The next marriage redefinition? Massachusetts lesbian ‘throuple’ expecting their first child (Video)
BOSTON, MA, April 24, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Three “married” lesbians in Massachusetts have announced they are expecting the first of several children intended for their polygamous union. But marriage advocates say the story confirms their warnings about the slippery slope created by redefining marriage and granting legal privileges based on a self-identified characteristic like sexual orientation.
The three women – Doll, 30; Brynn, 32; and Kitten, 27 – are not legally married to all the members of the polyamorous coupling, something not permitted under state or federal law.
Brynn and Doll have been together since 2009. However, it is Brynn and Kitten who were legally “married” in a ceremony last August; Doll was “handfasted” to both.
“We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided,” Brynn said.
They consider themselves a “throuple.” Brynn said, “I like to think of us as a romantic committee.”
The idea for the ceremony, culminated when each of their fathers walked them down the aisle, came from Kitten. “Marriage had always been an important symbol of commitment for me,” she said.
After the ceremony, the three set up house and divided chores, with Brynn working a 40-hour week to bring home the money, Doll cooking, and Kitten cleaning the house. And bearing the children.
Kitten announced that she had used IVF to become pregnant by an anonymous sperm donor. She hopes to bear three children, one for each of the mothers. She expects to deliver the first in July.
Until it occurred, proponents of same-sex “marriage” dismissed the argument that gay “marriage” would undermine monogamy. But Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of The Ruth Institute, said she was not surprised to learn of the trio. “We have been saying for some time that once you remove the gender requirement there is no reason for marriage to be confined to only two people,” Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews.
Like the gay rights movement, the Massachusetts throuple hopes to strike a blow for polyamorous “rights.”
Brynn says she hopes anyone who hears of her story will learn, “Polyfidelity is not something that is seedy or something that's meant to be hidden away. It can be a perfectly acceptable and functional choice of life and love.”
The fidelity and functionality of her relationships has been tested in the past; Brynn has been married to two other women. Still, she says she wants society to accord their relationship the same status as heterosexual marriage.
“The three of us have been brave enough to stand tall and go against what society calls normal,” Brynn said. “We are simply people trying to live the life that we feel is best for us and we deserve the rights afforded to others.”
Like homosexual activists in their bid to redefine marriage, polyamorists seem to present themselves as passive inheritors of a predetermined sexual inclination.
Kitten, a fashion designer, says after her male fiancé broke up with her, “I realized that I hadn't been happy in my previous monogamous relationships and I discovered that I was poly.” Doll added that she “never thought that much about it and I had never really 'come out' as poly to my friends and family. To me, it was just how I was.”
“Two of these ladies believe they were 'born' polyamorous,” Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews. “This is a whole new category that has not been legally explored.”
That should give pause as lawmakers in states and cities around the nation create new laws barring “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, often with severe penalties. “Some of us have said for a long time that sexual orientation is a category that people can define themselves into and out of,” she said. Therefore, “lawyers have no business creating a protected class around a trait that you define yourself.”
The announcement is the culmination of the notion that marriage has an infinitely elastic definition, according to Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.
“Ideas have consequences,” George said. Once society rejects the notion of marriage as a conjugal union “with its central structuring norm of sexual complementarity in favor of a concept” that “'love makes a family,' then what possible principled basis could be identified for a norm 'restricting' marriage to two-person partnerships, as opposed to polyamorous sexual ensembles of three or more persons?”
He added that more than 300 'LGBT' scholars and allies, including Gloria Steinem and Barbara Ehrenreich, “have bitten the bullet and said that there is no reason not to further re-shape 'marriage' to include multiple partner unions” by signing the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto.
The 2006 document presents “a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships.”
Among those relationships the document said should be granted equal “recognition and benefits” as heterosexual marriages are “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” and “queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households.”
Proclaiming themselves “part of an interdependent, global community,” signatories admit, “The struggle for same-sex marriage rights is only one part of a larger effort.”
Lesbian author Masha Gessen admitted the gay “marriage” movement used lies and deception to destroy the concept of marriage to the audience of the 2012 Sydney Writer's Festival.
“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie,” she confessed.
“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist,” she said.
George said the same slogans and arguments can be used to promote polygamous or polyamorous “marriage” as same-sex “marriage.”
The Family Policy Institute of Washington greeted the news by saying, “And if you don't think it's the most wonderful thing in the world, you are, of course, a bigot.”
Focusing on the Massachusetts trio with the impending birth of a child, Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews, “I predict that within five years of the birth of the baby this relationship will be in complete shambles. Every adult knows that when you place a baby into a mother's arms that many things change in ways that she could not predict.”
“I have read many lesbian custody cases,” she said. “Reading between the lines, what I see is that the mother cannot quite accept the idea that her child will call somebody else mommy. The mother thinks she is the one and only mother. She has more trouble than she expected sharing the care of her child with another woman.”
