Friday, March 13, 2015

Progress! The World's First Three-Way Gay "Marriage"

Three homosexual men have “married” each other in Thailand in what is being billed as the world’s first three-way same-sex “marriage.” This was, of course, inevitable. It’s inevitable in every country that redefines marriage as anything but one man and one woman. When the culture’s only standard for “marriage” is that the parties love each other, then all sorts of novel configurations are possible. Look for this to come soon to a country near you.

Under the banner of the gay-rights rainbow, the new cultural revolutionaries are not only redefining marriage but also, to borrow from the popular term of 1960s radicals, “smashing monogamy.” What’s to stop these three non-monogamous married men from taking on added spouses? If three is fine, why not four? Or five?

This is, of course, a blatant I-told-you-so moment. This is what we gay-marriage opponents have been warning about. But it’s especially revealing of something else I’ve warned about for a while.
Those of us opposing same-sex “marriage” for reasons like this were told by gay-marriage advocates that we were nuts. Our claims that the redefining of marriage would lead to polygamous marriage and other arrangements were ridiculed. We were denounced as homophobes and bigots who simply hate. We were not just cold-hearted but hysterical. They shouted at us that they would never advocate arrangements like these. We were crazy to even suggest they would support anything but two gay people marrying one another.

But we know better. Those of us who have studied the ideological train-wreck called “progressivism” know better. We’ve watched how progressives “progress.” The only thing you really know about progressives, and that they know about themselves, is that they’re always changing, evolving. Where they stand now, on any given issue, is, by progressivism’s own definition, subject to change.
I often give the example of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood. It was launched in the 1920s as the American Birth Control League, with Sanger’s interests being birth control and eugenics. Sanger insisted that she and her organization were against abortion. “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn,” she wrote in January 1932. “Some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not.”
Yet, for progressives, what began as birth control needed only a few decades to snuff out life after conception. They “progressed” to where Sanger’s organization rapidly became America’s largest abortion provider. And where do “pro-choicers” stand today on abortion? Now they tell you that you must not only support its legalization but pay for it. If you disagree with them, they smear you as favoring a “war on women.”

Read the rest.


  1. A "three way" marriage runs would not be justified under the grounds of the 14th Amendment. Since preventing such a "marriage" doesn't deny legal recognition to some, but grant it for others. I.e., no "three way" marriages (regardless of gender) are allowed for anyone.

  2. I'm sorry, I don't understand this.

  3. Polygamy has been around for a long time, has it not? Even in the US, to this day? Obviously not recognized by the state, but polygamy nonetheless.

  4. Stephen,

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by those sentences. Yes, polygamy has been around a very long time (some argue longer than monogamy). And you are correct that the U.S. does not recognize polygamous "marriage." Not even Utah does, if I'm not mistaken. But if gay "marriages" are (ludicrously) recognized as being a Constitutional right (likely appealing to the oft abused 14th Amendment) such that states have a duty to recognize them, I can see no justifiable reasons for not ruling the same thing about polygamy, a three-way gay marriage, etc. If the 14th Amendment protects one, it protects all. Now whether there's a justifiable slippery-slope argument to the conclusion that judges WILL rule that it protects all is another matter. I think based on the reasoning often put forward, it's likely that polygamous "marriages" will end up being recognized as well as polyamorous relationships more generally. I can't see why progressive jurists would rule otherwise except for the fact that it brings into the light of day what their basic principles of free love (as long as it's consensual between adults) logically entail.

  5. Justin,

    I THINK I now see what you're trying to get at but I don't think it's correct. Yes, if gay marriages are permitted then men can "marry" men and men can marry women, and states would have to recognize this. But discriminating against three-way marriages does discriminate against some, namely those desiring to have their polyamorous relationships recognized as a marriage. Joseph, Sally, and Mary can't be married; Sally (let's say) is discriminated against. Sure, she can marry Levi, but she can't marry Joseph and Mary--so she's not discriminated against. But then one could say the same thing about Adam and Steve. Adam could marry Sally--so he's not discriminated against. I can't see what the principled argument would be that in the 14th Amendment (somewhere, if you stare at it hard enough) there is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage but not a right to polygamous marriage, etc. Why would there be a right in the 14th Amendment to marry only person at a time rather than two?