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.”
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Planned Parenthood closes Iowa abortion facility because of low business
DUBUQUE, Iowa, May 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Planned Parenthood closed an Iowa abortion facility on Friday, noting low business that left the facility unsustainable from a financial standpoint.
Although Planned Parenthood of the Heartland announced in January that it planned to close the Dubuque, Iowa, office, pro-life sidewalk counselors were overjoyed on Friday to read the sign in the window that read: “Our office is closed, effective April 28, 2016.”
The office did not perform surgical abortions but did provide medication abortions to the community of about 58,000.
“Rejoice with us for the lives of unborn children saved!” Iowa Right to Life said in a statement after the closure.
As with numerous other closures, Planned Parenthood, which styles itself a provider of “care no matter what,” emphasized it was closing its doors to preserve its bottom line.
“After assessing the shifting health care landscape, changing demographics, and the challenges of operating in areas with low patient volumes, we made the tough decision to close the Dubuque Health Center,” the group said in an announcement. “This change allows us to expand hours and see more patients in Cedar Rapids, where there is unmet demand due to lack of clinician hours.”
“While we regret making this change, we know it is a necessary step in order to continue our mission to provide, promote and protect reproductive and sexual health through health services, education and advocacy. Patients have been notified, and if they wish, they can receive a broader array of services at our health center in Cedar Rapids, where we have expanded hours to accommodate more patient,” Planned Parenthood said.
American Life League’s vice president, Jim Sedlak, remembers speaking to the county right to life group nine years ago.
“I told them at the time that they needed to protest outside Planned Parenthood at least once a week,” he said. “They told me they would do better than that. Over the last eight years, these dedicated pro-lifers were outside Planned Parenthood every hour it was open. And now...it’s closed for good.”
That aligns with advice that David Bereit, the founder of 40 Days for Life, once told young people who wanted to know how to end abortion.
Be loving and compassionate, he said.
“Your peaceful, loving presence out there flies in the face of all the stereotypes they want to throw onto us,” he added. “When you show them love instead of condemnation, when you show them peace and joy instead of anger and judgment, that will begin to break down the walls.”
Iowa Right to Life credited just such tactics with closing an office in Red Oak that performed webcam abortions. “Planned Parenthood shut down in Red Oak in large part because of the constant, prayerful presence outside their clinic,” the group said.
Upon hearing of the latest abortion facility shuttering, the Dubuque County Right to Life said that Planned Parenthood isn't the only group that will move its base of operations. “We will probably put our efforts in Cedar Rapids and will continue to spread the pro-life message,” said Executive Director Marian Bourek.
Ted Cruz confronted by mom who supports aborting disabled babies…just like hers
MARION, Indiana, May 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Senator Ted Cruz was met on the campaign trail by a mother who strongly opposed a state pro-life law that would have protected children with birth conditions – like her own.
Andrea DeBruler, a 41-year-old nurse, confronted the presidential hopeful in the city of Marion as Cruz campaigned with Gov. Mike Pence.
DeBruler first asked Cruz, then Pence, about House Bill 1337, which bans abortions performed due to the child's race, sex, or disability, such as Down syndome.
DeBruler held up a picture of her daughter, Jania, who was born with cerebral palsy. “This was a choice,” she said.
She asked Sen. Cruz if he supported the bill, which made Indiana the second state in the nation to ban abortion for Down syndrome, after North Dakota.
“I'm not Governor Pence,” he replied. “But I'll tell you this: I believe in protecting human life.”
Pence, who endorsed Cruz in today's make-or-break Indiana primary, listened to her objections.
“I'm not here as a Republican, I'm not here as a Democrat. I'm here as a woman, a woman with choices, choices that you guys should not make,” DeBruler said.
After hearing that she felt many families lacked sufficient resources to care for children, especially in an area like Marion, Gov. Pence offered to connect her with social services.
“God bless her,” he said, looking at Jania's picture, “and God bless you.”
Though it may be unusual to encounter a woman arguing for the right to abort her own child, the governor handled it calmly. Pence had specifically reflected on “precious moments” he spent with “families of children with disabilities, especially those raising children with Down syndrome” when he signed the bill into law in March.
"We are truly thankful for the passage of this historic legislation by the Indiana House and applaud the new civil rights protections this bill creates for unborn children, as well as the new provisions this bill establishes for the humane final disposition of aborted babies," Indiana Right to Life President Mike Fichter said at the time.
DeBruler told the UK media outlet The Independent that H.B. 1337 “means you can no longer have an abortion based on deformity. I’m against this law, because I think it should be a woman’s choice” to abort for any reason.
Congressional Democrats made similar statements during hearings last month for Rep. Trent Franks' federal Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), with Congressman John Conyers saying the bill is “patently unconstitutional,” because a woman has the right to abort a child before viability for any reason.
Both leading contenders for the Democratic nomination expressed their displeasure with the law, which protects unborn children from racial or sexual discrimination, as well as discrimination on the basis of an inborn trait like mental capacity.
When Gov. Pence signed the law, Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted:
The decision to have an abortion is for a woman to make, not the Governor of Indiana. https://t.co/1VOroXS2br— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 24, 2016
Hillary Clinton later said, “I commend the women of this state, young and old, for standing up against this governor and this legislature.”
