Posted on 08/28/2012 3:32:59 PM PDT by markomalley
A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.
Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights.
She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.
But the move has angered some religious groups, while one lawyer described it as "absurd and totally illegal".
The three individuals, who have declined to speak to the press, have lived in Rio de Janeiro together for three years and share bills and other expenses.
Ms Domingues says they have already opened a joint bank account, which is also not prohibited by any law.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Exactly. The homosexuals get furiously angry when you compare their non-procreative arrangements to others. But there really is no difference.
Aren’t there some polygamy suits filed regarding discrimination? Is the info on them getting buried? Or have judges dismissed them?
Well, If Salma Hayek was up to breaking the rules.....
“These new marriages are also, I will venture to say, inevitably statist, because they have no obvious social reinforcement from deepseated religious/cutural or customary practice, and thus require constant redefining and intricate negotiation and enforcement via the legal apparatus, lawyers, judges —— ultimately, the state.”
They couldn’t punish anyone that doesn’t buy into it without the state. A few people saying they are all married are not really married. A few people saying they are all married because they have a piece of paper from the state still aren’t married, but now have a more ready means to punish if you don’t want to act like they are.
Freegards
there was a case up in Canada I know of but I have heard from others a couple of cases here and of curse if this is the case the emdia will ignore it knowing it will hurt their precious homosexual sham marriage
But didn’t all the gay activists get upset when people said that legalizing same sex “marriage” would lead to legalized polygamy? Actually, if the Massachusetts court is right that two men or two women have the constitutional right to redefine marriage and “marry”, why doesn’t the same apply to polygamists, or polyandrists, or incestuous relationships, or bestial relationships. Who is the government to tell people whom they can love?
Either marriage is between one man and one woman or anything.
Cousins, 9 wives, 3 husbands, frigging donkeys etc
Mitt and Ann are a wonderful example of monogamous marriage, and I have never heard him promote polygamy in any way. Shame on you.
Yep. The Sandusky thing was just ahead of its time.
I agree. The recent SCOTUS decisions leave no room whatever to ban polygamy. What about bi-sexuals? Don't they have the same rights as others? So the argument will go, and they'll be right under the current state of the law, IMHO.
The acceptance of "gay marriage" is simply the beginning of the end of marriage, period.
I respectfully disagree. Gays didn't begin the whole "redefinition" of marriage movement. Rather, Christians did. First, birth control became acceptable, despite the fact that nearly all Christian denominations condemned it for 2,000 years. Second, divorce for cause, like adultery, grew in acceptance, until finally "no fault" became the norm. This made the marriage contract terminable at will unilaterally by either party for any reason or no reason. The no fault divorce law was signed into law in California by none other than Ronald Reagan.
Ultimately, Christians had redefined marriage to the point where gays could honestly say "hey, your "marriages" look an awful lot like our relationships. Kids are completely optional, and there's no lifelong commitment. We pay our taxes like everybody else, so we should be entitled to the same opportunity to avail ourselves of that institution, now called marriage." And, frankly speaking, they were right about that. We do have a little thing called equal protection of the laws.
Pope Paul VI was a prophet.
We Christians have none to blame but ourselves.
I couldn’t agree with you more. As I once heard it put “if Heather can have two mommies, she certainly can have two mommies and a daddy.”
I predict that it will be perfectly acceptable as long as the man gets multiple females....just let one female take on several “husbands” and then we’ll have wrath from the citzens....
As The Young Rascals sang, "Life would be ecstasy, you and me, and Leslie....Groovin'....."
My bad...it was a marriage to a goat:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm
I’ve no idea if the goat was pregant or not...
I WILL~! If the two people who go with me are Russell Crowe and Collin Firth! hee hee
It was a goat he had to marry because he got caught enjoying the favors of another man’s goat.
I will consider marrying my sons in order to permit an orderly distribution of assets. I don’t believe there is a state requirement of intimate sexual relations within a marriage to validate it.
good way of putting it.
I’d like to see three people walk and sue for their kind of marriage and lets ask the homostapo why they oppose that kind of marriage.
We all knew this would happen but the left only wants special laws and special rights for just them.
If 3 people sued then it might wake the ignorant up who keep saying”I know a couple of queers and they’re nice I have no problem with their marriage”
Every argument used to have homo sham marriage can be used for any kind of marriage
Actually, they are not calling it a marriage.
They are defining it as a “civil union”
The question should not be “is it a marriage?”
It should be “should the government accept a civil union with the same weight as a marriage?”
Civil unions already exist but are not officially recognized as a legal entity. By defining it as a civil union, they are not trying to redefine marriage.
That’s Brazil. In America, it’s different.
Already, anybody can be as a beneficiary to a will or insurance. The checking account thing is not illegal either here or there.
What they are looking for is a legal status equivalent to what is defined as a marriage now.
I am not against the calling it a civil union. Frankly call it scrizzle for all I care, but don’t call it marriage because it is not. That already has a definition.
What they are really after is social equality to marriage and since they can’t get it willingly, the will do it legally and force it. However, even that will never work.
And because it is morally wrong, they will never get it accepted morally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.