Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and Polygamy)

First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage. Now, there's a movement combining both—simultaneously. Abby Ellin visits the next frontier of nuptials: the "triad."

Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-something "husband." Says Sasha: “I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”

Maine this week became the fifth state, and the fourth in New England, to legalize gay marriage, provoking yet another national debate about same-sex unions. The Lessins' advocacy group, the Maui-based World Polyamory Association, is pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships. This community has even come up with a name for what the rest of the world generally would call a committed threesome: the "triad."

Unlike open marriages and the swinger days of the 1960s and 1970s, these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others, who are not involved with each other, a la actress Tilda Swinton. That's closer to bigamy. Instead, triads—"triangular triads," to use precise polyamorous jargon—demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other. In the Lessins case, that can be varying pairs but, as Sasha, a psychologist, puts it, "Janet loves it when she gets a double decker." In a triad, there would be no doubt in Elizabeth Edwards’ mind whether her husband fathered a baby out of wedlock; she likely would have participated in it.

There are no statistics or studies out there, but according to Robyn Trask, the executive director of Loving More, a nonprofit organization in Loveland (yes, really), Colorado, dedicated to poly-education and support, about 25 percent of the estimated 50,000 self-identified polyamorists in the U.S. live together in semi-wedded bliss. A disproportionate number of them are baby boomers. (Paging Timothy Leary: Janet Lessin claims on her Web site that she's able to travel astrally.)

As with a couple, the key to making a triad work is communication. The Lessins' group specifically advocates something called "compersion": taking joy in another person's joy. Thus, they know how to process jealousy. “We don’t have anything take place off-stage,” says Sasha Lessin. “You witness your lover making googly eyes and you share your feelings. It’s not difficult for most people to be compersive once they feel they’re not being abandoned.”

Like most people in the poly community, the Lessins, who also helm the school of tantra (they take pleasure of the flesh quite seriously), take great pains to discuss pretty much everything. Some people even write up their agreements like a traditional prenup, detailing everything from communal economics to cohabitation rules. And buoyed by an increasing acceptance of same-sex unions, others want more legal protections. "We should have every right to inherit from each other and visit each other—I don’t care what you call it, we’re not second-class citizens!” says Janet Lessin. “Any people who wish to form a marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the legal right to. The spurious arguments of marriage being for procreation of children is ridiculous.”

That said, Valerie White, executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, a legal-defense fund for people with alternative sexual expression in Sharon, Massachusetts, says she believes that triads are actually a great way to raise a family. "Years ago, children didn’t get raised in dyads, they got raised with grandparents and aunts and uncles—it was much looser and more village-like," says White. "I think a lot more people are finding that polyamory is a way to recapture that kind of support.” For a year, Loving More's Trask and her then-husband were both involved with another woman, who was a part of the family. Trask's three children knew all about it. “I’m totally out,” says Trask.

Many others aren't. Larry, Rachel and Andie would only talk to me anonymously, due to the fact that Rachel, 47, works at large, traditional financial institution in Manhattan. Larry, 56, met her on a commuter ferry two years ago. At the time, Larry was a member of Poly-NYC, a polyamory group in New York; on their first date, he told her about it. Rachel had just gotten out of a year-and-a-half-long relationship with, unbeknownst to her, a married man. “I was so overwhelmed with Larry’s honesty," she says, "I said to him, ‘I need to look that up and understand it.'"

A few months later, they met Andie, 56 at a poly retreat in upstate New York. Andie has been has practiced "multi-partnering" since the early '90s, and was giving a talk on the subject. Rachel turned to Larry and said ‘Wow, that’s someone I would turn poly for!’ “She was so elegant and classy. I just felt she was a beautiful person.”

While Larry, on the other hand, was not especially attracted to Andie, he was fully supportive of Rachel exploring her attraction. She didn’t, but ran into Andie at a few other events. Andie, in turn, began noticing the quality of the relationship between Larry and Rachel. “They didn’t just go to those meetings and do what happens to other poly partners, that they disappear from each other,” she says. “They stayed together.”