DeBruler told The Independent, despite her comment about not being a Democrat or a Republican, she is in fact a Democrat and will vote for Hillary Clinton in today's primary.
The moral challenge to Cardinal Wuerl in pending Notre Dame outrage
May 3, 2016 (CatholicCulture) -- In 2009, when the University of Notre Dame invited President Barack Obama to deliver a commencement address, dozens of American bishops lodged loud public protests. Yet this year, as Notre Dame prepares to confer an even greater honor on Vice President Joe Biden (together with former House Speaker John Boehner), the silence from the hierarchy is deafening.
Back in 2009, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Houston said that Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama was “very disappointing,”, while then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan termed it a “big mistake.” The late Bishop John D’Arcy, then leader of the Indiana diocese in which the university is located, spoke of “the terrible breach which has taken place between Notre Dame and the Church.” For the first time in his 25 years of service to the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese, Bishop D’Arcy declined to attend the Notre Dame commencement exercises; instead he addressed a protest rally organized by pro-life students, faculty, alumni, and staff.
These prelates and others explained their dismay by referring to the statement “Catholics in Political Life,” released in 2004 by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. In that document, the bishops reflected on the need to maintain a consistent public witness in defense of human life, and therefore to distance themselves from public officials who support legal abortion. The statement set forth a clear policy that Catholic institutions should not give public honors to “pro-choice” politicians:
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
By giving President Obama an honorary degree and offering him an opportunity to speak at graduation, Notre Dame clearly violated that policy. University officials could offer only garbled partial defenses, claiming that they were honoring Obama not because he supports unrestricted abortion, but because he is President of the United States.
This year the university cannot offer even that lame defense of the decision to award the Laetare Medal to Vice President Biden. Unlike Obama, Biden is a Catholic, and by granting him this award the university is explicitly saying that the Vice President has “illustrated the ideals of the Church and enriched the heritage of humanity.” In other words, Notre Dame is honoring Vice President Biden as a Catholic political leader despite his unwavering support for abortion and same-sex marriage.
Give credit to Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the current leader of the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese, for raising a lonely voice of protest. “I believe it is wrong for Notre Dame to honor any ‘pro-choice’ public official with the Laetare Medal, even if he/she has other positive accomplishments in public service,” Bishop Rhoades said. But if any other bishops have joined him in that rebuke to Notre Dame, I must have missed their public announcements.
Some observers, of liberal political sympathies, have argued that it is wrong to honor John Boehner, too, because the former Speaker disagreed with the US bishops’ stand on immigration. This is a tired old argument, conflating disagreement with the bishops on a prudential political decision with defiance of Church teaching on a fundamental moral principle. But it is noteworthy that Notre Dame officials saw fit to make a joint award, no doubt in a cynical effort to dodge political criticism by choosing one honoree from each side of the political spectrum.
“We live in a toxic political environment where poisonous invective and partisan gamesmanship pass for political leadership,” said Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, in announcing the Laetare Award recipients. (Notice the pre-emptive suggestion that those who criticize the school’s choices may be engaged in “poisonous invective.”) He went on to make a tortured argument that although Notre Dame is honoring two politicians, it is not honoring them for what they have done in their political careers:
In recognizing both men, Notre Dame is not endorsing the policy positions of either, but celebrating two lives dedicated to keeping our democratic institutions working for the common good through dialogue focused on the issues and responsible compromise.
By now we all know the familiar dodges. The politician claims to oppose abortion personally, but to feel a delicate reticence about imposing his views on others. He says that we must be willing to compromise (even on life-and-death decisions). He insists that he is not “pro-abortion” but “pro-choice.”
That last bubble of rhetoric was unceremoniously burst by Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC, when he celebrated Mass at Georgetown after Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richard had delivered a lecture there. “The word ‘choice’ is a smokescreen,” he said, “behind which those killing unborn children take refuge. Every chance you get, blow that smoke away!”
Now Cardinal Wuerl himself has a chance to “blow that smoke away.” As things stand, he is scheduled to celebrate Mass at the Notre Dame commencement, and to receive an honorary degree. He could pull out; he could absent himself from the ceremonies, to ensure that he does not become part of an event that pays homage to a “pro-choice” Catholic politician.
And there is a precedent. Back in 2009, the Harvard legal scholar (and former US ambassador to the Holy See) Mary Ann Glendon was chosen to receive the Laetare Award. But when she learned that President Obama would be speaking, she announced her decision to decline the award. Clearly annoyed that her presence might be used to quiet the critics of the honor for Obama, Ambassador Glendon wrote that she did not want to be used as a counterweight, nor did she see the Notre Dame commencement as an appropriate venue for a genteel debate about legal abortion:
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Could Cardinal Wuerl do this year what Ambassador Glendon did in 2009? Even at this late date, his withdrawal would send a powerful message of support for the right to life: an unmistakable rebuke to politicians who hide behind the smokescreen that the cardinal himself identified. To be sure, if he did withdraw, the cardinal would be caught in an avalanche of public criticism; he would suffer for his public witness. But there is a reason why cardinals wear red.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.