On the eve of the General Election for the UK Parliament, the leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett, has said that her party is "open" to the possibility of three-way (or more-way) marriages.
The Australian-born Bennett, who has written for Leftist papers like The Guardian and The Independent and looks like a lesbian (it doesn't mean that she is), made those comments in response to a question posed by a reader of the homosexualist news website Pink News during a Q&A session on 1 May.
The reader asked: "At present those in a ‘trio’ (a three-way relationship) are denied marriage equality, and as a result face a considerable amount of legal discrimination.
“As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights. Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages?”
Bennett answered: “At present, we do not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people.
“We are, uniquely in this country, a party whose policies are developed and voted for by our members.
“We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation.”
That declaration of openness of party policies to being developed by members rings a bit hollow in the light of the expulsion of Brighton Councillor Christina Summers, a Christian, from the Green Party because she supports homosexual relationships and civil partnerships but voted against same-sex marriage.
She rightly complained: "It's discriminatory against Christians. It's a typical symptom of prejudice, blatant prejudice.
"It raises a big question - can Christians serve in the public realm? They are saying don't bring your faith into politics."
Contrast this with the UK Independence Party:
As party leaders fight for the 'Christian vote', UKIP are promising to extend protections for those who disagree with same-sex marriage, and "uphold robustly the rights of Christians" all over the UK.Britain's Green Party has always been in close relationship with the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) movement, as shown by the fact that its only Member of Parliament was elected in Brighton, the UK's capital of homosexuality and similar deviations from the sexual norm.
In the foreword to his 'Christian manifesto', Nigel Farage says Britain needs "a much more muscular defence of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution" [Emphasis added].
The Greens in general have a history of fighting for the recognition of paedophilia. The British Green Party's counterpart in Germany in its 1981 election party manifesto advocated legalising sex between children and adults.
No less a figure than the co-president of the European Greens–European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament from 2004 to 2014, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, has a past of both defending and admitting to paedophilia. Born in France to German-Jewish parents, he had been the hero of the 1968 students revolts, a revolutionary and anarchist.
When the German Green Party was founded in 1980, paedophiles were part of it. Some documents show that the influence of paedophiles on the party was much stronger than previously thought. The Spiegel wrote:
No political group in Germany promoted the interests of men with pedophile tendencies as staunchly as the environmental party. For a period of time in the mid-1980s, it practically served as the parliamentary arm of the pedophile movement.Just to underline the connection between attacking the family from one angle (LGBT and homomarriage) and eroding it from another (polygamy), the Green Party recently launched its "LGBTIQ manifesto", aptly in Soho, and Bennett told IBTimes UK that "top firms can boost the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender business leaders by introducing gender board quotas".
In case you haven't kept up with the ever-expanding alphabet minestrone of the "sexually liberated", "LGBTIQ" stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Questioning": that seems to me to include everything, but there are still so many other letters in the alphabet, so why not use them? In fact, I can think of other deviations not yet publicly declared and accepted, therefore I expect the acronym to lengthen.
This is exactly what we've been predicting: legalising same-sex marriage would open the way to all other sorts of matrimonial perversions, including polygamy, incest and wedding one's pet.
Despite the outrage and claims to the contrary from the homosexual marriage camp (no pun intended), this is in fact what has happened.
And, if homomarriage supporters didn't want to admit that, fans of polygamy could see the connection, as the June 2013 headline "Polygamists welcome Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage predicting relationships with multiple people will be next" clearly indicated.
In most European countries, laws against incest are no longer enforced if the incest takes place between consenting adults.
In fact, is anyone capable of offering rational (I underline "rational") reasons why homosexual marriage should be allowed and not marriage of an incestuous couple, marriage of a threesome, or marriage between a man or woman and his/her pet or any other animal, or indeed any other form of marriage, if desired by the relevant parties?
If the only precondition for marriage is love, there is nothing stopping the wedding of a man and his dog, or of two blood relatives (incest is also increasingly permitted by the legislation of some countries) or of an adult and a child.
The legalisation of marriage of more than two people follows logically from two premises which have been used to formulate the justification for same-sex marriages.
It is a syllogism.
First premise: the expression of a person's sexual orientation in all its forms, including long-term commitment through marriage and the legal recognition of this marriage, is a human right.
Second premise: we have said that marriage, including same-sex marriage, is a long-term lifelong commitment as in heterosexual marriage, so a bisexual person cannot fulfill his or her sexual orientation just with one person, but needs at least two.
Ergo, conclusion: to respect the human rights of bisexual people - and there is no reason why we shouldn't, actually we should - we must legally recognise the marriage of more than two people.
Andrew Sapia left this comment to one of my articles on the subject:
[O]ne can hardly be for gay marriage and against polygamy. Polygamy has a long history, it was practiced in the old testament and is practiced in Islam. How could any western government argue against polygamy and for gay marriage. This will no doubt be the first serious challenge and I don't see how the polygamist looses.There have already been cases of threesome marriages in Brazil and Holland, foursome weddings in Belgium, and elsewhere. Interestingly, Belgium and the Netherlands were also among the first countries to legalise same-sex marriage.
In France it is estimated that up to half a million of the country's 60 million inhabitants live in polygamous families, although presumably the large Muslim presence in that country will have an impact on that figure.
It's funny how in matters like the environment, food and health there is an obsession with the condition of being natural which many times goes well beyond rationality, whereas with matters that have to do with the human and social conditions we don't even attempt to get as close to what is natural as possible, and so the idea for instance of a child having two mothers only or two fathers only is considered acceptable.
This latest news from the Green camp powerfully brings home the message that same-sex marriage is not just a question of personal choice: it's a choice that concerns all society, because marriage is a social institution, as well a Christian sacrament, and is central to society, so what happens to it concerns us all and will have consequences for us all, not just homosexuals.