She forecast, “The law will take sides with the women who are not related to the baby against the interests of the woman who is in fact the biological mother of the baby. That's my prediction: this thing will break down within five years. Much to the detriment of the child.”
Trump vows to push LGBT rights, hedges on pro-marriage litmus test
CONCORD, New Hampshire, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Does Donald Trump support the gay agenda or oppose it? On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, observers are still scratching their heads about where the GOP frontrunner actually stands.
Trump has repeatedly and consistently said he supports the natural definition of marriage, but can a President Trump be relied on to promote it resolutely and cogently? It is this question that has many marriage activists expressing concern about his increasingly likely hold on the GOP nomination.
In fact, the National Organization for Marriage has gone so far as to say that Trump has “abandoned” the pro-marriage cause.
Trump himself underscored the problem on the weekend when he told a New Hampshire television station that from the White House he would push “equality” for homosexuals even further forward.
A cable news reporter self-identifying as a lesbian asked him last Thursday after a rally in Exeter, "When President Trump is in office, can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?"
“Well, you can and look - again, we're going to bring people together. That's your thing, and other people have their thing,” Trump told Sue O’Connell of New England Cable News. “We have to bring all people together. And if we don't, we're not gonna have a country anymore. It's gonna be a total mess.”
Following the comments, Trump appeared Sunday on ABC’s This Week program with George Stephanopoulos and would not commit to appointing Supreme Court justices who’d overturn Obergefell, though that would be his “preference.”
“We’re going to look at judges. They’ve got to be great judges. They’ve got to be conservative judges. We’re going to see how they stand depending on what their views are. But that would be my preference,” he told Stephanopoulos. “I would prefer that they stand against, but we’ll see what happens. It depends on the judge.”
Trump’s comments follow his statements during a Fox News Sunday interview last week, when he said, “If I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things, but they've got a long way to go.”
“[Marriage] should be a states rights issue,” Trump continued. “I can see changes coming down the line, frankly.”
When asked by Fox if he “might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage,” Trump replied, “I would strongly consider that, yes.”
The real estate mogul criticized the Supreme Court for the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states last June, but then later in August, Trump voiced support to NBC News for banning companies from firing employees on the basis of sexual orientation. “I don't think it should be a reason” to fire workers, he said at the time on Meet the Press.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a number influential evangelicals have endorsed Senator Ted Cruz in the race for president. The Texas senator has not only committed to appointing pro-marriage justices, but says the president and the states can rightly defy the “fundamentally illegitimate” ruling just as President Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision.
NOM has also been highly critical of Trump, saying he has “abandoned” their cause. The organization said in its January 27 blog post just prior to the Iowa Caucus that “Donald Trump does not support a constitutional amendment to restore marriage to our laws. Worse, he has publicly abandoned the fight for marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued their illegitimate ruling redefining marriage, Trump promptly threw in the towel with these comments on MSNBC: ‘You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land.’”
NOM had said the week before that Trump “has made no commitments to fight for marriage, or the rights of supporters of marriage to not be discriminated against and punished for refusing to go along with the lie that is same-sex 'marriage.'”
New Hampshire voters have been tracked as showing support for homosexual “marriage,” as a poll last February showed 52 percent of Republican NH primary voters saying opposing gay “marriage” is unacceptable.
The latest CNN/WMUR tracking poll shows that overall 33 percent of likely Republican primary voters support Trump, giving him a growing 17-point lead over the nearest GOP contender. RealClearPolitics polling average in the state puts him at 31.0 percent support, with Marco Rubio second at 14.7, John Kasich third at 13.2, and Ted Cruz fourth at 12.7.
The unravelling of Chris Christie
February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- I'm a member of the clergy and for the past eight years have lobbied the powerful in Trenton, covering the administrations of both Governors Jon Corzine and Chris Christie. I did much of my work on behalf of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, associated with Tony Perkins' Family Research Council. I am currently the President of the Center for Garden State Families.
Those of us who are engaged in the fight to secure the right to believe, speak, and practice the Christian faith in America were all heartened by the election of a Pro-Life Governor in 2009. Not only did Chris Christie run as an open Pro-Lifer, but he adopted a position in support of natural marriage in the course of the campaign. And when legislative Democrats attempted to pass same-sex marriage in the lame duck session, so they could have outgoing Governor Corzine sign it into law, Chris Christie rallied opposition and stopped it. Those were the early, hopeful days; but as Governor, Chris Christie has presented himself in an inconsistent, even scatterbrained way, often making decisions that go against earlier stated beliefs.
One of his first decisions was to make a liberal Democrat the state's Attorney General. Once approved by the Senate, and she was, the Attorney General could not be fired by the Governor, as was the case with other cabinet officers. This gave a liberal Democrat enormous power and she used it to join up with liberal Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in filing a brief against Christians in a case called Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Just one day after being sworn in, the newly appointed state Attorney General took the most aggressive legal posture available to defend former Governor Corzine’s one-gun-a-month handgun rationing law, moving to dismiss an NRA lawsuit to overturn the law, and later vigorously opposing the NRA’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the case. Because of this appointment, New Jersey did not join in the lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare.