Three months ago, they reconnected at yet another retreat, and this time the three bonded on an emotional level. So they decided to figure out how to make a three-way relationship work. This involves weekly conference calls where they discuss the tenets of the relationship (honestly, respect, communication, jealousy) and agree to undergo blood tests for STDs. They talk about what they want out of life, and each other. “There are people who’ve been married 20 years and never had these kinds of conversation,” says Andie. “I feel blessed.”

Akien MacIain and his wife, Dawn Davidson, have been counseling dyads, triads, quads and once even a quint, in San Francisco for over a decade. On their Web site, they offer tips for creating agreements—among them, “Use Time Limited Agreements Where Needed” (i.e., two weeks, two months, and so on) and “Check in Periodically; Renegotiate if Needed.”

“A triad is a series of dyads, but it’s more complicated because if I’m in a relationship with one other person, there’s my relationship with the other person, her relationship with me, and the relationship that each of us has to the couple,” says MacIain. “When you make it a triad there are four factorial connections. It’s very hard.”

And yet some make it work. Doug Carr, Robert Hill, and Paul Wilson have been a happy threesome for 29 years. The three men, who live outside Austin, Texas, share a bed, a checking account, and joint real-estate properties in each of their names—“a left-handed form of cementing the relationship in a legal context,” says Hill, 69, a retired financier (because of their arrangement, they, too, requested I use pseudonyms). Their ranch is split three ways; they call themselves “husbands” and wear matching wedding bands. Back in 1980, when they met at a furniture store in Dallas, Hill and Wilson were a confirmed dyad for 10 years. Carr, now an assistant dean at a local college, fell for both of them; they developed a friendship, which soon turned to love.

Wilson, 61, a consulting engineer for the health-care community, admits that initially he was less gung ho. “I thought, how is this going to turn out? You can’t read an article in Readers Digest, ‘Twelve Ways to make a Triad Work.’" He finally saw the light on a trip to Vienna the three men took. “I decided to go for it. I turned to them and said, ‘I love you,’ and I love you,’ and let’s make it work.”

They held a commitment ceremony in 1984 for 20 friends, and then a reception for 200 in their house, where we “introduced ourselves to the world as a triad,” says Carr, 49. They would like to marry legally, though they are not holding their breath that it will happen any time soon.

“As far as we’re concerned, in the eyes of God we’re already married—and from an economic standpoint, we’ve taken that as far as we can, ” says Hill.

Despite the fact that they are also “Dad, Daddy and Pappa” to the 4-year-old quadruplets Carr sired with a lesbian couple, they actually see themselves as quite traditional. “We’ve patterned our relationship on the relationships of our parents,” says Hill. “So many gay people throw away all the values they learned at home. Some are worth throwing away, but a lot are not."

Lurker,

Let’s see what God’s Word says...Thou shall not fornicate or commit adultery. There! Is that clear enough for you?

As for the lesbian couple raising those young ladies, their concept of raising children is wrong. As for the Christian couple down the street, their concept of raising children is wrong, too. You have to understand, there is a devil and he is messing up God’s plans for the world and humans.

Any couple who are totally surrendered to Jesus will raise their children the way God treats us. God loves us and wants us to do right...according to His purpose. If you raise your kids with common sense and love, then God has a way of getting the kids back on track when they don’t do right.

Hope this helps.

What's 'public' exactly about what goes on in their home?

Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another.

How is that NOT public?

As far as the Clintons, I never referenced his behavior in court.

Are you saying that since they are living on the taxpayers dime and as public servants everything they do is public? Does 'it's all public' extend beyond the Presidency to other officals? Clarify that a bit.

Let’s see what God’s Word says...Thou shall not fornicate

Without fornication there would be no children.

or commit adultery. Adultery is having sex outside your marriage. These people aren't doing that.

As for the lesbian couple raising those young ladies, their concept of raising children is wrong.

How the hell do you know what their concept of raising children is? You don't know them. You've never met them. Your doing an awful lot of judging, aren't you? Doesn't that book you say is God's Holy Word warn you against judging others?

