A public notary in Brazil has registered a three-person partnership as a legally recognized civil union. Brazilians are waiting to see how other public officials treat the notary’s action.
The notary, Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, who serves the city of Tupa, “said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a ‘family’ had changed. ‘We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything. For better or worse, it doesn’t matter, but what we considered a family before isn’t necessarily what we would consider a family today’.”
Now, the reason of principle that intimate partnerships of three or more persons cannot truly be marriages, and should not be legally recognized as marriages or the equivalent, is . . . Well, remind me again, what is it?
Of course, the reason is fairly clear for those (I’m one) who understand marriage as a conjugal partnershp, i.e., a multi-level (and in that sense comprehensive) union of husband and wife founded on the biological (“one-flesh”) communion made possible by the sexual-reproductive complementarity of spouses. For an explanation and defense, see here; for a more detailed statement of the case, and response to critics, see the forthcomng book by the same authors under the same title.) But what is the reason for those who propose to ditch the conjugal understanding of marriage and replace it with a conception of marriage as sexual-romantic domestic partnership (what one opponent of the conjugal conception describes as your relationship “with your Number One Person”)?
To be sure, there are those (such as the three hundred plus self-described “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers,” including such notables as Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Kenji Yoshino), who have already signed on (quite literally) to the proposition that there are no reasons of principle (or valid reasons of any kind) for conceiving marriage or the equivalent as a two-person relationship, as opposed to a relationship of three or more individuals (triads, quadrads, etc.) in a polyamorous sexual partnership. (See the manifesto “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” expressly demanding legal recognition of, among other things, “committed, loving households in which there ismore than one conjugal partner.”)
But what is the reason of principle that can be given by those who, while rejecting the idea that sexual-reproductive complementarity is an essential element of marriage, do not—or do not yet—wish to give up the idea of marriage as the sexually exclusive union of two, and not more than two, persons? Is there a reason of principle? Or is the belief in “two-ness” mere bigotry?
August 30th, 2012 | 7:32 am
For that matter, if one drops the conjugal understanding of marriage, why not also drop the sexual element as an essential part of the institution?
The threesome in Brazil entered into their civil union in order to preserve marital-type benefits in case of separation or death (alimony, pensions, inheritance?). They already lived together, sharing bills and other expenses in an arrangement formerly known as “roommates”.
Maybe one of the Brazilians is just a needy sibling, or (if that is still a taboo) a neighbor who lusted after the benefits package and not the bodies of the other roomates?
Who is going to check if the plural union is sexual— or why should it matter anyway, as long as the implications of conjugal union are swept away?
August 30th, 2012 | 10:21 am
For that matter, if one drops the conjugal understanding of marriage, why not also drop the sexual element as an essential part of the institution?
peg,
But the three-person union in Brazil is not a marriage. Civil unions are not marriages.
On the other hand, about fifty countries worldwide have civil polygamous marriage, including one for which American troops are fighting and dying—Afghanistan. One (probably anomalous) civil union in Brazil ignites hysteria, but American troops are fighting and dying to preserve the Afghan government, with their polygamous marriages and mistreatment of women, and no one is concerned.
August 30th, 2012 | 11:31 am
Possibly because it is not the fact that Afghans are polygamous that brought American troops there, David.
August 30th, 2012 | 11:54 am
The proposal by “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers” that Robert George is so distressed by seems similar to what many concerned about marriage and the state have proposed. As I understand it, it’s a proposal to let the government recognize households not marriages. Among other types of households, it specifies:
It does not strike me as a crazy or subversive idea to recognize, and grant certain benefits to, couples or groups who share a residence and live together in an economic arrangement similar to that of “traditional” families or extended families. If some arrangements are “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner,” I see no bar to recognizing the people as making up a household. The argument is not that every legally recognized household is a marriage or the equivalent of a marriage. It is one thing to want to preserve and strengthen traditional marriage, which I think is a worthy goal. It is another thing to denigrate other living arrangements and deny them economic advantages that would be of benefit to them and to society as a whole. It does not seem to me that this is a “zero-sum game.” It is not that if traditional marriage is to “win,” every other living arrangement has to “lose.”
August 30th, 2012 | 12:36 pm
I was addressing Robert George’s concern regarding marriage or its “equivalent”:
“But what is the reason for those who propose to ditch the conjugal understanding of marriage and replace it with a conception of marriage as sexual-romantic domestic partnership (what one opponent of the conjugal conception describes as your relationship “with your Number One Person”)?”
I don’t know why such a domestic partnership–or civil union, or New Marriage, or whatever you want to call it—needs to have a sexual-romantic aspect at all. Says who, and why? I don’t know if the Brazilian threesome is actually a sexual/romantic partnership. The only reason given for their union is to protect survivors’ interests in the case of separation or death.
So, I don’t know why anyone who ditches the traditional conjugal understanding of marriage would object on principle to plural marriage or plural civil unions, and I don’t see why those relationships have to have a sexual or romantic component at all.
September 1st, 2012 | 2:53 pm
I don’t know why such a domestic partnership–or civil union, or New Marriage, or whatever you want to call it—needs to have a sexual-romantic aspect at all.
There are already documented cases of siblings wanting to ‘marry’ – not because they’re incestuous, but because they live together for pragmatic reasons & want benefits.
Once you have unhinged a word from everything it ever meant – and every function it meaningfully serves – it can mean anything; the only restriction is what people will accept, allow, tolerate, vote for, or refuse to accept.
Like so many other ethical situations, we have the choice between integrity on the one hand, and “might makes right” on the other. The fantasy is the belief that there can be something “in between” – there can’t and there isn’t.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact