PolyGreens

Questionairres are being sent to all the declared candidates for the Presidential nomination of the GPUS, and responses will be shared widely.

[Note the mention of the Dutch Green Party’s support for multi-partner marriage.

Kurtz has been banging the drum about the slippery slope for quite a while now (pretty much in a league of his own when it comes to the level of sophistication and accurate understanding of the details). -Thomas]

The Weekly Standard

December 26, 2005 Monday

SECTION: FEATURES Vol. 11 No. 15

LENGTH: 7066 words

HEADLINE: Here Come the Brides;
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.

BYLINE: Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard

BODY:

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-
year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a
notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And
they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and
Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked
Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met
several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the
notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation
contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and
departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was
married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-
husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in
with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while
Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca
had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for
years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100
percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’
bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands,
drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV
cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned
into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities,
the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The
local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted
entirely to the media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States
through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels
Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of
the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s”
from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay
marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire.
M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian
Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels
Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not
allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had
deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation
contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the
false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than
it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive
director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account
of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor
significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered
partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative
blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates
dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no
implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s
mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of
same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the
Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those
chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and
Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a
state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their
union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves
in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay
marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable
step down the road to legalized group marriage.

More important, the De Bruijn wedding reveals a heretofore hidden
dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns’ triple
marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is
emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result
in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a
right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are
surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group
marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to
the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for
multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.

AS AMERICAN GAY-MARRIAGE ADVOCATES were quick to point out, the
cohabitation contract that joined Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam
carries fewer legal implications and less status than either a
registered partnership or a marriage–and Dutch trios are still
barred from the latter two forms of union. Yet the use of a
cohabitation contract for a triple wedding is a step in the
direction of group marriage. The conservative and religious Dutch
paper Reformatorisch Dagblad reports that this was the first known
occurrence in the Netherlands of a cohabitation contract between a
married couple and their common girlfriend.

This is important because the Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage
was famously premised on a “small step” strategy, with each small
increment of recognition creating an impetus for further steps. As
Israeli legal scholar Yuval Merin tells it in his 2002 book
Equality for Same-Sex Couples, the popularity of cohabitation
contracts among Dutch gays in the 1980s helped create laws in the
early 1990s forbidding employer discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation–including discrimination between married and
unmarried couples in the granting of benefits.

So the use of cohabitation contracts was an important step along
the road to same-sex marriage in the Netherlands. And the link
between gay marriage and the De Bruijns’ triple contract was
immediately recognized by the Dutch. The story in Reformatorisch
Dagblad quoted J.W.A. van Dommelen, an attorney opposed to the De
Bruijn union, who warned that the path from same-sex cohabitation
contracts to same-sex marriage was about to be retraced in the
matter of group marriage.

Van Dommelen also noted that legal complications would flow from
the overlap between a two-party marriage and a three-party
cohabitation contract. The rights and obligations that exist in
Dutch marriages and Dutch cohabitation contracts are not identical,
and it’s unclear which arrangement would take precedence in case of
a conflict. “The structure is completely gone,” said Van Dommelen,
as he called on the Dutch minister of justice to set up a working
group to reconcile the conflicting claims of dual marriages and
multipartner cohabitation contracts. Of course, simply by
harmonizing the conflicting claims of dual marriages and triple
cohabitation contracts, that working group would be taking yet
another “small step” along the road to legal recognition for group
marriage in the Netherlands.

The slippery-slope implications of the triple cohabitation contract
were immediately evident to the SGP, a small religious party that
played a leading role in the failed battle to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage in the Netherlands. SGP member
of parliament Kees van der Staaij noted the substantial overlap
between marriage rights and the rights embodied in cohabitation
contracts. Calling the triple cohabitation contract a back-door
route to legalized polygamy, Van der Staaij sent a series of formal
queries to Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, asking him to
dissolve the De Bruijn contract and to bar more than two persons
from entering into cohabitation contracts in the future.

The justice minister’s answers to these queries represent yet
another small step–actually several small steps–toward legal and
cultural recognition for group marriage in the Netherlands. To
begin with, Donner reaffirmed the legality of multipartner
cohabitation contracts and pointedly refused to consider any
attempt to ban such contracts in the future. Donner also went so
far as to assert that contracts regulating multipartner
cohabitation can fulfill “a useful regulating function” (also
translatable as “a useful structuring role”). In other words,
Donner has articulated the rudiments of a “conservative case for
group marriage.”

The SGP responded angrily to Donner’s declarations. In the eyes of
this small religious party, Donner had effectively introduced a
form of legal group marriage to the Netherlands. A party spokesman
warned of an impending legal mess–especially if the De Bruijn
trio, or others like them, have children. The SGP plans to raise
its objections again when parliament considers the justice
department’s budget.

It’s not surprising that the first English language report was a
bit unclear as to the precise legal status and significance of the
triple Dutch union. The Dutch themselves are confused about it. One
of the articles from which Paul Belien drew his original report is
careful to distinguish between formal marriage and the cohabitation
contract actually signed by Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam. Yet the
very same article says that Victor now “officially” has “two wives.”

Even Dutch liberals acknowledge the implications of the De Bruijn
wedding. Jan Martens, a reporter and opinion columnist for
BN/DeStem, the local paper in Roosendaal, wrote an opinion piece
mocking opposition to group marriage by religious parties like the
SGP. Noting the substantial overlap between cohabitation contracts
and marriage, Martens said he agreed with the SGP that the De
Bruijn triple union amounts to a “short-cut to polygamy.” Yet
Martens emphasized that he “couldn’t care less if you have two,
three, four, or sixty-nine wives or husbands.”

Minority religious parties and their newspapers excepted, this
mixture of approval and indifference seems to be the mainstream
Dutch reaction so far. Not only has Justice Minister Donner
articulated the beginnings of a conservative case for group
marriage, but Green party spokesman Femke Halsema, a key backer of
gay marriage, has affirmed her party’s support for the recognition
of multipartner unions. The public has not been inclined to protest
these developments, and the De Bruijn trio have been welcomed by
their neighbors.

Dutch fascination with the De Bruijn story appears to have made an
impression on BN/DeStem. On November 19, less than two months after
the triple wedding, the paper ran a story headlined “Remembering
birthdays is a disaster,” about the family of a Belgian named Serge
Régnier. Belgium is Holland’s neighbor and close cultural cousin.
It became the second country to legalize gay marriage when it
adopted the practice in 2003, two years after the Netherlands. In
the Belgian town of Marcinelle, Serge Régnier lives with three
women, only one of whom he is legally married to, but all three of
whom he considers wives. The family has a total of 30 children (5
by one wife’s first husband), with another on the way.

Serge Régnier had been married to his wife Christine for four years
when Christine’s unmarried sister Karine moved in with the couple.
Karine wanted children, and after discussing the matter with her
sister and brother-in-law, it was agreed that Serge would father
children with Karine and live with the women as a threesome. Into
this ménage à trois came Judith, a childhood sweetheart of Serge.
Serge had told Christine when he married her that, if she were ever
available, Judith would have to be welcomed into their house. When
Judith divorced her first husband and showed up on the Régniers’
doorstep, all agreed to admit her. The result is one husband, three
wives, and 30 children, with several more children hoped for by the
wives. Serge is unemployed, and the entire family is supported by
government subsidies. The women say there is no jealousy among them
and they would even welcome a fourth wife if she was “nice.”

By early December, the Régnier story had been picked up by numerous
Dutch bloggers and the national press. So the De Bruijn union seems
to have opened up the Dutch public to the idea of multipartner
marriage. News reports on the Régniers are filled with humor and
fascination, with little concern for the potential legal
ramifications. It’s this cultural response that counts.

When it comes to marriage, culture shapes law. (It’s a two-way
street, of course. Law also influences culture.) After all, Dutch
same-sex marriage advocates still celebrate the foundational role
of symbolic gay marriage registries in the early 1990s. Although
these had absolutely no legal status, the publicity and sympathy
they generated are now widely recognized as keys to the success of
the Dutch campaign for legal same-sex unions and ultimately
marriage. How odd, then, that American gay-marriage advocates
should respond to the triple Dutch wedding with hair-splitting
legal discourses, while ignoring the Dutch media frenzy and
subsequent signs of cultural acceptance–for a union with far more
legal substance than Holland’s first symbolic gay marriages.
Despite the denials of gay-marriage advocates, in both legal and
cultural terms, Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam’s triple union is a
serious move toward legalized group marriage in the Netherlands.

GIVEN THE STIR IN HOLLAND, it’s remarkable that not a single
American mainstream media outlet carried a story on the triple
Dutch wedding. Of course the media were all over the Dutch gay
marriage story when they thought the experiment had been a success.
In late 2003 and early 2004, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s
Lawrence v. Texas decision, which ruled sodomy laws
unconstitutional, and looming gay marriage in Massachusetts,
several American papers carried reports from the Netherlands. The
common theme was that Holland had experienced no ill effects from
gay marriage, and that the issue was no longer contentious.

Unsurprisingly, the chief sources for these articles were
themselves prominent advocates of gay marriage, who dismissed any
notion that the reform might have had negative consequences. Had
reporters for the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor,
the Philadelphia Inquirer, or the Chicago Tribune cared to check
the Dutch demographic record, they might have discovered the
substantial increases in out-of-wedlock births and parental
cohabitation that emerged in the wake of the movement for same-sex
marriage (see “Going Dutch?” The Weekly Standard, May 31, 2004).

Still, although opposition to same-sex marriage from religious
parties like the SGP unquestionably remains, the American media are
correct to report that the majority of Dutch citizens have accepted
the innovation. The press has simply missed the meaning of that
public shift. Broad Dutch acceptance of same-sex marriage means
that marriage as an institution has been detached from parenthood
in the public mind. That is why the practice of parental
cohabitation has grown so quickly in the Netherlands. By the same
token, the shoulder shrug that followed the triple wedding story
shows that legalized group marriage in the Netherlands is now a
real possibility. If the calm Dutch response to same-sex marriage
is news, it’s tough to see why the Dutch public’s fascinated
acceptance of a triple union isn’t also news. But, of course, the
mainstream American press understands that the triple Dutch wedding
cannot be spun in a way that helps the cause of same-sex marriage
with the American public. Thus the silence.

ALTHOUGH THE TRIPLE Dutch union has been loosely styled “polygamy,”
it’s actually a sterling example of polyamory. Polyamorists
practice “responsible nonmonogamy”–open, loving, and stable
relationships among more than two people (see “Beyond Gay Marriage:
The Road to Polyamory,” The Weekly Standard, August 4 / August 11,
2003). Polygamous marriages among fundamentalist Mormons or Muslims
don’t depend on a blending of heterosexuality and bisexuality. Yet
that combination perfectly embodies the spirit of polyamory. And
polyamorists don’t limit themselves to unions of one man and
several women. One woman and two men, full-fledged group marriage,
a stable couple openly engaging in additional shifting or stable
relationships–indeed, almost any combination of partner-number and
sexual orientation is possible in a polyamorous sexual grouping.

Polyamorists would call the De Bruijn union a “triad.” In a
polyamorous triad, all three partners are sexually connected. This
contrasts with a three-person “V,” in which only one of the
partners (called the “hinge” or “pivot”) has a sexual relationship
with the other two. So the bisexuality of Bianca and Mirjam
classifies the De Bruijn union as a polyamorous bisexual triad. In
another sense, the De Bruijn marriage is also a gay marriage. The
Bianca-Mirjam component of the union is gay, and legalized gay
marriage in Holland has clearly helped make the idea of a legally
recognized bisexual triad thinkable.

More broadly, the worldwide campaign for gay marriage seems to have
stirred up an active bisexual movement in its wake. Bisexuals have
traditionally been one of the least visible components of the GLBT
(gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) alliance. After a flurry of
publicity in the 1970s, at the height of the sexual revolution,
bisexuality faded from public view. Yet the 1990s brought new
attention, with articles in Time and Newsweek touting the emergence
of bisexuality as a distinctive and politically tinged identity
(and linking bisexuality to nonmonogamous marriage). In recent
years, websites, books, and academic studies devoted to bisexuality
have proliferated, culminating in 2001 in the founding of one of
the movement’s key organs, the Journal of Bisexuality.

One of the first issues of the Journal of Bisexuality featured an
account of a Dutch man’s discovery of his own bisexuality. The
story is presented as a model for public acceptance of bisexuality,
the twist being that the narrative doubles as a political brief for
polyamory. Married with two children, Koen Brand declared his
bisexuality in 1999, at the height of the gay marriage debate in
the Netherlands. Brand then joined the Dutch National Network for
Bisexuality and took part in movement activities. Brand also met
another married bisexual man. While both men remained married, the
two wives agreed to allow their husbands to establish a public and
steady sexual relationship. Friends, family, and coworkers also
accepted the arrangement. So the two marriages were thus
effectively merged into a larger entity, with the men serving as
pivots in two overlapping polyamorous V’s.

One of the wives remains uncomfortable with this arrangement, while
Brand’s own wife is at least open to Brand’s wish to form a
threesome with his male partner. So the story ends with at least
the prospect of one marriage breaking up, while the second converts
to a polyamorous bisexual triad, as happened when Victor and Bianca
de Bruijn met Mirjam Geven and her then husband.

None of this is to gainsay the power of Brand’s narrative. On the
contrary, precisely because the personal challenges confronting
bisexuals are profound, the emerging bisexual call for polyamorous
marriage is going to take on formidable legal force. In a world
fully accepting of gay marriage, it will be difficult to withhold
equal standing from another organized sexual minority.

Brand explains the willingness of family, friends, and coworkers to
accept his openly polyamorous marriage by pointing to the
Netherlands’ social liberalism–to its legal soft drugs and its
famous tolerance for sexual minorities. After all, Brand’s
successful construction of a publicly polyamorous union came at
precisely the moment when same-sex marriage was formally legalized
in Holland. That is why the Journal of Bisexuality has put Brand’s
case forward as a model for other countries. And Brand makes it
clear that simple acceptance of a given individual’s bisexual
orientation, however heartfelt, is not enough. Just as it’s often
said that gays have not been truly accepted until same-sex marriage
is legal, Brand maintains that true acceptance for bisexuality
requires the social ratification of polyamory.

THE GERM OF AN ORGANIZED EFFORT to legalize polyamory in the United
States can be found in the Unitarian Church. Although few realize
it, the Unitarian Church, headquartered in Boston, played a
critical role in the legalization of same-sex marriage in
Massachusetts. Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, were married at the
headquarters of the Unitarian Universalists in a ceremony presided
over by the Reverend William G. Sinkford, president of the
Unitarian Universalist Association. Hillary Goodridge is program
director of the Unitarian Universalist Funding Program. And
Unitarian churches in Massachusetts played a key role in the
struggle over gay marriage, with sermons, activism, and eventually
with marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Choosing a strongly
church-affiliated couple like the Goodridges as lead plaintiffs was
an important part of the winning strategy in the Goodridge case.

It’s a matter of interest, therefore, that an organization to
promote public acceptance of polyamory has been formed in
association with the Unitarian Church. Unitarian Universalists for
Polyamory Awareness (UUPA) was established in the summer of 1999.
At the time, the news media in Boston carried reports from
neighboring Vermont, where the soon-to-be-famous civil unions case
was about to be decided. And the echo effect of the gay marriage
battle on the polyamory movement goes back even further. The first
informal Unitarian polyamory discussion group gathered in Hawaii in
1994, in the wake of the first state supreme court decision
favorable to same-sex marriage in the United States.

“Our vision,” says UUPA’s website, “is for Unitarian Universalism
to become the first poly-welcoming mainstream religious
denomination.” Those familiar with Unitarianism’s role in the
legalization of gay marriage understand the legal-political
strategy implicit in that statement. UUPA’s political goals are
spelled out by Harlan White, a physician and leading UUPA activist,
on the society’s website. Invoking the trial of April Divilbiss,
the first American polyamorist to confront the courts, White says,
“We are concerned that we may become the center of the next great
social justice firestorm in America.”

White maintains that American polyamorists are growing in number.
An exact count is impossible, since polyamory is still surrounded
by secrecy. Polyamorists depend on the Internet to connect. Even
so, says White, “attendance at conferences is up, email lists and
websites are proliferating, and poly support groups are growing in
number and size.” As for the Unitarian polyamorists, their email
list has several hundred subscribers, and the group has put on well-
attended workshops at Unitarian General Assemblies since 2002. And
although the number of open polyamorists is limited, some Unitarian
ministers already perform “joining ceremonies” for polyamorous
families.

White featured prominently in a 2003 Associated Press story on the
Unitarian polyamorists: “No one uttered a word when Harlan White
walked into church one day with two women, one on each arm. They
were, he says, accepted like any other family in his Unitarian
congregation.” But it was a second article on Unitarian polyamory,
in the April 20, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle, that rocked the
Unitarian Church. What made waves was the impression that the
church itself had formally embraced polyamory.

Shortly after the second article appeared, UUPA president Sinkford
circulated a statement among Unitarians acknowledging that press
interest in Unitarian polyamory had “generated a great deal of
anxiety” among the church’s leadership. “Many of us are concerned
that such press coverage might impair our ability to witness
effectively for our core justice commitments.” Sinkford appeared to
be expressing a concern that had been stated more baldly in the
original Chronicle article. According to the Chronicle, many of the
students and faculty at the Unitarians’ key west-coast seminary,
Starr King School for the Ministry, in Berkeley, see the polyamory
movement as a threat to the struggle for same-sex marriage.

In other words, Unitarians understand that moving too swiftly or
openly to legitimize polyamory could validate the slippery-slope
argument against same-sex marriage. So with news coverage
prematurely blowing the cover off the Unitarians’ long-term plan to
legalize polyamory, President Sinkford took steps to hold UUPA at
arm’s length. Sinkford issued a public “clarification” that
distanced the church from any formal endorsement of polyamory, yet
also left room for the UUPA to remain a “related organization.”

Meanwhile, Rebecca Ann Parker, president of the prestigious Starr
King school, issued a very different and much less public
clarification for Unitarians themselves. The Chronicle had quoted
Parker in a way that made her seem opposed to polyamory. To correct
this impression, Parker posted the following statement on a
Unitarian website: “For the record: I support Unitarians for
Polyamory Awareness and completely disagree with those who use
their belief that monogamous heterosexual marriage is ordained by
God as a basis for rejecting same-sex couples and polyamorous
relationships.”

But the clearest statement of strategic intent came from Valerie
White, a lawyer and executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal
Defense and Education Fund. A founder of UUPA along with her
brother, Harlan White, Valerie White let Bi Magazine know in 2003
that UUPA planned to keep its quest for recognition on temporary
hold: “It would put too much ammunition in the hands of the
opponents of gay marriage. . . . Our brothers and sisters in the
LGBT community are fighting a battle that they’re close to winning,
and we don’t want to do anything that would cause that fight to
take a step backwards.” In short, the Unitarians are holding the
polyamorists at arm’s length only until gay marriage has been
safely legalized across the nation. At that point, the Unitarian
campaign for state-recognized polyamorous marriage will almost
certainly begin.

The other fascinating angle in the San Francisco Chronicle’s
coverage of the Unitarian polyamorists was the prominence of
bisexuality. Most members of UUPA are either bisexual or
heterosexual. One polyamorist minister who had recently come out to
his congregation as a bisexual treated polyamory and bisexuality
synonymously. “Our denomination has been welcoming to gays and
lesbians and transgendered people,” he said. “Bisexuals have not
received the recognition they deserve.” In other words, anything
less than formal church recognition of polyamory is discrimination
against bisexuals.

TWO DEVELOPING LINES of legal argument may someday bring about
state recognition for polyamorous marriage: the argument from
polyamory, and the argument from bisexuality. In a 2004 law review
article, Elizabeth F. Emens, of the University of Chicago Law
School, offers the argument from polyamory (see “Monogamy’s Law:
Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence,” New York University
Review of Law & Social Change). Polyamory is more than the mere
practice of multiple sexual partnership, says Emens. Polyamory is
also a disposition, broadly analogous to the disposition toward
homosexuality. Insofar as laws of marriage, partnership, or housing
discriminate against polyamorous partnerships, maintains Emens,
they place unfair burdens on people with “poly” dispositions. Emens
takes her cue here from the polyamorists themselves, who talk about
their “poly” inclinations the way gays talk about homosexuality.
For example, polyamorists debate whether to keep their poly
dispositions “in the closet” or to “come out.”

Emens’s case for a poly disposition was inspired by the radical
lesbian thinker Adrienne Rich, who famously put forward a
“continuum model” of lesbianism. Rich argued that all women,
lesbian-identified or not, are in some sense lesbians. If women
could just discover where they fall on the “lesbian continuum,”
then even those women who remain heterosexually identified would
abandon any prejudice against homosexuality.

Following Rich, Emens argues that all of us have a bit of “poly”
inside. By discovering and accepting our own desires for multiple
sexual partners, then even those who remain monogamous would
abandon their prejudice against polyamorists. Of course some people
fall at the extreme ends of these continuums. Some folks are
intensely monogamous, for example. But by the same token, others
are intensely polyamorous. Whether for biological or cultural
reasons, says Emens, some folks simply cannot live happily without
multiple simultaneous sexual partners. And for those people, Emens
argues, our current system of marriage is every bit as unjust as it
is for homosexuals.

It may seem that a case like this could never get to court, yet in
a sense it already has. Emens offers an analysis of the 1999 case
of April Divilbiss, who was forced by a court in Tennessee to
choose between keeping custody of her child and continuing to live
with two “husbands.” Yet it’s clear that the case could have turned
out differently. The judge in the Divilbiss case ignored the
findings of four court appointed experts, each of whom found in
favor of the polyamorists. The judge also took a number of other
liberties he would have been unlikely to get away with in a more
closely watched and aggressively litigated case. So Emens’s brief
in defense of polyamory is likely to be tested and developed in
future court cases.

The second legal strategy available to the polyamorists is the
argument from bisexuality. No need here to validate anything as
novel-sounding as a “polyamorous disposition.” A case for polyamory
can easily be built on the more venerable orientation of
bisexuality. While no legal scholar has offered such a case, the
groundwork is being laid by Kenji Yoshino, a professor at Yale Law
School and deputy dean for intellectual life.

Yoshino’s 2000 Stanford Law Review article “The Epistemic Contract
of Bisexual Erasure” has a bewildering title but a fascinating
thesis. Yoshino argues that bisexuality is far more prevalent than
is usually recognized. The relative invisibility of bisexuality,
says Yoshino, can be attributed to the mutual interest of
heterosexuals and homosexuals in minimizing its significance. But
according to Yoshino, the bisexuality movement is on the rise, and
bound to become more visible, with potentially major consequences
for the law and politics of sexual orientation.

Defining bisexuality as a “more than incidental desire” for
partners of both sexes, Yoshino examines the best available
academic studies on sexual orientation and finds that each of them
estimates the number of bisexuals as equivalent to, or greater
than, the number of homosexuals. Up to now, the number of people
who actively think of themselves as bisexuals has been much smaller
than the number who’ve shown a “more than incidental” desire for
partners of both sexes. But that, argues Yoshino, is because both
heterosexuals and homosexuals have an interest in convincing
bisexuals that they’ve got to make an all-or-nothing choice between
heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Heterosexuals, for example, have an interest in preserving norms of
monogamy, and bisexuality “destabilizes” norms of monogamy.
Homosexuals, notes Yoshino, have an interest in defending the
notion of an immutable homosexual orientation, since that is often
the key to persuading a court that they have suffered
discrimination. And homosexuals, adds Yoshino, have an interest in
maximizing the number of people in their movement. For all these
reasons and more, Yoshino argues, the cultural space in which
bisexuals might embrace and acknowledge their own sexual identity
has been minimized. Yoshino goes on to highlight the considerable
evidence for the recent emergence of bisexuality as a movement, and
predicts that in our current cultural climate–and given the
numerical potential–bisexuality activism will continue to grow.

In addition to establishing the numerical and political
significance of bisexuality, Yoshino lays down an argument that
could easily be deployed to legalize polyamory: “To the extent that
bisexuals are not permitted to express their dual desires, they
might fairly characterize themselves as harmed.” Yet Yoshino does
not lay out a bisexual defense of polyamory. Instead Yoshino
attacks–rightly–the stereotype that treats all bisexuals as
nonmonogamous. Yet the same research that establishes the
monogamous preferences of many bisexuals also confirms that
bisexuals tend toward nonmonogamy at substantially higher rates
than homosexuals. (See Paula C. Rust, “Monogamy and Polyamory:
Relationship Issues for Bisexuals” in Firestein, ed., Bisexuality:
The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority.) That fact
could easily be turned by a bisexuality rights movement into an
argument for legalized polyamory.

Yoshino, by the way, is no fringe figure. In addition to being a
dean and professor at what is arguably the country’s most
prestigious law school, Yoshino and his pioneering, identity-based
approach to discrimination law were featured in a glowing profile
in the New York Times in 2001. An early statement of Yoshino’s
views on sexual identity was invoked at a critical point in Justice
Stevens’s dissent in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the case that
permitted the Boy Scouts to refuse openly gay scoutmasters. And
Yoshino’s treatment of bisexuality was recently invoked approvingly
by Harvard professor Laurence Tribe in an article on the Lawrence
v. Texas decision. So we are likely to see someone offer a bisexual-
based defense of polyamory, loosely inspired by the Yoshino
approach. That is especially so if Yoshino is right about prospects
for a growing bisexual rights movement.

of course, the visibility of the bisexual rights movement is still
limited. In fact, many bisexuals, or advocates for bisexuals, share
a radically post-modernist sensibility that deliberately avoids
identity-style politics. Yoshino himself is balanced between
identity politics and a postmodern inclination to destabilize and
transcend all sexual categories. Yet it is becoming increasingly
clear that the polyamorists themselves are the “missing” bisexual
liberation movement. Of course, not all polyamorists are bisexual.
Victor de Bruijn reminds us that he is “100 percent heterosexual.”
Yet Bianca and Mirjam are bisexual. And as in the De Bruijn
threesome, the “connecting” function of bisexuals seems to make a
great many polyamorous arrangements possible. Of all the sexual sub-
groups that participate in polyamory, bisexuals are first among
equals. In a certain sense, the movement is theirs.

In 2004, the Journal of Bisexuality published a special double
issue on polyamory, also released as the book Plural Loves: Designs
for Bi and Poly Living. It’s clear from Plural Loves that the
polyamory movement now serves as the de facto political arm of the
bisexual liberation struggle. As one contributor notes, “the large
number of bi people in the poly movement provides evidence that
bisexuality is one of the major driving forces behind polyamory. In
other words, polyamory was created and spread partly to satisfy the
need for bisexual relationship structures. . . . [T]he majority of
poly activists are also bisexual. . . . Poly activism is bi
activism. . . . The bi/poly dynamic has the potential to move both
communities towards a point of culture-wide visibility, which is a
necessary step on the road to acceptance.”

Clearly, visibility and acceptance are on the rise. This past
summer, the Baltimore Sun featured a long, friendly article on the
polyamorists’ national conference, held in Maryland. In September,
the New York Times ran a long personal account of (heterosexual)
polyamory in the Sunday Styles section. But the real uptick in
public bisexuality/ polyamory began with the October 2005 release
in New York of the documentary Three of Hearts: A Postmodern Family.

Three of Hearts is the story of the real-life 13-year relationship
of two men and a woman. Together for several years in a gay
relationship, two bisexual-leaning men meet a woman and create a
threesome that produces two children, one by each man. Although the
woman marries one of the men, the entire threesome has a commitment
ceremony. The movie records the trio’s eventual breakup, yet the
film’s website notes their ongoing commitment to the view that
“family is anything we want to create.”

Although Three of Hearts is in limited release in selected art
houses across the country, the film is slated for airing on BRAVO
in the spring of 2006. The movie’s New York premiere drew media
attention to polyamory. Even the conservative New York Post ran a
generally positive story on polyamory timed to coincide with the
movie’s opening. The flurry of publicity was noticed by London’s
Guardian, which reported in November that polyamory had reached a
new level of visibility and acceptance in New York.

Three of Hearts was also discussed in a long, sympathetic
investigative piece on polyamory in New York magazine. According to
New York, the growing popularity of polyamory among New York-area
straights is largely inspired by the increasing visibility of gay
relationships, with their more “fluid” notions of commitment. New
York also found that the most stable polyamorous groupings have as
their core element a straight man and a bisexual woman who sticks
to one man, rather like the De Bruijn trio.

Of course, many argue that true bisexuality does not exist. In this
view–held by a variety of people, from some psychiatrists to
certain pro-gay-marriage activists–everyone is either heterosexual
or homosexual. From this perspective, so-called bisexuals are
either in confused transition from heterosexuality to
homosexuality, or simply lying about their supposedly dual sexual
inclinations. Alternatively, it’s sometimes said that while female
bisexuality does exist, male bisexuality does not. A recent and
controversial study reported on by the New York Times in July 2005
claimed to show that truly bisexual attraction in men might not
exist.

Whatever view we take of these medical/psychiatric/ philosophical
controversies, it is a fact that a bi/poly rights movement exists
and is growing. Whether Koen Brand and Bianca and Mirjam de Bruijn
are “authentic” bisexuals or “just fooling themselves,” they are
clearly capable of sustaining polyamorous bisexual V’s and triads
for long enough to make serious political demands. Three of Hearts
raises questions about whether the two men in the triangle are
bisexual, or simply confused gays. But with two children, a 13-year
relationship, and at one time at least a clear desire for legal-
ceremonial confirmation, the Three of Hearts trio is a harbinger of
demands for legal group marriage. Public interest in the De Bruijn
triangle has already raised the visibility and acceptance of
polyamorous bisexuality in the Netherlands. For legal-political
purposes, acceptance is what matters. And given Yoshino’s numerical
analysis, the growth potential for self-identifying bisexuals is
substantial.

Americans today respond to gay and bisexual friends and family
members in a variety of ways. Despite stereotypical accusations of
“homophobia,” the traditionally religious generally offer a mixture
compassion and concern. Many other Americans, conservative and
liberal alike, are happy to extend friendship, understanding, and
acceptance to gay and bisexual relatives and acquaintances. This
heightened social tolerance is a good thing. Yet somehow the idea
has taken hold that tolerance for sexual minorities requires a
radical remake of the institution of marriage. That is a mistake.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and
fathers to stay bound as a family for the sake of their children.
Our liberalized modern marriage system is far from perfect, and
certainly doesn’t always succeed in keeping parents together while
their children are young. Yet often it does. Unfortunately, once we
radically redefine marriage in an effort to solve the problems of
adults, the institution is destined to be shattered by a cacophony
of grown-up demands.