You have to understand, there is a devil and he is messing up God’s plans for the world and humans.

Ah yes, the invisible bad man under the ground is messing things up. I've heard that one. Personally I don't think humans need much help screwing things up, but that may be just me.

What these people are doing is none of your business, nor is it any of the Governments business.

Before you attend to the beam in your neighbors eye, attend to the mote in your own. I think I read that someplace.

Not sure where....

So you think the fact that they stood in someones front yard and said they loved each other makes the behavior a matter for Government to become involved in? Is that your position?

Are you saying that since they are living on the taxpayers dime and as public servants everything they do is public?

When he breaks the Law in a home we're all paying for your damned right. When he then lies about that behavior in a Court of Law your damned right it's public.

Does 'it's all public' extend beyond the Presidency to other officals?

Are you unfamiliar with the term 'public official' somehow? If they're living on our dime and performing duties in our name then anything they do in that capacity, except for legitimate matters of National Security, is a matter for the public.

What do you care if two people say they love each other in someones yard? How does this affect what time you get up to go to work in the morning?

What exactly do you think Government should 'do' about these people?

You’re jumping to conclusions.

Let’s first establish for certain that we agree that what these three did, and are doing, is in public. I say it is, and it seems you have conceded that point. Am I right?

To our Public Servants; Do they have any private life, or since they are on our dime is everything they do public?

Let’s first establish for certain that we agree that what these three did, and are doing, is in public

But we don't agree at all on this point. I don't concede it in the slightest. You haven't established to my satisfaction that what these people did is a matter for public (Government) attention.

Who they 'marry' and how they 'marry' them isn't the slightest concern of Government. Marriage is a private matter between consenting adults and the Church, or lack thereof, of their choice.

The lives of public servants are irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

The crux of the argument here is that you say what this family is doing is immoral and therefore a matter for Government (public) concern.

I say it isn't.

You haven't yet explained why it is, or what you think that the public (Government) do about it.

You say you have a right to stick your nose into their lives somehow, and I say you don't.

Now remind me again which one of us is the 'conservative' in the conversation we're having.

Thanks.

Please pardon my intrusion but I would like to comment on 2 points:

“Let’s see what God’s Word says...Thou shall not fornicate
Without fornication there would be no children.”

I would like to offer a word definition clarification.

Fornication-Consensual sex between two individuals not married to one another.

While it’s true that many children are conceived through fornication there are also many children that are conceived through old fashioned conjugal relations between husband and wife as well.

“Your doing an awful lot of judging, aren’t you? Doesn’t that book you say is God’s Holy Word warn you against judging others?”

The Bible does record Jesus saying “Judge not, that you be not judged.” Matthew 7:1. However the Bible also records Jesus saying “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” in John 7:24.

This means we aren’t to judge self-righteously or hypocritically. It certainly doesn’t mean we are never to make judgments or show discernment. That would be exceedingly silly. For example, if one decided to criticize the Iranian Muslim government for executing women or homosexual persons, the Iranian Muslim government could turn around to its critics and say “You’re judging us! Judge not lest ye be judged!” If we never made judgments or showed discernment, none of us would be able to read a legal document, drive a car, operate a computer or simply get through the day.

Again, please pardon my intrusion. Please feel free to carry on your discussion.

Either way my point is well made. No one here knows my neighbors or what kind of people they are.

I'm not arguing the Christian Biblical morality of their, or the people in this article at all. It obviously immoral from a Christian Biblical perspective.

That's also completely irrelevant to the discussion I was having. While their behavior may be immoral in the eyes of some, or even most people, that doesn't mean Government should do anything about it.

These people are harming no one, except possibly themselves with this God you're all so worked up about. If they're pissing God off I'm sure he'll deal with them in His own way.

But leave Government out of it.

All right. Listen up. Here’s the solution. Let all the polygmasts and whatever they are all marry each other. Sooner of later, a divorce will come up. OK in this corner we have 35,000 plaintiffs against 23,000 defendants. Would tie up all the lawyers and courts up for ever and all these idiots would be broke paying retainers. And what about the animal rights and plant rights? How about the space alien rights. Make into a reality show with live ammo and I would watch.

