Why can’t three get married?

Mercatornet ^ | 3/21/16 | Michael Cook

[wagglebee]

You might think that this is grotesque. I certainly think it is grotesque. But should we be so judgemental about the unorthodox connubial arrangements of Anna and Lucy Decinque, 31-year-old identical twins who are sharing a bed with their 32-year-old electrical mechanic boyfriend Ben Byrne?

The trio have lived together for the last four years in Perth, Western Australia, with the girls’ mother.

The girls are inseparable, so much so that they have spent A$240,000 on various cosmetic improvements to look even more alike. They imitate each other and share everything. Even their boyfriend.

When Anna and Lucy appeared on the SBS current affairs program Insight last week, they announced that they wanted to become pregnant at the same time, even if one or the other had to use IVF. "[We] just have to be pregnant at the same time," one said. "Yeah, we just want to be the same in everything," the other chimed in.

Relationships with separate boyfriends had always failed, they said, "because we're with each other 24/7, every single day, every minute of our life together". So Ben treats them equally and they form a happy family.

So the question is: if the Australian Marriage Act is amended to allow homosexuals to marry, why can’t Anna, Lucy and Ben have their sincere love and tested commitment for each other recognised? It seems outrageously unfair to leave them unhitched and unhappy. After all, unless their polyamorous love is recognised by the majesty of the law, they will always be regarded as a freak show.

To a certain extent, still untested in the courts, they already are a de facto thruple. They have been living in a “marriage-like relationship” for more than two years, which is the condition for constituting a de facto couple in Western Australia. Ordinarily, a third woman (or man) in such a relationship would enter it later and the law would probably insist that only the original pair possesses the rights arising from a de facto relationship.

But because the Decinque twins have insisted on doing everything together, their relationships with Ben began simultaneously. It seems unfair that only one of them can have access to property, government benefits or care of children in the event of death or a relationship breakdown. Surely authentic equality means giving even this peculiar ménage a trois an opportunity to get married.

The bigwigs of the marriage equality movement in Australia say that they are absolutely -- cross their hearts and hope to die -- opposed to everything poly except Polynesia. But isn't it time that they woke up to the reality of diverse family structures in Australia today? Surley the lived experience of Anna, Lucy and Ben suggests that society needs to move beyond the antiquated dyadic hegemony they are promoting in their campaign for same-sex marriage.

A grotesque prospect? I agree. But that is the inexorable logic of the push for same-sex marriage. If all love is equal, why not polyamory?

[HiTech RedNeck]

In a threesome shackup, does it turn into a common law marriage? Oh, the critters in this Pandora’s box.

My partial answer is, if there has to be a Pandora’s box, let it be the secular government’s Pandora’s box. It isn’t the church’s Pandora’s box. The church can advise the secular government that this is unwise, but can’t make the secular government not do it. Similarly, we can’t expect secular government to preach gospel for the church. The church has to preach gospel.

[Pollster1]

Man marries virtual girlfriend in Japan

This Woman Married Herself After She Turned Forty And Hadn't Found “The One”.

Three women organized a wedding-style ceremony for their relationship

Some pictures speak for themselves

"But if you're a cupcake maker and somebody wants a cupcake, make them a cupcake." - Governor Kasich

Since "marriage" now has as little meaning as "Freedom of Religion", why not let three people/robots/videogames get married? Kasich will make sure they have the cake they want for their party, with unquestioning obedience and participation even from those who remember freedom.

[pfflier]

Are you implying that one should read the article before commenting? How radical.

[JimRed]

Polygamy is an ancient and quite stable social arrangement, as long as you have large land armies to soak up all the leftover young men.

I thought it was the other way 'round; so many young men were killed off fighting that there were excess women who needed mates.

[FES0844]

Sister wives on tv.

[petenmi]

[NorthMountain]

Dang. They were probably pretty nice looking, before they started slicing up their faces.

[Trillian]

A good question would be:
Why should a whole society have to change because a handful of perverts feel they are entitled to something?
Live together until you get tired of each other and leave the rest of us alone.

[Fightin Whitey]

We live in strange times.

[FreedomNotSafety]

Poly doesn’t work because it will collapse the freebie system. How do you provide benefits and pensions? Does my employer have to offer benefits to both wives? Would SS give each wife a spousal pension? Or would they split it? Are they a household of three? Does this household get all the free stuff?

Imagine providing health insurance and splitting up benefits with several spouses? It would rapidly break the system.

Besides, gays wanted the benefits of traditional marriage. They wanted recognition and acceptance equal to traditional marriage. Now that they have marriage they wish to freeze entry into the club.

But again this menagerie can get married in some sort of ceremony . What they want is legal and social acceptance and status. They would want you to be forced into accepting them and loving them.

[Bob434]

Exactly, he shouldn’;t be punished for it because he’s suffering enough as it is-

[DungeonMaster]

3 getting married is a natural extension to purely natural thinking. Therefore it is the opposite of biblical based doctrine.

[Vermont Lt]

Well, there are religious reasons that are almost self evident and I will not explain them.

On a civil basis, marriage was established to ensure the transfer of property to recognized heirs and was extended over the ages to include “rights” conveyed to the spouse and their children without the need gain additional documentation.

For example, Bill’s death would result in the asset path to his heirs to ensure that they were getting their share of his assets. If Bill has bastard children, and Bill did not recognize them then the “community” did not recognize them in terms of rights to Bill’s estate. If Bill wished to do something for the Bastard children, he could take the next step of writing a will and having it registers with the civil authorities.

This grew over the years to extend parenting and heath rights to spouses.

Before Gay marriage, the same rights could be conveyed with a series of contracts. Since Marriage was already a recognized institution by all civil communities, it was a “logical” extension (their words not mine) to include same sex partners.

From a civil perspective, adding a third party to this civil marriage would confuse and confound the process. All elements would be confused. The transfer of assets would be a mess. The control of children and healthcare would be a mess.

A group of three would have to be incorporated with the defined roles designated to each party. No community wants to deal with that.

Even in group families that exist today. There is legally one wife. Other wives have their roles defined legally in other documents. I am sure their inherited roles are defined in detail.

Three is a crowd.