The De Bruijn trio, Koen Brand, the Unitarian Universalists for
Polyamory Awareness, the legal arguments of Elizabeth Emens and
Kenji Yoshino, and the bisexual/ polyamory movement in general have
been launched into action by the successes of the campaign for gay
marriage. In a sense, though, these innovators have jumped too
soon. They’ve shown us today–well before same-sex marriage has
triumphed nationwide–what would emerge in its aftermath.

Liberals may now put behind-the-scenes pressure on the Dutch
government to keep the lid on legalized polyamory for as long as
the matter of gay marriage is still unsettled. The Unitarian
polyamorists, already conflicted about how much recognition to
demand while the gay marriage battle is unresolved, may be driven
further underground. But let there be no mistake about what will
happen should same-sex marriage be fully legalized in the United
States. At that point, if bisexual activists haven’t already
launched a serious campaign for legalized polyamory, they will go
public. It took four years after the full legalization of gay
marriage in the Netherlands for the first polyamory test case to
emerge. With a far larger and more organized polyamory movement in
America, it might not take even that long after the nationalization
of gay marriage in the United States.

It’s easy to imagine that, in a world where gay marriage was common
and fully accepted, a serious campaign to legalize polyamorous
unions would succeed–especially a campaign spearheaded by an
organized bisexual-rights movement. Yet win or lose, the culture of
marriage will be battered for years by the debate. Just as we’re
now continually reminded that not all married couples have
children, we’ll someday be endlessly told that not all marriages
are monogamous (nor all monogamists married). For a second time,
the fuzziness and imperfection found in every real-world social
institution will be contorted into a rationale for reforming
marriage out of existence. No flash in the pan, Victor, Bianca, and
Mirjam are destined to be heroes of “the next great social justice
firestorm in America.”

Stanley Kurtz is a fellow at the Hudson Institute.

LOAD-DATE: December 17, 2005

The Weekly Standard

December 26, 2005 Monday

SECTION: FEATURES Vol. 11 No. 15

LENGTH: 7066 words

HEADLINE: Here Come the Brides;
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.

BYLINE: Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard

BODY:

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-
year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a
notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And
they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and
Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked
Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met
several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the
notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation
contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and
departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was
married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-
husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in
with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while
Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca
had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for
years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100
percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’
bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands,
drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV
cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned
into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities,
the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The
local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted
entirely to the media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States
through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels
Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of
the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s”
from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay
marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire.
M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian
Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels
Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not
allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had
deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation
contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the
false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than
it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive
director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account
of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor
significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered
partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative
blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates
dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no
implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s
mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of
same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the
Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those
chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and
Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a
state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their
union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves
in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay
marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable
step down the road to legalized group marriage.

More important, the De Bruijn wedding reveals a heretofore hidden
dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns’ triple
marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is
emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result
in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a
right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are
surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group
marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to
the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for
multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.

AS AMERICAN GAY-MARRIAGE ADVOCATES were quick to point out, the
cohabitation contract that joined Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam
carries fewer legal implications and less status than either a
registered partnership or a marriage–and Dutch trios are still
barred from the latter two forms of union. Yet the use of a
cohabitation contract for a triple wedding is a step in the
direction of group marriage. The conservative and religious Dutch
paper Reformatorisch Dagblad reports that this was the first known
occurrence in the Netherlands of a cohabitation contract between a
married couple and their common girlfriend.

This is important because the Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage
was famously premised on a “small step” strategy, with each small
increment of recognition creating an impetus for further steps. As
Israeli legal scholar Yuval Merin tells it in his 2002 book
Equality for Same-Sex Couples, the popularity of cohabitation
contracts among Dutch gays in the 1980s helped create laws in the
early 1990s forbidding employer discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation–including discrimination between married and
unmarried couples in the granting of benefits.

So the use of cohabitation contracts was an important step along
the road to same-sex marriage in the Netherlands. And the link
between gay marriage and the De Bruijns’ triple contract was
immediately recognized by the Dutch. The story in Reformatorisch
Dagblad quoted J.W.A. van Dommelen, an attorney opposed to the De
Bruijn union, who warned that the path from same-sex cohabitation
contracts to same-sex marriage was about to be retraced in the
matter of group marriage.

Van Dommelen also noted that legal complications would flow from
the overlap between a two-party marriage and a three-party
cohabitation contract. The rights and obligations that exist in
Dutch marriages and Dutch cohabitation contracts are not identical,
and it’s unclear which arrangement would take precedence in case of
a conflict. “The structure is completely gone,” said Van Dommelen,
as he called on the Dutch minister of justice to set up a working
group to reconcile the conflicting claims of dual marriages and
multipartner cohabitation contracts. Of course, simply by
harmonizing the conflicting claims of dual marriages and triple
cohabitation contracts, that working group would be taking yet
another “small step” along the road to legal recognition for group
marriage in the Netherlands.

The slippery-slope implications of the triple cohabitation contract
were immediately evident to the SGP, a small religious party that
played a leading role in the failed battle to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage in the Netherlands. SGP member
of parliament Kees van der Staaij noted the substantial overlap
between marriage rights and the rights embodied in cohabitation
contracts. Calling the triple cohabitation contract a back-door
route to legalized polygamy, Van der Staaij sent a series of formal
queries to Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, asking him to
dissolve the De Bruijn contract and to bar more than two persons
from entering into cohabitation contracts in the future.

The justice minister’s answers to these queries represent yet
another small step–actually several small steps–toward legal and
cultural recognition for group marriage in the Netherlands. To
begin with, Donner reaffirmed the legality of multipartner
cohabitation contracts and pointedly refused to consider any
attempt to ban such contracts in the future. Donner also went so
far as to assert that contracts regulating multipartner
cohabitation can fulfill “a useful regulating function” (also
translatable as “a useful structuring role”). In other words,
Donner has articulated the rudiments of a “conservative case for
group marriage.”

The SGP responded angrily to Donner’s declarations. In the eyes of
this small religious party, Donner had effectively introduced a
form of legal group marriage to the Netherlands. A party spokesman
warned of an impending legal mess–especially if the De Bruijn
trio, or others like them, have children. The SGP plans to raise
its objections again when parliament considers the justice
department’s budget.

It’s not surprising that the first English language report was a
bit unclear as to the precise legal status and significance of the
triple Dutch union. The Dutch themselves are confused about it. One
of the articles from which Paul Belien drew his original report is
careful to distinguish between formal marriage and the cohabitation
contract actually signed by Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam. Yet the
very same article says that Victor now “officially” has “two wives.”

Even Dutch liberals acknowledge the implications of the De Bruijn
wedding. Jan Martens, a reporter and opinion columnist for
BN/DeStem, the local paper in Roosendaal, wrote an opinion piece
mocking opposition to group marriage by religious parties like the
SGP. Noting the substantial overlap between cohabitation contracts
and marriage, Martens said he agreed with the SGP that the De
Bruijn triple union amounts to a “short-cut to polygamy.” Yet
Martens emphasized that he “couldn’t care less if you have two,
three, four, or sixty-nine wives or husbands.”

Minority religious parties and their newspapers excepted, this
mixture of approval and indifference seems to be the mainstream
Dutch reaction so far. Not only has Justice Minister Donner
articulated the beginnings of a conservative case for group
marriage, but Green party spokesman Femke Halsema, a key backer of
gay marriage, has affirmed her party’s support for the recognition
of multipartner unions. The public has not been inclined to protest
these developments, and the De Bruijn trio have been welcomed by
their neighbors.

Dutch fascination with the De Bruijn story appears to have made an
impression on BN/DeStem. On November 19, less than two months after
the triple wedding, the paper ran a story headlined “Remembering
birthdays is a disaster,” about the family of a Belgian named Serge
Régnier. Belgium is Holland’s neighbor and close cultural cousin.
It became the second country to legalize gay marriage when it
adopted the practice in 2003, two years after the Netherlands. In
the Belgian town of Marcinelle, Serge Régnier lives with three
women, only one of whom he is legally married to, but all three of
whom he considers wives. The family has a total of 30 children (5
by one wife’s first husband), with another on the way.

Serge Régnier had been married to his wife Christine for four years
when Christine’s unmarried sister Karine moved in with the couple.
Karine wanted children, and after discussing the matter with her
sister and brother-in-law, it was agreed that Serge would father
children with Karine and live with the women as a threesome. Into
this ménage à trois came Judith, a childhood sweetheart of Serge.
Serge had told Christine when he married her that, if she were ever
available, Judith would have to be welcomed into their house. When
Judith divorced her first husband and showed up on the Régniers’
doorstep, all agreed to admit her. The result is one husband, three
wives, and 30 children, with several more children hoped for by the
wives. Serge is unemployed, and the entire family is supported by
government subsidies. The women say there is no jealousy among them
and they would even welcome a fourth wife if she was “nice.”

By early December, the Régnier story had been picked up by numerous
Dutch bloggers and the national press. So the De Bruijn union seems
to have opened up the Dutch public to the idea of multipartner
marriage. News reports on the Régniers are filled with humor and
fascination, with little concern for the potential legal
ramifications. It’s this cultural response that counts.

When it comes to marriage, culture shapes law. (It’s a two-way
street, of course. Law also influences culture.) After all, Dutch
same-sex marriage advocates still celebrate the foundational role
of symbolic gay marriage registries in the early 1990s. Although
these had absolutely no legal status, the publicity and sympathy
they generated are now widely recognized as keys to the success of
the Dutch campaign for legal same-sex unions and ultimately
marriage. How odd, then, that American gay-marriage advocates
should respond to the triple Dutch wedding with hair-splitting
legal discourses, while ignoring the Dutch media frenzy and
subsequent signs of cultural acceptance–for a union with far more
legal substance than Holland’s first symbolic gay marriages.
Despite the denials of gay-marriage advocates, in both legal and
cultural terms, Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam’s triple union is a
serious move toward legalized group marriage in the Netherlands.