I agree that “No-fault divorce” is anything but “No-fault divorce”, and that our society is reaping the consequences as such.

“Either marriage is a vow a couple makes before God...”

There is no “Either” about this. The institution of marriage was designed by the Lord. The ideal purposes and function for such an institution were corrupted when Adam and Eve fell, which is one of the reasons why Moses’ Law included conditions for divorce.

Irregardless of societies “interpretations” of marriage, to redefine it is to, in essence, redesign what the Lord had created in the first place.

Your point concerning peoples outrage is irrelevant as well as absurd. You insinuate that because there are a high number of divorces, individuals whom live in an abhorrent lifestyle have justification in accusing “straight” people of being hypocrites. These individuals live an abominable lifestyle. ANYONE whom does not openly support their deviant behavior is labeled as any number of foul and venomous names, including “hypocrites” (as if this was the real motivation for their lifestyle in the first place).

You equate moral standards with being “high and mighty”, and make these sweeping generalizations when describing the “hypocrites”.

I don’t know of anyone whose shocked when called a “hypocrite” by these individuals.

The institution of marriage was designed by the Lord. Regardless how you redefine it, the institution will NEVER be natural or beneficial to society in general.

How the hell do you know what their concept of raising children is?

Let me first say that I think you raise some interesting points, and make some good arguments. But, when it comes to children, this is where the rubber meets the road as far as I'm concerned. I think every child has a right to have an intimate relationship with their biological parents. Aside from adoption, same sex marriage necessarily creates children whose relationship with at least one of those biological parents is severed by design, and that's not right, or fair, to the child, regardless of how well intentioned the adults may be. And for the record, I oppose all forms of this, even in the heterosexual community. It is the ultimate expression of selfishness as far as I'm concerned, to create these conditions deliberately, and by design.

That’s exactly my point. Marriage is an institution made by God, and should be treated as so at all times, not just a slogan to be trotted out as the reason to oppose homosexual marriages or polygamy.

Otherwise, they people who are fine with divorce but want to draw the line at gay marriage are no different from the homosexual marriage advocates who wants to draw the line before polygamy. They have no ground to stand on.

“Otherwise, they people who are fine with divorce...” Once again, a sweeping generalization.

You falsely equate the institution with an abhorrent lifestyle. There are far more individuals whom uphold the sacred institution of marriage than you accuse otherwise of “hypocrisy”.

Your circular reasoning fails to identify the nature of the problem behind a redefinition of marriage.

In examining your “reasoning”, I really have to wonder whether or not you are gay or a polygamist. I do not say this in a flippant way, either.

“They have no ground to stand on” expresses a lot. In other words, there is no legitimate argument against a redefining of marriage when “the opponents” thereof disregard traditional marriage vows. This is a crock. To say that the high rate of divorce in this country is the fault of “these” individuals whom you claim are hypocrites is baseless.

I know far more individuals (conservatives) whom live in committed marriages and uphold that institution than those whom you supposedly accuse.

Of course it’s a generalization, whenever one makes a comment about the status of our society, it’s going to be a generalization.

If I said “we tolerate the murdering of babies in the millions”, it doesn’t mean every single person in this country tolerates it, or are murdering babies. It just means as a society we tolerate it taking place.

The same applies here. As a society we are way too tolerant of divorces, and this is the root of the problem, we started the path to devalue the sacred nature of marriage, marriage stopped being about God instead it became about us, about whatever makes us happy rather than what is in accordance to his will.

Once we went down that road in was inevitably going to lead us to homosexuals thinking they can be married, and after that the polygamists are going to ask for their turn, and don’t think the incest and bestiality people will be far behind them.

We’re not going to be able to hold the line at gay marriage. If we want to hold the line, we have to hold it at divorce. That’s where the real line lies.

That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. And I can tell by the responses in this thread it’s not a popular position. But then again truth is never popular with people.

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.