THE power couple of Australia’s increasingly open polyamorous community, Rebecca and James Dominguez, have made Senate submissions urging the legalisation of same-sex marriage, as they promote greater acceptance of multiple-partner relationships.
The couple have led the way in publicly outlining their own journey from monogamous marriage to one in which each has another lover as well.
In her blog, Ms Dominguez, who is an adminstrator with IBM in Melbourne, writes: “My life rocks . . . I am incredibly happy and have almost everything I could possibly want . . .
“I’ve built a house with my husband and my husband’s boyfriend so there are four of us living together in nice harmony. (The fourth household member is Rebecca’s boyfriend.)
A couple of days ago a lawyer friend of mine wrote an email to the NSW Upper House to urge them to oppose a motion up today to endorse same-sex marriage. One senator wrote back and, amongst his reply, said,
As for the argument that equal marriage will inherently lead to marriage of people in group relationships this is unfounded and frankly ridiculous. No one is proposing to extend the concept of marriage beyond being between two consenting adults.
There comes a point, doesn’t there, where you want to ask if these people are actually blind. The push for recognition of polygamous and polyandrous relationships is quite well known and pretending it’s not there doesn’t do the debate any favours. But then that’s how this whole debate is going, anyway – there simply isn’t one. It’s all ultimately emotionalism – we simply dare not deny people what they want. And polyandrists want it, and they’ll be increasingly vocal about it as time passes:
As president of the alliance, Mr Dominguez, an IT specialist in the Victorian public service, wrote to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010.
” The legal definition of marriage itself has changed over history, such as the removal on restrictions of inter-racial marriage and the provision for divorce,” Mr Dominguez wrote in the submission.
Ms Dominguez wrote in her own submission to the Senate committee: “Just as we have allowed changes in the past to things considered ‘traditional’ (equality of women, humanity of non-white people), we can change ‘traditional’ understandings of things now.”
The couple say they are not championing the idea of legal recognition of polyamorous marriage now but hope it might evolve in decades to come.
“Some time in the distant future we should look at the idea of plural marriage,” said Mr Dominguez.
A spokesman for Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said: “The A-G is on the record as supporting gay marriage and a conscious vote.
“On the second question (legalising menages a trois as marriages), the government is not considering this.”
If you get the opportunity to, stop and ask a proponent of gay marriage quite what solid argument they have against polyandry being granted “marriage” status that would also not cause homosexual “marriage” to be struck down too. I’d also want to know why the government isn’t considering legalising polygamy and polyandry alongside homosexual “marriage”- there’s no consistent basis on which to deny one but not the other. To simply say “it’s ridiculous” begs the question. Why is it ridiculous? Now that we’ve decided that
- Marriage can be redefined
- The basic principle at stake is that people who love each other ought not to be discriminated against by denying them entry to the institution of Marriage
Why not open it all the way up? Incest ought to be included too, for what it’s worth.
Friends, let’s actually keep asking this question and push it hard. Because what we really want to do is expose the utter lack of any sustained argument on the subject here in Australia beyond “it’s not fair”. Well it’s not fair to the polygamists, polyandrists and incestuous couples either, you bigots.