Governor Christie appointed a radical "sexologist" to run the NJ Department of Children & Families. This appointee would later resign when it emerged that she had held the top job in an organization that had supported a study advocating the normalization of some forms of adult-child sex.
His judicial appointments were also confusing. While claiming to oppose same-sex marriage, Governor Christie nominated an openly gay Republican to the state Supreme Court who supported it. Even Democrats wouldn't support this plainly unqualified appointment, and he never served. The Governor supported the advancement of a liberal Democrat to the job of Chief Justice, while refusing to support the re-appointment of a Republican and the Court's most conservative member. He also appointed a controversial defense attorney who had defended a number of Islamic extremists who had violated immigration law.
In 2013, many of those in the Christian community opposed legislation that banned young people from receiving counseling and therapy to lead them away from homosexuality. As an ex-gay myself, I could have personally attested to the benefits of such counseling, much of which is no different than what is found in contemporary twelve-step programs. However, the Christian community opposing the ban was not afforded the opportunity to meet with the Governor. Only the homosexual community with its pro-ban agenda was given that benefit.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
I don't blame the Governor for this, but I do blame his staff. As President Ronald Reagan said, "personnel is policy," and Governor Christie's choices in personnel have not advanced the policies he campaigned on, and often it was the direct opposite.
New Jersey ended up being just the second state in the country that only allows young people to receive counseling that advocates homosexuality, but bans by law counseling that advocates heterosexuality. When he signed it into law, Governor Christie embraced the made-up "science" of the propagandists, when he cited un-specified "research" that "sexual orientation is determined at birth." This is the so-called "gay-gene" trope that has baffled those engaged in the Science of Genetics because it has never been discovered.
As a candidate for Governor, Chris Christie talked the talk and raised the expectations of Christians in New Jersey. As Governor, and especially in his appointments, Christie undermined our confidence in his leadership. Christians should ask tough questions before extending our faith in him again.
Pro-life investigator hits back with new footage after judge blocks release of abortion sting videos
SAN FRANCISCO, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A new video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) shows two National Abortion Federation (NAF) employees saying that abortion clinics would be interested in kickbacks from profits on fetal tissue and body part sales.
The video comes three days after a San Francisco imposed an injunction sought by NAF against CMP videos that one of the abortion group's attorneys said meant that "NAF's members can sleep a little easier tonight."
CMP accused the pro-abortion organization of hiding behind the court.
According to U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick, however, NAF "made...a showing" that release of CMP videos would harm rights to privacy, freedom of association, and liberty of NAF members.
"Critical to my decision are that the defendants agreed to injunctive relief if they breached the agreements and that, after the release of defendants’ first set of Human Capital Project videos and related information in July 2015, there has been a documented, dramatic increase in the volume and extent of threats to and harassment of NAF and its members," wrote Orrick.
Additionally, the judge found that CMP's videos “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions," and that nobody from the abortion industry “admitted to engaging in, agreed to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit" in the CMP videos.
However, in a new video released today that is unrelated to the injunction, a NAF employee told undercover journalists that kickbacks "definitely [sound] like something some [of] our members would be really interested in," with another chiming in that money from private purchasers to abortion clinics were "a win-win" for clinics.
The undercover investigators, who had purported to be part of a biotechnology company with an interest in fetal parts, were offered the chance to be at a NAF conference. “We have an exhibit hall and then we also have the general conference. But I mean, this is a very great way to talk to our members. We have a group purchasing program through our membership,” the journalists were told. “So it seems like this would be a really great option to be able to offer our members, as well.”
This is the second ruling against CMP in recent weeks, and the second by Orrick since July. The San Francisco judge issued a restraining order against CMP related to NAF's 2014 and 2015 meetings in San Francisco and Baltimore that Friday's ruling extended.
The other recent ruling came in the form of an indictment of CMP's David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Merritt and Daleiden turned themselves into Houston authorities for booking and processing last week. After being released on bail, Daleiden spoke at a LifeSiteNews/Christian Defense Coalition press conference after which more than 100,000 petition signatures backing Daleiden were dropped off to the Harris County, Texas District Attorney's office.
According to Orrick, who says he reviewed the more than 500 hours of recordings from CMP, "It should be said that the majority of the recordings lack much public interest, and despite the misleading contentions of defendants, there is little that is new in the remainder of the recordings. Weighed against that public interest are NAF’s and its members’ legitimate interests in their rights to privacy, security, and association by maintaining the confidentiality of their presentations and conversations at NAF Annual Meetings. The balance is strongly in NAF’s favor.”
NAF did not respond to a request for comment about the allegations by Orrick and a NAF spokesperson that CMP's videos have caused threats and other security concerns against NAF members.