GIVEN THE STIR IN HOLLAND, it’s remarkable that not a single
American mainstream media outlet carried a story on the triple
Dutch wedding. Of course the media were all over the Dutch gay
marriage story when they thought the experiment had been a success.
In late 2003 and early 2004, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s
Lawrence v. Texas decision, which ruled sodomy laws
unconstitutional, and looming gay marriage in Massachusetts,
several American papers carried reports from the Netherlands. The
common theme was that Holland had experienced no ill effects from
gay marriage, and that the issue was no longer contentious.

Unsurprisingly, the chief sources for these articles were
themselves prominent advocates of gay marriage, who dismissed any
notion that the reform might have had negative consequences. Had
reporters for the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor,
the Philadelphia Inquirer, or the Chicago Tribune cared to check
the Dutch demographic record, they might have discovered the
substantial increases in out-of-wedlock births and parental
cohabitation that emerged in the wake of the movement for same-sex
marriage (see “Going Dutch?” The Weekly Standard, May 31, 2004).

Still, although opposition to same-sex marriage from religious
parties like the SGP unquestionably remains, the American media are
correct to report that the majority of Dutch citizens have accepted
the innovation. The press has simply missed the meaning of that
public shift. Broad Dutch acceptance of same-sex marriage means
that marriage as an institution has been detached from parenthood
in the public mind. That is why the practice of parental
cohabitation has grown so quickly in the Netherlands. By the same
token, the shoulder shrug that followed the triple wedding story
shows that legalized group marriage in the Netherlands is now a
real possibility. If the calm Dutch response to same-sex marriage
is news, it’s tough to see why the Dutch public’s fascinated
acceptance of a triple union isn’t also news. But, of course, the
mainstream American press understands that the triple Dutch wedding
cannot be spun in a way that helps the cause of same-sex marriage
with the American public. Thus the silence.

ALTHOUGH THE TRIPLE Dutch union has been loosely styled “polygamy,”
it’s actually a sterling example of polyamory. Polyamorists
practice “responsible nonmonogamy”–open, loving, and stable
relationships among more than two people (see “Beyond Gay Marriage:
The Road to Polyamory,” The Weekly Standard, August 4 / August 11,
2003). Polygamous marriages among fundamentalist Mormons or Muslims
don’t depend on a blending of heterosexuality and bisexuality. Yet
that combination perfectly embodies the spirit of polyamory. And
polyamorists don’t limit themselves to unions of one man and
several women. One woman and two men, full-fledged group marriage,
a stable couple openly engaging in additional shifting or stable
relationships–indeed, almost any combination of partner-number and
sexual orientation is possible in a polyamorous sexual grouping.

Polyamorists would call the De Bruijn union a “triad.” In a
polyamorous triad, all three partners are sexually connected. This
contrasts with a three-person “V,” in which only one of the
partners (called the “hinge” or “pivot”) has a sexual relationship
with the other two. So the bisexuality of Bianca and Mirjam
classifies the De Bruijn union as a polyamorous bisexual triad. In
another sense, the De Bruijn marriage is also a gay marriage. The
Bianca-Mirjam component of the union is gay, and legalized gay
marriage in Holland has clearly helped make the idea of a legally
recognized bisexual triad thinkable.

More broadly, the worldwide campaign for gay marriage seems to have
stirred up an active bisexual movement in its wake. Bisexuals have
traditionally been one of the least visible components of the GLBT
(gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) alliance. After a flurry of
publicity in the 1970s, at the height of the sexual revolution,
bisexuality faded from public view. Yet the 1990s brought new
attention, with articles in Time and Newsweek touting the emergence
of bisexuality as a distinctive and politically tinged identity
(and linking bisexuality to nonmonogamous marriage). In recent
years, websites, books, and academic studies devoted to bisexuality
have proliferated, culminating in 2001 in the founding of one of
the movement’s key organs, the Journal of Bisexuality.

One of the first issues of the Journal of Bisexuality featured an
account of a Dutch man’s discovery of his own bisexuality. The
story is presented as a model for public acceptance of bisexuality,
the twist being that the narrative doubles as a political brief for
polyamory. Married with two children, Koen Brand declared his
bisexuality in 1999, at the height of the gay marriage debate in
the Netherlands. Brand then joined the Dutch National Network for
Bisexuality and took part in movement activities. Brand also met
another married bisexual man. While both men remained married, the
two wives agreed to allow their husbands to establish a public and
steady sexual relationship. Friends, family, and coworkers also
accepted the arrangement. So the two marriages were thus
effectively merged into a larger entity, with the men serving as
pivots in two overlapping polyamorous V’s.

One of the wives remains uncomfortable with this arrangement, while
Brand’s own wife is at least open to Brand’s wish to form a
threesome with his male partner. So the story ends with at least
the prospect of one marriage breaking up, while the second converts
to a polyamorous bisexual triad, as happened when Victor and Bianca
de Bruijn met Mirjam Geven and her then husband.

None of this is to gainsay the power of Brand’s narrative. On the
contrary, precisely because the personal challenges confronting
bisexuals are profound, the emerging bisexual call for polyamorous
marriage is going to take on formidable legal force. In a world
fully accepting of gay marriage, it will be difficult to withhold
equal standing from another organized sexual minority.

Brand explains the willingness of family, friends, and coworkers to
accept his openly polyamorous marriage by pointing to the
Netherlands’ social liberalism–to its legal soft drugs and its
famous tolerance for sexual minorities. After all, Brand’s
successful construction of a publicly polyamorous union came at
precisely the moment when same-sex marriage was formally legalized
in Holland. That is why the Journal of Bisexuality has put Brand’s
case forward as a model for other countries. And Brand makes it
clear that simple acceptance of a given individual’s bisexual
orientation, however heartfelt, is not enough. Just as it’s often
said that gays have not been truly accepted until same-sex marriage
is legal, Brand maintains that true acceptance for bisexuality
requires the social ratification of polyamory.

THE GERM OF AN ORGANIZED EFFORT to legalize polyamory in the United
States can be found in the Unitarian Church. Although few realize
it, the Unitarian Church, headquartered in Boston, played a
critical role in the legalization of same-sex marriage in
Massachusetts. Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, were married at the
headquarters of the Unitarian Universalists in a ceremony presided
over by the Reverend William G. Sinkford, president of the
Unitarian Universalist Association. Hillary Goodridge is program
director of the Unitarian Universalist Funding Program. And
Unitarian churches in Massachusetts played a key role in the
struggle over gay marriage, with sermons, activism, and eventually
with marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Choosing a strongly
church-affiliated couple like the Goodridges as lead plaintiffs was
an important part of the winning strategy in the Goodridge case.

It’s a matter of interest, therefore, that an organization to
promote public acceptance of polyamory has been formed in
association with the Unitarian Church. Unitarian Universalists for
Polyamory Awareness (UUPA) was established in the summer of 1999.
At the time, the news media in Boston carried reports from
neighboring Vermont, where the soon-to-be-famous civil unions case
was about to be decided. And the echo effect of the gay marriage
battle on the polyamory movement goes back even further. The first
informal Unitarian polyamory discussion group gathered in Hawaii in
1994, in the wake of the first state supreme court decision
favorable to same-sex marriage in the United States.

“Our vision,” says UUPA’s website, “is for Unitarian Universalism
to become the first poly-welcoming mainstream religious
denomination.” Those familiar with Unitarianism’s role in the
legalization of gay marriage understand the legal-political
strategy implicit in that statement. UUPA’s political goals are
spelled out by Harlan White, a physician and leading UUPA activist,
on the society’s website. Invoking the trial of April Divilbiss,
the first American polyamorist to confront the courts, White says,
“We are concerned that we may become the center of the next great
social justice firestorm in America.”

White maintains that American polyamorists are growing in number.
An exact count is impossible, since polyamory is still surrounded
by secrecy. Polyamorists depend on the Internet to connect. Even
so, says White, “attendance at conferences is up, email lists and
websites are proliferating, and poly support groups are growing in
number and size.” As for the Unitarian polyamorists, their email
list has several hundred subscribers, and the group has put on well-
attended workshops at Unitarian General Assemblies since 2002. And
although the number of open polyamorists is limited, some Unitarian
ministers already perform “joining ceremonies” for polyamorous
families.

White featured prominently in a 2003 Associated Press story on the
Unitarian polyamorists: “No one uttered a word when Harlan White
walked into church one day with two women, one on each arm. They
were, he says, accepted like any other family in his Unitarian
congregation.” But it was a second article on Unitarian polyamory,
in the April 20, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle, that rocked the
Unitarian Church. What made waves was the impression that the
church itself had formally embraced polyamory.

Shortly after the second article appeared, UUPA president Sinkford
circulated a statement among Unitarians acknowledging that press
interest in Unitarian polyamory had “generated a great deal of
anxiety” among the church’s leadership. “Many of us are concerned
that such press coverage might impair our ability to witness
effectively for our core justice commitments.” Sinkford appeared to
be expressing a concern that had been stated more baldly in the
original Chronicle article. According to the Chronicle, many of the
students and faculty at the Unitarians’ key west-coast seminary,
Starr King School for the Ministry, in Berkeley, see the polyamory
movement as a threat to the struggle for same-sex marriage.

In other words, Unitarians understand that moving too swiftly or
openly to legitimize polyamory could validate the slippery-slope
argument against same-sex marriage. So with news coverage
prematurely blowing the cover off the Unitarians’ long-term plan to
legalize polyamory, President Sinkford took steps to hold UUPA at
arm’s length. Sinkford issued a public “clarification” that
distanced the church from any formal endorsement of polyamory, yet
also left room for the UUPA to remain a “related organization.”

Meanwhile, Rebecca Ann Parker, president of the prestigious Starr
King school, issued a very different and much less public
clarification for Unitarians themselves. The Chronicle had quoted
Parker in a way that made her seem opposed to polyamory. To correct
this impression, Parker posted the following statement on a
Unitarian website: “For the record: I support Unitarians for
Polyamory Awareness and completely disagree with those who use
their belief that monogamous heterosexual marriage is ordained by
God as a basis for rejecting same-sex couples and polyamorous
relationships.”

