A world first for Belgium?
Cats: the change it is a-comin'|Belgium has had gay marriage since 2003, the second country in the world after The Netherlands. Canada came third, in 2005.
In 2005, Belgium saw what is perhaps a first: a civil union of three. Belgian marriage cannot comprise three partners, but apparently a civil union can.
Although it comprises one man and two women, it’s not a true polygamous relationship. In traditional polygamy, one man has two or more heterosexual wives. The union is typified as a ‘V’ by those who study the subject, with one party (in polygamous relationships, the male) as the sexual linchpin of the union.
In the Victor-Bianca-Mirjam union, the women are bisexual, so the sex involves any combination of the three, making this perhaps the first officially recognized polyamorous union in the western world. Or the entire world? That they’ve existed before, with or without the male’s awareness, must be a given; I don’t know, however, that a sexual triad has ever had any official recognition in recent history.
One commenter observes that “what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality.” For Mr Kurtz, this possibility is a bad thing; for me, an urban Canadian female of European extraction, it is entirely fascinating.
My concern is with the balance of power. A relationship which gives all/most of the power to one party (traditionally, the male), with the other party(ies) being dependents, is a bad thing, no matter how “normal”, “traditional”, or legal it may be. That a union of three or more is more relationally/emotionally complex than a union of two is inevitable: the more parties, the more interactions, the more layers of emotion, needs, resentments, goals. But though it may deter some, complexity is merely a challenge.
If the parties are equal in the relationship, and equally satisfied by it, can this variant be a bad thing?
January 7th, 2008 at 7:34 am
aka roc rebel granny.
Hey, I’m first!!
As far as I’m concerned, it’s whatever works for consenting adults.
And now I’m adding this blog to my list. I hadn’t known about it; probably because I’m so far beind on reading anything except my email.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I agree with Ann. I don’t have a problem with consenting adults doing what they want.
However, it does raise some important legal questions, and really, legalities are why people ultimately marry, yes? Which of the partners gets to make life and death decisions should another of them end up on a life support? What if the remaining partners disagree? Who is their official, legal, next of kin?
Furthermore, if there are health benefits, is it really fair to ask an employer to give health benefits to *both* spouses? The same with retirement benefits. I think these are the issues that should be looked at when it comes to dialogue about whether or not marriage can/should encompass a third party. How are we, societally, to address these factors and complications?
I don’t really care what happens in their bedroom. It’s the other issues that I find particularly interesting (and potentially problematic).