Skip to comments.Marriage for four put to Senate (Australia)
Posted on 08/21/2012 9:43:27 AM PDT by doug from upland
THE power couple of Australia's increasingly open polyamorous community, Rebecca and James Dominguez, have made Senate submissions urging the legalisation of same-sex marriage, as they promote greater acceptance of multiple-partner relationships.
The couple have led the way in publicly outlining their own journey from monogamous marriage to one in which each has another lover as well.
In her blog, Ms Dominguez, who is an adminstrator with IBM in Melbourne, writes: "My life rocks . . . I am incredibly happy and have almost everything I could possibly want . . .
"I've built a house with my husband and my husband's boyfriend so there are four of us living together in nice harmony. (The fourth household member is Rebecca's boyfriend.)
"James outed himself to me as bisexual a year after we got married. Remarkably, this didn't really phase me.
"He talked to a nice female friend of ours that was interested in him, informed her about my boundaries and they agreed to have a sexual relationship. The most influential people in Sport
"I felt more secure in my relationship with James . . . I knew that James wasn't going to leave me, that he could have sex with and love another woman and still love me and want to be married to me."
For many years Ms Dominguez was president of PolyVic, which promoted the "practice of honest, open, ethical multiple relationships".
More recently the couple have taken up leading positions in Bisexual Alliance Victoria.
The two organisations are closely connected and hold picnics which, the website says, are family-friendly with "food and drinks to share, picnic rugs or chairs, outdoor games, kids, dogs, kayaks".
As president of the alliance, Mr Dominguez, an IT specialist in the Victorian public service, wrote to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010.
" The legal definition of marriage itself has changed over history, such as the removal on restrictions of inter-racial marriage and the provision for divorce," Mr Dominguez wrote in the submission.
Ms Dominguez wrote in her own submission to the Senate committee: "Just as we have allowed changes in the past to things considered 'traditional' (equality of women, humanity of non-white people), we can change 'traditional' understandings of things now."
The couple say they are not championing the idea of legal recognition of polyamorous marriage now but hope it might evolve in decades to come.
"Some time in the distant future we should look at the idea of plural marriage," said Mr Dominguez.
It is exactly this thin end of the wedge which has led one of the Liberal members of the Senate committee, Eric Abetz, to warn of the dangers of same-sex marriage.
Once one goes beyond the concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, Senator Abetz said, "the logical conclusion is the complete deconstruction of the institution that is marriage".
It would lead to demands for menages a trois and other combinations to gain the status of legal matrimony, he said, thus endangering "the security of the next generation".
"That's the extreme of what happens when you say love is love," Senator Abetz said.
A spokesman for Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said: "The A-G is on the record as supporting gay marriage and a conscious vote.
"On the second question (legalising menages a trois as marriages), the government is not considering this."
The Dominguezes hope in the short term for greater acceptance in society of polyamorous marriage.
"My family was initially unhappy, but I wasn't excluded or disowned," Ms Dominguez said.
Here we go!
Welcome to the future.
What else people will come up with is a mystery, but one can only hope that some of it at least will disgust the gay mafia.
It’s only just begun.
Multiple partners is next. And then, while most will laugh, a guy marrying his goat. Some will say, that’s baaaaaaaad, Doug.
Some will argue a guy can’t marry his goat because there is no consent. Ah, but what if it is a woman who wants to marry her goat and the goat made the first move on her? That’s consent. So if a woman can marry her goat, it would be sexual discrimination if a man cannot marry his goat.
Once the definition of marriage is changed, who has any right to not allow the next guy to change it to suit him? Why does it have to be with another person? If a guy and his goat have a loving relationship, who are we to stand in the way of their happiness?
Once you "redefine" marriage, you have no legal or moral case to say that it can't be "redefined" again.
This entire push for redefinition of marriage is actually the final push to get rid of it altogether.
You sound like you think polygamy is worse than homosexuality?
And what about marriages involving farm animals or kitchen appliances? Don’t they have rights too? /s
But it really isn’t a matter for jest, is it?
What use are morals which do not constrain one from improper behavior? How can your morals bind you, unless they emanate from a Higher Authority?
This is what happens when you figure out your own morality as you go based upon what you think seems good at the time. In the end, such morality will justify any act you wish to perform, rather than amending your behavior to some higher standard.
While homosexuality is disgusting, polygamy is its own punishment.
you’re missing the whole point. You’re focused on the marriage aspect of it, and the special governmental and social aspect.
This is about destroying marriage as a social contract. All the arguments are meaningless. They want marriage eliminated then all of this would be unnecessary.
This broad, her boyfriend, and her husband and his boyfriend and all live together and there is no legal aspect of infidelity, divorces, and so forth.
The end game is....ban marriage.
As a Christian, I don’t agree with the polygamist family structure, but at least you can point to historical and even some modern societies that are built on it.
“... will disgust the gay mafia.”
I’m afraid the only thing that falls into that category is a traditional heterosexual marriage.
Ah yes, I've decided to marry my shoe today. No wait, I'm feeling adventurous, I'll marry both shoes.
And I demand public recognition (and approval!) for my "choice".
Who are you to tell me I can't marry my shoes?!!!
Anyone watching the “gay” atempts to change the definition of marriage (not the same concept as providing “equal right”) knew this was coming;
it was inevitable and pre-existent in the legal language used in the “same-sex marriaqe” arguments in the court cases.
The only thing that was missing was another, and different, non-traditional “marriage” request for “equal rights”;
and when left to the courts alone, the judges will have a hard time denying it, for the approving legal arguments for it are already in the “same-sex” cases the courts granted approvals to.
my only problem with legalizing polygamy is that I wouldn’t be grandfathered since my wife would certainly be against it :)
Try reading it again, and stay out from between the lines; I don’t write there.
Thanks for the clarification. Thought you were insinuating a slippery slope argument against gay marriage, on which polygamy would be next and hence lower than homosexuality... or maybe I thought I was replying to post 4 and clicked reply to yours by accident, as post 4 clearly indicates the slippery slope argument. Not sure what my motivation was yesterday nor do I even remember what I had for dinner last night.
We’re in the same boat. I’m trying to remember breakfast, only two hours ago.