But the clearest statement of strategic intent came from Valerie
White, a lawyer and executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal
Defense and Education Fund. A founder of UUPA along with her
brother, Harlan White, Valerie White let Bi Magazine know in 2003
that UUPA planned to keep its quest for recognition on temporary
hold: “It would put too much ammunition in the hands of the
opponents of gay marriage. . . . Our brothers and sisters in the
LGBT community are fighting a battle that they’re close to winning,
and we don’t want to do anything that would cause that fight to
take a step backwards.” In short, the Unitarians are holding the
polyamorists at arm’s length only until gay marriage has been
safely legalized across the nation. At that point, the Unitarian
campaign for state-recognized polyamorous marriage will almost
certainly begin.

The other fascinating angle in the San Francisco Chronicle’s
coverage of the Unitarian polyamorists was the prominence of
bisexuality. Most members of UUPA are either bisexual or
heterosexual. One polyamorist minister who had recently come out to
his congregation as a bisexual treated polyamory and bisexuality
synonymously. “Our denomination has been welcoming to gays and
lesbians and transgendered people,” he said. “Bisexuals have not
received the recognition they deserve.” In other words, anything
less than formal church recognition of polyamory is discrimination
against bisexuals.

TWO DEVELOPING LINES of legal argument may someday bring about
state recognition for polyamorous marriage: the argument from
polyamory, and the argument from bisexuality. In a 2004 law review
article, Elizabeth F. Emens, of the University of Chicago Law
School, offers the argument from polyamory (see “Monogamy’s Law:
Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence,” New York University
Review of Law & Social Change). Polyamory is more than the mere
practice of multiple sexual partnership, says Emens. Polyamory is
also a disposition, broadly analogous to the disposition toward
homosexuality. Insofar as laws of marriage, partnership, or housing
discriminate against polyamorous partnerships, maintains Emens,
they place unfair burdens on people with “poly” dispositions. Emens
takes her cue here from the polyamorists themselves, who talk about
their “poly” inclinations the way gays talk about homosexuality.
For example, polyamorists debate whether to keep their poly
dispositions “in the closet” or to “come out.”

Emens’s case for a poly disposition was inspired by the radical
lesbian thinker Adrienne Rich, who famously put forward a
“continuum model” of lesbianism. Rich argued that all women,
lesbian-identified or not, are in some sense lesbians. If women
could just discover where they fall on the “lesbian continuum,”
then even those women who remain heterosexually identified would
abandon any prejudice against homosexuality.

Following Rich, Emens argues that all of us have a bit of “poly”
inside. By discovering and accepting our own desires for multiple
sexual partners, then even those who remain monogamous would
abandon their prejudice against polyamorists. Of course some people
fall at the extreme ends of these continuums. Some folks are
intensely monogamous, for example. But by the same token, others
are intensely polyamorous. Whether for biological or cultural
reasons, says Emens, some folks simply cannot live happily without
multiple simultaneous sexual partners. And for those people, Emens
argues, our current system of marriage is every bit as unjust as it
is for homosexuals.

It may seem that a case like this could never get to court, yet in
a sense it already has. Emens offers an analysis of the 1999 case
of April Divilbiss, who was forced by a court in Tennessee to
choose between keeping custody of her child and continuing to live
with two “husbands.” Yet it’s clear that the case could have turned
out differently. The judge in the Divilbiss case ignored the
findings of four court appointed experts, each of whom found in
favor of the polyamorists. The judge also took a number of other
liberties he would have been unlikely to get away with in a more
closely watched and aggressively litigated case. So Emens’s brief
in defense of polyamory is likely to be tested and developed in
future court cases.

The second legal strategy available to the polyamorists is the
argument from bisexuality. No need here to validate anything as
novel-sounding as a “polyamorous disposition.” A case for polyamory
can easily be built on the more venerable orientation of
bisexuality. While no legal scholar has offered such a case, the
groundwork is being laid by Kenji Yoshino, a professor at Yale Law
School and deputy dean for intellectual life.

Yoshino’s 2000 Stanford Law Review article “The Epistemic Contract
of Bisexual Erasure” has a bewildering title but a fascinating
thesis. Yoshino argues that bisexuality is far more prevalent than
is usually recognized. The relative invisibility of bisexuality,
says Yoshino, can be attributed to the mutual interest of
heterosexuals and homosexuals in minimizing its significance. But
according to Yoshino, the bisexuality movement is on the rise, and
bound to become more visible, with potentially major consequences
for the law and politics of sexual orientation.

Defining bisexuality as a “more than incidental desire” for
partners of both sexes, Yoshino examines the best available
academic studies on sexual orientation and finds that each of them
estimates the number of bisexuals as equivalent to, or greater
than, the number of homosexuals. Up to now, the number of people
who actively think of themselves as bisexuals has been much smaller
than the number who’ve shown a “more than incidental” desire for
partners of both sexes. But that, argues Yoshino, is because both
heterosexuals and homosexuals have an interest in convincing
bisexuals that they’ve got to make an all-or-nothing choice between
heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Heterosexuals, for example, have an interest in preserving norms of
monogamy, and bisexuality “destabilizes” norms of monogamy.
Homosexuals, notes Yoshino, have an interest in defending the
notion of an immutable homosexual orientation, since that is often
the key to persuading a court that they have suffered
discrimination. And homosexuals, adds Yoshino, have an interest in
maximizing the number of people in their movement. For all these
reasons and more, Yoshino argues, the cultural space in which
bisexuals might embrace and acknowledge their own sexual identity
has been minimized. Yoshino goes on to highlight the considerable
evidence for the recent emergence of bisexuality as a movement, and
predicts that in our current cultural climate–and given the
numerical potential–bisexuality activism will continue to grow.

In addition to establishing the numerical and political
significance of bisexuality, Yoshino lays down an argument that
could easily be deployed to legalize polyamory: “To the extent that
bisexuals are not permitted to express their dual desires, they
might fairly characterize themselves as harmed.” Yet Yoshino does
not lay out a bisexual defense of polyamory. Instead Yoshino
attacks–rightly–the stereotype that treats all bisexuals as
nonmonogamous. Yet the same research that establishes the
monogamous preferences of many bisexuals also confirms that
bisexuals tend toward nonmonogamy at substantially higher rates
than homosexuals. (See Paula C. Rust, “Monogamy and Polyamory:
Relationship Issues for Bisexuals” in Firestein, ed., Bisexuality:
The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority.) That fact
could easily be turned by a bisexuality rights movement into an
argument for legalized polyamory.

Yoshino, by the way, is no fringe figure. In addition to being a
dean and professor at what is arguably the country’s most
prestigious law school, Yoshino and his pioneering, identity-based
approach to discrimination law were featured in a glowing profile
in the New York Times in 2001. An early statement of Yoshino’s
views on sexual identity was invoked at a critical point in Justice
Stevens’s dissent in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the case that
permitted the Boy Scouts to refuse openly gay scoutmasters. And
Yoshino’s treatment of bisexuality was recently invoked approvingly
by Harvard professor Laurence Tribe in an article on the Lawrence
v. Texas decision. So we are likely to see someone offer a bisexual-
based defense of polyamory, loosely inspired by the Yoshino
approach. That is especially so if Yoshino is right about prospects
for a growing bisexual rights movement.

of course, the visibility of the bisexual rights movement is still
limited. In fact, many bisexuals, or advocates for bisexuals, share
a radically post-modernist sensibility that deliberately avoids
identity-style politics. Yoshino himself is balanced between
identity politics and a postmodern inclination to destabilize and
transcend all sexual categories. Yet it is becoming increasingly
clear that the polyamorists themselves are the “missing” bisexual
liberation movement. Of course, not all polyamorists are bisexual.
Victor de Bruijn reminds us that he is “100 percent heterosexual.”
Yet Bianca and Mirjam are bisexual. And as in the De Bruijn
threesome, the “connecting” function of bisexuals seems to make a
great many polyamorous arrangements possible. Of all the sexual sub-
groups that participate in polyamory, bisexuals are first among
equals. In a certain sense, the movement is theirs.

In 2004, the Journal of Bisexuality published a special double
issue on polyamory, also released as the book Plural Loves: Designs
for Bi and Poly Living. It’s clear from Plural Loves that the
polyamory movement now serves as the de facto political arm of the
bisexual liberation struggle. As one contributor notes, “the large
number of bi people in the poly movement provides evidence that
bisexuality is one of the major driving forces behind polyamory. In
other words, polyamory was created and spread partly to satisfy the
need for bisexual relationship structures. . . . [T]he majority of
poly activists are also bisexual. . . . Poly activism is bi
activism. . . . The bi/poly dynamic has the potential to move both
communities towards a point of culture-wide visibility, which is a
necessary step on the road to acceptance.”

Clearly, visibility and acceptance are on the rise. This past
summer, the Baltimore Sun featured a long, friendly article on the
polyamorists’ national conference, held in Maryland. In September,
the New York Times ran a long personal account of (heterosexual)
polyamory in the Sunday Styles section. But the real uptick in
public bisexuality/ polyamory began with the October 2005 release
in New York of the documentary Three of Hearts: A Postmodern Family.

Three of Hearts is the story of the real-life 13-year relationship
of two men and a woman. Together for several years in a gay
relationship, two bisexual-leaning men meet a woman and create a
threesome that produces two children, one by each man. Although the
woman marries one of the men, the entire threesome has a commitment
ceremony. The movie records the trio’s eventual breakup, yet the
film’s website notes their ongoing commitment to the view that
“family is anything we want to create.”

Although Three of Hearts is in limited release in selected art
houses across the country, the film is slated for airing on BRAVO
in the spring of 2006. The movie’s New York premiere drew media
attention to polyamory. Even the conservative New York Post ran a
generally positive story on polyamory timed to coincide with the
movie’s opening. The flurry of publicity was noticed by London’s
Guardian, which reported in November that polyamory had reached a
new level of visibility and acceptance in New York.

Three of Hearts was also discussed in a long, sympathetic
investigative piece on polyamory in New York magazine. According to
New York, the growing popularity of polyamory among New York-area
straights is largely inspired by the increasing visibility of gay
relationships, with their more “fluid” notions of commitment. New
York also found that the most stable polyamorous groupings have as
their core element a straight man and a bisexual woman who sticks
to one man, rather like the De Bruijn trio.

Of course, many argue that true bisexuality does not exist. In this
view–held by a variety of people, from some psychiatrists to
certain pro-gay-marriage activists–everyone is either heterosexual
or homosexual. From this perspective, so-called bisexuals are
either in confused transition from heterosexuality to
homosexuality, or simply lying about their supposedly dual sexual
inclinations. Alternatively, it’s sometimes said that while female
bisexuality does exist, male bisexuality does not. A recent and
controversial study reported on by the New York Times in July 2005
claimed to show that truly bisexual attraction in men might not
exist.

Whatever view we take of these medical/psychiatric/ philosophical
controversies, it is a fact that a bi/poly rights movement exists
and is growing. Whether Koen Brand and Bianca and Mirjam de Bruijn
are “authentic” bisexuals or “just fooling themselves,” they are
clearly capable of sustaining polyamorous bisexual V’s and triads
for long enough to make serious political demands. Three of Hearts
raises questions about whether the two men in the triangle are
bisexual, or simply confused gays. But with two children, a 13-year
relationship, and at one time at least a clear desire for legal-
ceremonial confirmation, the Three of Hearts trio is a harbinger of
demands for legal group marriage. Public interest in the De Bruijn
triangle has already raised the visibility and acceptance of
polyamorous bisexuality in the Netherlands. For legal-political
purposes, acceptance is what matters. And given Yoshino’s numerical
analysis, the growth potential for self-identifying bisexuals is
substantial.

Americans today respond to gay and bisexual friends and family
members in a variety of ways. Despite stereotypical accusations of
“homophobia,” the traditionally religious generally offer a mixture
compassion and concern. Many other Americans, conservative and
liberal alike, are happy to extend friendship, understanding, and
acceptance to gay and bisexual relatives and acquaintances. This
heightened social tolerance is a good thing. Yet somehow the idea
has taken hold that tolerance for sexual minorities requires a
radical remake of the institution of marriage. That is a mistake.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and
fathers to stay bound as a family for the sake of their children.
Our liberalized modern marriage system is far from perfect, and
certainly doesn’t always succeed in keeping parents together while
their children are young. Yet often it does. Unfortunately, once we
radically redefine marriage in an effort to solve the problems of
adults, the institution is destined to be shattered by a cacophony
of grown-up demands.

The De Bruijn trio, Koen Brand, the Unitarian Universalists for
Polyamory Awareness, the legal arguments of Elizabeth Emens and
Kenji Yoshino, and the bisexual/ polyamory movement in general have
been launched into action by the successes of the campaign for gay
marriage. In a sense, though, these innovators have jumped too
soon. They’ve shown us today–well before same-sex marriage has
triumphed nationwide–what would emerge in its aftermath.

Liberals may now put behind-the-scenes pressure on the Dutch
government to keep the lid on legalized polyamory for as long as
the matter of gay marriage is still unsettled. The Unitarian
polyamorists, already conflicted about how much recognition to
demand while the gay marriage battle is unresolved, may be driven
further underground. But let there be no mistake about what will
happen should same-sex marriage be fully legalized in the United
States. At that point, if bisexual activists haven’t already
launched a serious campaign for legalized polyamory, they will go
public. It took four years after the full legalization of gay
marriage in the Netherlands for the first polyamory test case to
emerge. With a far larger and more organized polyamory movement in
America, it might not take even that long after the nationalization
of gay marriage in the United States.

It’s easy to imagine that, in a world where gay marriage was common
and fully accepted, a serious campaign to legalize polyamorous
unions would succeed–especially a campaign spearheaded by an
organized bisexual-rights movement. Yet win or lose, the culture of
marriage will be battered for years by the debate. Just as we’re
now continually reminded that not all married couples have
children, we’ll someday be endlessly told that not all marriages
are monogamous (nor all monogamists married). For a second time,
the fuzziness and imperfection found in every real-world social
institution will be contorted into a rationale for reforming
marriage out of existence. No flash in the pan, Victor, Bianca, and
Mirjam are destined to be heroes of “the next great social justice
firestorm in America.”

Stanley Kurtz is a fellow at the Hudson Institute.

LOAD-DATE: December 17, 2005

The Weekly Standard

December 26, 2005 Monday

SECTION: FEATURES Vol. 11 No. 15

LENGTH: 7066 words

HEADLINE: Here Come the Brides;
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.

BYLINE: Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard

BODY:

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-
year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a
notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And
they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and
Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked
Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met
several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the
notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation
contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and
departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was
married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-
husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in
with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while
Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca
had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for
years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100
percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’
bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands,
drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV
cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned
into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities,
the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The
local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted
entirely to the media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States
through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels
Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of
the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s”
from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay
marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire.
M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian
Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels
Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not
allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had
deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation
contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the
false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than
it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive
director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account
of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor
significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered
partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative
blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates
dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no
implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s
mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of
same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the
Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those
chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and
Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a
state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their
union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves
in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay
marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable
step down the road to legalized group marriage.

More important, the De Bruijn wedding reveals a heretofore hidden
dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns’ triple
marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is
emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result
in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a
right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are
surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group
marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to
the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for
multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.

AS AMERICAN GAY-MARRIAGE ADVOCATES were quick to point out, the
cohabitation contract that joined Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam
carries fewer legal implications and less status than either a
registered partnership or a marriage–and Dutch trios are still
barred from the latter two forms of union. Yet the use of a
cohabitation contract for a triple wedding is a step in the
direction of group marriage. The conservative and religious Dutch
paper Reformatorisch Dagblad reports that this was the first known
occurrence in the Netherlands of a cohabitation contract between a
married couple and their common girlfriend.

This is important because the Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage
was famously premised on a “small step” strategy, with each small
increment of recognition creating an impetus for further steps. As
Israeli legal scholar Yuval Merin tells it in his 2002 book
Equality for Same-Sex Couples, the popularity of cohabitation
contracts among Dutch gays in the 1980s helped create laws in the
early 1990s forbidding employer discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation–including discrimination between married and
unmarried couples in the granting of benefits.

So the use of cohabitation contracts was an important step along
the road to same-sex marriage in the Netherlands. And the link
between gay marriage and the De Bruijns’ triple contract was
immediately recognized by the Dutch. The story in Reformatorisch
Dagblad quoted J.W.A. van Dommelen, an attorney opposed to the De
Bruijn union, who warned that the path from same-sex cohabitation
contracts to same-sex marriage was about to be retraced in the
matter of group marriage.

Van Dommelen also noted that legal complications would flow from
the overlap between a two-party marriage and a three-party
cohabitation contract. The rights and obligations that exist in
Dutch marriages and Dutch cohabitation contracts are not identical,
and it’s unclear which arrangement would take precedence in case of
a conflict. “The structure is completely gone,” said Van Dommelen,
as he called on the Dutch minister of justice to set up a working
group to reconcile the conflicting claims of dual marriages and
multipartner cohabitation contracts. Of course, simply by
harmonizing the conflicting claims of dual marriages and triple
cohabitation contracts, that working group would be taking yet
another “small step” along the road to legal recognition for group
marriage in the Netherlands.

The slippery-slope implications of the triple cohabitation contract
were immediately evident to the SGP, a small religious party that
played a leading role in the failed battle to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage in the Netherlands. SGP member
of parliament Kees van der Staaij noted the substantial overlap
between marriage rights and the rights embodied in cohabitation
contracts. Calling the triple cohabitation contract a back-door
route to legalized polygamy, Van der Staaij sent a series of formal
queries to Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, asking him to
dissolve the De Bruijn contract and to bar more than two persons
from entering into cohabitation contracts in the future.

The justice minister’s answers to these queries represent yet
another small step–actually several small steps–toward legal and
cultural recognition for group marriage in the Netherlands. To
begin with, Donner reaffirmed the legality of multipartner
cohabitation contracts and pointedly refused to consider any
attempt to ban such contracts in the future. Donner also went so
far as to assert that contracts regulating multipartner
cohabitation can fulfill “a useful regulating function” (also
translatable as “a useful structuring role”). In other words,
Donner has articulated the rudiments of a “conservative case for
group marriage.”

The SGP responded angrily to Donner’s declarations. In the eyes of
this small religious party, Donner had effectively introduced a
form of legal group marriage to the Netherlands. A party spokesman
warned of an impending legal mess–especially if the De Bruijn
trio, or others like them, have children. The SGP plans to raise
its objections again when parliament considers the justice
department’s budget.

It’s not surprising that the first English language report was a
bit unclear as to the precise legal status and significance of the
triple Dutch union. The Dutch themselves are confused about it. One
of the articles from which Paul Belien drew his original report is
careful to distinguish between formal marriage and the cohabitation
contract actually signed by Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam. Yet the
very same article says that Victor now “officially” has “two wives.”

Even Dutch liberals acknowledge the implications of the De Bruijn
wedding. Jan Martens, a reporter and opinion columnist for
BN/DeStem, the local paper in Roosendaal, wrote an opinion piece
mocking opposition to group marriage by religious parties like the
SGP. Noting the substantial overlap between cohabitation contracts
and marriage, Martens said he agreed with the SGP that the De
Bruijn triple union amounts to a “short-cut to polygamy.” Yet
Martens emphasized that he “couldn’t care less if you have two,
three, four, or sixty-nine wives or husbands.”

Minority religious parties and their newspapers excepted, this
mixture of approval and indifference seems to be the mainstream
Dutch reaction so far. Not only has Justice Minister Donner
articulated the beginnings of a conservative case for group
marriage, but Green party spokesman Femke Halsema, a key backer of
gay marriage, has affirmed her party’s support for the recognition
of multipartner unions. The public has not been inclined to protest
these developments, and the De Bruijn trio have been welcomed by
their neighbors.

Dutch fascination with the De Bruijn story appears to have made an
impression on BN/DeStem. On November 19, less than two months after
the triple wedding, the paper ran a story headlined “Remembering
birthdays is a disaster,” about the family of a Belgian named Serge
Régnier. Belgium is Holland’s neighbor and close cultural cousin.
It became the second country to legalize gay marriage when it
adopted the practice in 2003, two years after the Netherlands. In
the Belgian town of Marcinelle, Serge Régnier lives with three
women, only one of whom he is legally married to, but all three of
whom he considers wives. The family has a total of 30 children (5
by one wife’s first husband), with another on the way.

Serge Régnier had been married to his wife Christine for four years
when Christine’s unmarried sister Karine moved in with the couple.
Karine wanted children, and after discussing the matter with her
sister and brother-in-law, it was agreed that Serge would father
children with Karine and live with the women as a threesome. Into
this ménage à trois came Judith, a childhood sweetheart of Serge.
Serge had told Christine when he married her that, if she were ever
available, Judith would have to be welcomed into their house. When
Judith divorced her first husband and showed up on the Régniers’
doorstep, all agreed to admit her. The result is one husband, three
wives, and 30 children, with several more children hoped for by the
wives. Serge is unemployed, and the entire family is supported by
government subsidies. The women say there is no jealousy among them
and they would even welcome a fourth wife if she was “nice.”

By early December, the Régnier story had been picked up by numerous
Dutch bloggers and the national press. So the De Bruijn union seems
to have opened up the Dutch public to the idea of multipartner
marriage. News reports on the Régniers are filled with humor and
fascination, with little concern for the potential legal
ramifications. It’s this cultural response that counts.

When it comes to marriage, culture shapes law. (It’s a two-way
street, of course. Law also influences culture.) After all, Dutch
same-sex marriage advocates still celebrate the foundational role
of symbolic gay marriage registries in the early 1990s. Although
these had absolutely no legal status, the publicity and sympathy
they generated are now widely recognized as keys to the success of
the Dutch campaign for legal same-sex unions and ultimately
marriage. How odd, then, that American gay-marriage advocates
should respond to the triple Dutch wedding with hair-splitting
legal discourses, while ignoring the Dutch media frenzy and
subsequent signs of cultural acceptance–for a union with far more
legal substance than Holland’s first symbolic gay marriages.
Despite the denials of gay-marriage advocates, in both legal and
cultural terms, Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam’s triple union is a
serious move toward legalized group marriage in the Netherlands.

GIVEN THE STIR IN HOLLAND, it’s remarkable that not a single
American mainstream media outlet carried a story on the triple
Dutch wedding. Of course the media were all over the Dutch gay
marriage story when they thought the experiment had been a success.
In late 2003 and early 2004, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s
Lawrence v. Texas decision, which ruled sodomy laws
unconstitutional, and looming gay marriage in Massachusetts,
several American papers carried reports from the Netherlands. The
common theme was that Holland had experienced no ill effects from
gay marriage, and that the issue was no longer contentious.

Unsurprisingly, the chief sources for these articles were
themselves prominent advocates of gay marriage, who dismissed any
notion that the reform might have had negative consequences. Had
reporters for the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor,
the Philadelphia Inquirer, or the Chicago Tribune cared to check
the Dutch demographic record, they might have discovered the
substantial increases in out-of-wedlock births and parental
cohabitation that emerged in the wake of the movement for same-sex
marriage (see “Going Dutch?” The Weekly Standard, May 31, 2004).

Still, although opposition to same-sex marriage from religious
parties like the SGP unquestionably remains, the American media are
correct to report that the majority of Dutch citizens have accepted
the innovation. The press has simply missed the meaning of that
public shift. Broad Dutch acceptance of same-sex marriage means
that marriage as an institution has been detached from parenthood
in the public mind. That is why the practice of parental
cohabitation has grown so quickly in the Netherlands. By the same
token, the shoulder shrug that followed the triple wedding story
shows that legalized group marriage in the Netherlands is now a
real possibility. If the calm Dutch response to same-sex marriage
is news, it’s tough to see why the Dutch public’s fascinated
acceptance of a triple union isn’t also news. But, of course, the
mainstream American press understands that the triple Dutch wedding
cannot be spun in a way that helps the cause of same-sex marriage
with the American public. Thus the silence.

ALTHOUGH THE TRIPLE Dutch union has been loosely styled “polygamy,”
it’s actually a sterling example of polyamory. Polyamorists
practice “responsible nonmonogamy”–open, loving, and stable
relationships among more than two people (see “Beyond Gay Marriage:
The Road to Polyamory,” The Weekly Standard, August 4 / August 11,
2003). Polygamous marriages among fundamentalist Mormons or Muslims
don’t depend on a blending of heterosexuality and bisexuality. Yet
that combination perfectly embodies the spirit of polyamory. And
polyamorists don’t limit themselves to unions of one man and
several women. One woman and two men, full-fledged group marriage,
a stable couple openly engaging in additional shifting or stable
relationships–indeed, almost any combination of partner-number and
sexual orientation is possible in a polyamorous sexual grouping.

Polyamorists would call the De Bruijn union a “triad.” In a
polyamorous triad, all three partners are sexually connected. This
contrasts with a three-person “V,” in which only one of the
partners (called the “hinge” or “pivot”) has a sexual relationship
with the other two. So the bisexuality of Bianca and Mirjam
classifies the De Bruijn union as a polyamorous bisexual triad. In
another sense, the De Bruijn marriage is also a gay marriage. The
Bianca-Mirjam component of the union is gay, and legalized gay
marriage in Holland has clearly helped make the idea of a legally
recognized bisexual triad thinkable.

More broadly, the worldwide campaign for gay marriage seems to have
stirred up an active bisexual movement in its wake. Bisexuals have
traditionally been one of the least visible components of the GLBT
(gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) alliance. After a flurry of
publicity in the 1970s, at the height of the sexual revolution,
bisexuality faded from public view. Yet the 1990s brought new
attention, with articles in Time and Newsweek touting the emergence
of bisexuality as a distinctive and politically tinged identity
(and linking bisexuality to nonmonogamous marriage). In recent
years, websites, books, and academic studies devoted to bisexuality
have proliferated, culminating in 2001 in the founding of one of
the movement’s key organs, the Journal of Bisexuality.

One of the first issues of the Journal of Bisexuality featured an
account of a Dutch man’s discovery of his own bisexuality. The
story is presented as a model for public acceptance of bisexuality,
the twist being that the narrative doubles as a political brief for
polyamory. Married with two children, Koen Brand declared his
bisexuality in 1999, at the height of the gay marriage debate in
the Netherlands. Brand then joined the Dutch National Network for
Bisexuality and took part in movement activities. Brand also met
another married bisexual man. While both men remained married, the
two wives agreed to allow their husbands to establish a public and
steady sexual relationship. Friends, family, and coworkers also
accepted the arrangement. So the two marriages were thus
effectively merged into a larger entity, with the men serving as
pivots in two overlapping polyamorous V’s.

One of the wives remains uncomfortable with this arrangement, while
Brand’s own wife is at least open to Brand’s wish to form a
threesome with his male partner. So the story ends with at least
the prospect of one marriage breaking up, while the second converts
to a polyamorous bisexual triad, as happened when Victor and Bianca
de Bruijn met Mirjam Geven and her then husband.

None of this is to gainsay the power of Brand’s narrative. On the
contrary, precisely because the personal challenges confronting
bisexuals are profound, the emerging bisexual call for polyamorous
marriage is going to take on formidable legal force. In a world
fully accepting of gay marriage, it will be difficult to withhold
equal standing from another organized sexual minority.

Brand explains the willingness of family, friends, and coworkers to
accept his openly polyamorous marriage by pointing to the
Netherlands’ social liberalism–to its legal soft drugs and its
famous tolerance for sexual minorities. After all, Brand’s
successful construction of a publicly polyamorous union came at
precisely the moment when same-sex marriage was formally legalized
in Holland. That is why the Journal of Bisexuality has put Brand’s
case forward as a model for other countries. And Brand makes it
clear that simple acceptance of a given individual’s bisexual
orientation, however heartfelt, is not enough. Just as it’s often
said that gays have not been truly accepted until same-sex marriage
is legal, Brand maintains that true acceptance for bisexuality
requires the social ratification of polyamory.

THE GERM OF AN ORGANIZED EFFORT to legalize polyamory in the United
States can be found in the Unitarian Church. Although few realize
it, the Unitarian Church, headquartered in Boston, played a
critical role in the legalization of same-sex marriage in
Massachusetts. Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, were married at the
headquarters of the Unitarian Universalists in a ceremony presided
over by the Reverend William G. Sinkford, president of the
Unitarian Universalist Association. Hillary Goodridge is program
director of the Unitarian Universalist Funding Program. And
Unitarian churches in Massachusetts played a key role in the
struggle over gay marriage, with sermons, activism, and eventually
with marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Choosing a strongly
church-affiliated couple like the Goodridges as lead plaintiffs was
an important part of the winning strategy in the Goodridge case.

It’s a matter of interest, therefore, that an organization to
promote public acceptance of polyamory has been formed in
association with the Unitarian Church. Unitarian Universalists for
Polyamory Awareness (UUPA) was established in the summer of 1999.
At the time, the news media in Boston carried reports from
neighboring Vermont, where the soon-to-be-famous civil unions case
was about to be decided. And the echo effect of the gay marriage
battle on the polyamory movement goes back even further. The first
informal Unitarian polyamory discussion group gathered in Hawaii in
1994, in the wake of the first state supreme court decision
favorable to same-sex marriage in the United States.

“Our vision,” says UUPA’s website, “is for Unitarian Universalism
to become the first poly-welcoming mainstream religious
denomination.” Those familiar with Unitarianism’s role in the
legalization of gay marriage understand the legal-political
strategy implicit in that statement. UUPA’s political goals are
spelled out by Harlan White, a physician and leading UUPA activist,
on the society’s website. Invoking the trial of April Divilbiss,
the first American polyamorist to confront the courts, White says,
“We are concerned that we may become the center of the next great
social justice firestorm in America.”

White maintains that American polyamorists are growing in number.
An exact count is impossible, since polyamory is still surrounded
by secrecy. Polyamorists depend on the Internet to connect. Even
so, says White, “attendance at conferences is up, email lists and
websites are proliferating, and poly support groups are growing in
number and size.” As for the Unitarian polyamorists, their email
list has several hundred subscribers, and the group has put on well-
attended workshops at Unitarian General Assemblies since 2002. And
although the number of open polyamorists is limited, some Unitarian
ministers already perform “joining ceremonies” for polyamorous
families.

White featured prominently in a 2003 Associated Press story on the
Unitarian polyamorists: “No one uttered a word when Harlan White
walked into church one day with two women, one on each arm. They
were, he says, accepted lik