marriage, made some very telling remarks revealing the underlying agenda of many of those who say that same-sex marriage "won't affect the rest of us." Hear what she has to say in this excerpt put together by Heritage:

Stacey asks about marriage: "What should limit it to two, and why should it be monogamous? Nothing, in my view."

This is a video everyone must see!

Prof. George: "What Few Deny Gay Marriage Will Do"

Writing at the FirstThings blog, Professor Robert P. George reports the on an increasing trend of same-sex marriage activists "conceding (and celebrating the fact) that redefining marriage will fundamentally alter the institution, transform its social role and meaning, and undermine its structuring norms of monogamy, exclusivity, etc."

George quotes on such activist, Mesha Gessen, who spoke recently on a panel about marriage at the Sydney Writers' Festival. Here's some of what she had to say:

It’s a no-brainer that (homosexuals) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . 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.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.

Unfortunately, as Prof. George points out, "Gessen is far from out of step with other leading figures in the movement."

You can read the rest of Gessen's remarks, and Professor George's response, over at FirstThings.

Canadian Court Making a Case for Polygamy

We recently reported Slate author Jillian Keenan's opinion that "the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too."

Well, just in case anyone should think this is idle speculation and thought experiment, consider news coming out of Canada today:

A Canadian court is assembling an unprecedented set of testimonies and legal briefs about the pros and cons of polygamy. The goal is to answer the question of whether Canada’s anti-polygamy law is constitutional.

But, as the story reveals, there is still cause for hope. The case to legalize polygamous unions faces an uphill battle, against some formidable forces -- for example, the scholarship of Professor Joseph Henrich from the University of British Columbia.

Henrich has written of monogamy that it is "one of the foundations of Western civilization, and may explain why democratic ideals and notions of human rights first emerged as a Western phenomenon."

This much, at least, is not news to us. Let's hope that the Court recognizes this fact enshrined in the tradition of marriage, too.

Slate Author Calls for Polygamy as Necessary Next Step After Gay Marriage

A author for Slate argues without reservation that the same logic behind SSM means marriage must ultimately be redefined to included polygamy -- is it still a slippery slope argument when proponents of SSM agree with you?

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too.

... The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

Holloway: Justice Sotomayor and the Path to Polygamy

Carson Hallowoy argues in The Public Discourse that "The oral arguments on Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court suggest that there is very good reason to believe that the declaration of a “right” to same-sex marriage will set us on the path to polygamy":

Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.

In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”

Vatican Spokesman: "Catholic Church Will Not Give Up its Defense of Marriage"

A strong statement from the pope's spokesman Fr. Lombardi, SJ in response to recent international efforts to redefined marriage. Here is what he said about the context in the United States:

In the United States, some of the referendums held on the same day as the presidential elections in various States have, for the first time, delivered an outcome favourable to same-sex marriages. It is therefore clear that in western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union.

It is nothing new. This we had already realised. Nevertheless, the matter does not cease to amaze: Because we should be asking if this really corresponds to the feelings of the people, and because the logic of it cannot have a far-sighted outlook for the common good. Not only the Catholic Church is saying this; it was pointed out clearly by the Chief Rabbi of France in a well-reasoned statement. It is not, in fact, a question of avoiding unfair discrimination for homosexuals, since this must and can be guaranteed in other ways. It is a question of admitting that a husband and a wife are publicly recognised as such; and that children who come into the world can know, and say they have, a father and a mother.

In short, preserving a vision of the human person and of human relationships where there is a public acknowledgement of monogamous marriage between a man and woman is an achievement of civilisation. If not, why not contemplate also freely chosen polygamy and, of course, not to discriminate, polyandry? It is not expected, then, the Church will give up proposing that society recognise a specific place for marriage between a man and a woman.