Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and Polygamy)
The Daily Beast ^ | May 7, 2009 | Abby Ellin

Posted on 05/08/2009 10:13:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

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."

“The crux of all this,” he says, "is commitment.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: agenda; culturewars; gaymarriage; gaystapo; homobama; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; homosexuals; moralabsolutes; perverts; polyamory; polygamy; polygyny; rino; rinoromney; romney; romneymarriage; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-198 next last
To: Lurker

So, you’re also a dissembler! Interesting. Now you equate ‘traditional home’ (which obviously can be achieved even in a covered wagon or rented apartment) with property rights. A liar like you has an interesting way of exposing yourself. Keep it up, it’s getting actually interesting to read and anlayze.


101 posted on 05/09/2009 10:43:06 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
re: Aside from the demographic implications, plural marriage will mean, ironically, the end of women’s rights.)))

Exactly. What wife can stop a husband from bringing home #2?

102 posted on 05/09/2009 10:44:21 AM PDT by Mamzelle (BRING CAMERA EQUIP TO TEA PARTIES--TAPE THE DISRUPTORS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland
Can someone with multiple personalities marry their self (selves)??

See my post #96. What you are suggesting would probably be considered a phantom company.

103 posted on 05/09/2009 10:44:44 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Willful ignorance is a dangerous attitude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


104 posted on 05/09/2009 10:47:39 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

ALL TOGETHER NOW: Who didn’t see this coming?


105 posted on 05/09/2009 10:49:10 AM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bannie

They have this schedule worked out.

I am going to need a truckload of Viagra!


106 posted on 05/09/2009 10:49:52 AM PDT by montomike (Politics should be about service and not a lucrative, money-making opportunity!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: montomike

LOL!

Weeeeellllll, lucky THEM!

;-)


107 posted on 05/09/2009 11:02:08 AM PDT by bannie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
On the contrary. Conservatives have been saying for a coule of generation's now that divorce was part of a very slippery slope, but it did not begin there, it began with adding single mothers to welfare. From there it went to divorce. But the slope is still sliding, it isn't a different slope. This is a socialist movement that has been on a continued campaign for generations, but it is easier for laws to be made to capitulate, rather than speak the truth.
108 posted on 05/09/2009 11:04:53 AM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The real question here is: Why is the government regulating any kind of marriage; straight, gay, interspecies, or whatever?

I would argue that "Marriage" is a religious term and thus government is barred from interfering. It has no business promoting one type of marriage over another as this promotes one religion over another. If the local Church of the Golden Calf wants to marry gays, then let it. Unless the government sanctions their actions, i.e. promotes their particular religion in violation of the 1st Amendment, then such unions carry no weight. The rest of society is left free to ignore such "marriages" as the shams that they are.

Government's only place in all of this is the enforcement of contracts. Should COTGC parishioners Chartrelle and Bruce decide to dissolve their union (Chartrelle having decided that he likes girls after all), then the government's courts have a duty to decide how to divide their property. Government had no obligation to pretend that their union was actually a marriage and is in fact stripped of the power to do so by the Constitution.

109 posted on 05/09/2009 11:04:58 AM PDT by Redcloak ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

No they don’t! And the fcat is, social engineering actually GROWS GOVT!


110 posted on 05/09/2009 11:07:26 AM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
I would argue that "Marriage" is a religious term and thus government is barred from interfering.

At it's root, so is murder.

111 posted on 05/09/2009 11:21:47 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Willful ignorance is a dangerous attitude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Please tell me this is a joke.With marriage meaning just about anything these days,it’s getting harder to tell!


112 posted on 05/09/2009 11:46:42 AM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

How so?


113 posted on 05/09/2009 12:18:14 PM PDT by Redcloak ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: redpoll

Right--------------------Wrong

When try to live closer to the right edge
we move farther away from God.

Then we reap what we sow.

114 posted on 05/09/2009 12:28:11 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: This Just In
To suggest that divorce is the reason for our societies moral decline is over-simplifying the root of the problem.

How has that worked out for our kids? You can't believe that this is better.

115 posted on 05/09/2009 12:30:56 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

All of our (legal) laws stem from the fact that we are using the power of government to impose a moral standard on the populace.


116 posted on 05/09/2009 12:41:27 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Willful ignorance is a dangerous attitude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
have you conceded the moral argument?

Not in the least. I'd posit that anyone trying to make what these people are doing illegal are the ones engaging in a patently immoral behavior.

L

117 posted on 05/09/2009 12:43:29 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Bingo and give the Freeper a cigar.

Nice to see someone else who actually gets it.

This 'union' is absolutely none of the Governments business unless and until the contracts they signed are adjudicated in a Court of Law.

L

118 posted on 05/09/2009 12:45:43 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
It makes perfect sense to me. If marriage is no longer defined as a heterosexual union, what then constitutes marriage? Who defines it? If all you need for a marriage is committed individuals, why not polygamy or polyamory? According to the state constitutions, is marriage not a matter of equal rights? It seems to me that if one follows logical conclusions, the law would have to allow anyone without qualifications from marrying whatever and as many as he/she/it wants. Of course the law is not based upon logic or common sense, so I have no idea what the courts will decide. I guess it depends upon how the judge feels on a certain day.
119 posted on 05/09/2009 1:19:38 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

“Where does it stop?”

It doesn’t. The barn door is wide open now.


120 posted on 05/09/2009 1:31:41 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (Spay or Neuter your liberal today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-198 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson