Marriage

Polyamorous Brazilian Trio Joined in Civil Union, Say Same-Sex Unions Paved the Way

The three women want to be able to raise a family together and share maternal rights.

|

Three Brazilian women in a polyamorous relationship were joined in a civil union last month, and plan to fight for legal recognition of their arrangement. The trio, who wish to remain anonymous, "wed" in the presence of a notary public in early October, though Brazil's anti-bigamy law bars them from formal marriage, along with the legal privileges that it grants.

Registering a civil union in Brazil simply requires establishing that applicant share an address and a bank account.

Attorney Fernanda de Freitas Leitao said the threesome's union "is not just symbolic," however, because it defines "how they intend to have children." The women, described by AFP as "a businesswomen and a dentist who are both 32 and a 34-year-old office manager," plan to start a family soon. "We want to enjoy the same maternal rights that everyone else has," one of the women said.

While Brazil is a heavily Catholic country with a growing Evangelical Christian population, polyamory is actually not uncommon in popular culture there, with poly relationships showcased on two popular telenovelas and a reality TV series right now. And in 2012, a man and two women became the first Brazilians to pledge their love in a three-way civil-union ceremony.

A 2003 law in Brazil led to legal recognition of same-sex unions, and later marriages. In 2011, Brazil's Supreme Federal Court sanctioned same-sex marriages by pronouncing that all current marriage laws must apply equally to opposite- and same-sex couples. And in 2013, the Justice National Council passed a resolution saying that notary publics, who proceed over marriage proceedings in Brazil, cannot refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

Leitao asserts that "all the principles and fundamentals" of the 2011 ruling "can also be applied to polyamorous relationships." If his clients seek privileges like the ability to declare joint income for tax purposes or join a healthcare plan together as spouses, he told AFP, "they could obtain them—and I think they will."

NEXT: Watch Students Tell Yale to Fire a Staffer Who Upset Their Safe Space

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. I cannot properly analyze both sides of this debate without full transparency. Can we please see the video so we can get a better idea if they truly love each other?

  1. Strangely, the gay marriage supporters in America have gone completely silent since thy got theirs.

    Let’s see if they really give a fuck about marriage equality or if they don’t. My money is on the latter.

    1. Eh, they got enemies to punish first. Once that’s done, I see no reason for them not to go in for polyamory. It will provide many years of seeking donations struggle, and eventually a real target-rich environment for lawsuits. It will require just a bit of creative legislation/SC wizardry to ensure Icky Mormons don’t squeeze in by accident.

      1. squeeze in by accident

        Isn’t that kind of how it works when there are three?

    2. My bold prediction: some will, some won’t.

      And those who won’t will be cited as representative of all gay marriage supporters by some people here.

      1. Every public spokesperson for SSM was arguing AGAINST poly marriages. It wasnt the socons selectively editing.

        1. And those who won’t will be cited as representative of all gay marriage supporters by some people here.

          Right on cue.

          Every public spokesperson for SSM was arguing AGAINST poly marriages.

          Every one? You have done a lot of research on this? And who suggested that socons were selectively editing?

          I’d like it if people would be more honest and just say that the same arguments that support gay marriage also support various other arrangements with more than 2 people. But as a political strategy, I can see why they stuck to regular old binary marriage. It’s both more palatable to traditionalists, and the laws to deal with it are already on the books.

          1. It’s both more palatable to traditionalists, and the laws to deal with it are already on the books.

            On the former I agree. On the latter, are there not laws on the books that deal with contracts of more than two parties?

            1. I would love it if marriage were treated more like any other contract. But it really isn’t in a number of ways.
              I’m not promoting the laws as they exist. Just saying that the laws specifically dealing with marriage are very easily adapted to same sex marriages, but less so to plural marriages.

              1. In what ways? Perhaps,if,a person already,in a marriage contract entered into another. But I don’t see how the existing contract law can’t be equally applied to a voluntarily entered-into contract by three people.

                1. I’m sure it could be easily enough. But that’s not how most people do marriages now. If I were in charge, things would change much more radically.

                  My point is that all that had to change for SSM was to make the marriage form non-gender specific.

            2. Yep, and there’s already laws on partnerships and even laws/common law for dealing with partnerships with simple/vague partnership agreements or even no written agreement at all.

              Child custody is irrelevant as that is already a separate set of laws from marriage (unmarried people have children after all).

            3. The problem is marriage is the one contract where the parties to the contract are not free to set or alter the terms of the contract as they see fit. It is a 1 size fits all contract whose terms are mandated by a 3rd party (the government) and subject to being changed at the whim of that 3rd party with no consideration of the wishes of the parties subject to the contract.

              1. It is hardly the ONLY such contract, Rasilio. To name two obvious others:
                1. Contracts for sexual services are forbidden.
                2. You cannot sell yourself into slavery (don’t laugh — people used to do this).

          2. Traditionalists????? Did you honestly just argue that SSM is more palatable to traditionalists??? Like who? The 2 old hippy queens who met listening to the Dead?
            I guess it really is principals not principles.

            1. Yes, a same sex marriage between two people is more palatable to marriage traditionalists than polyamory. More palatable, not very palatable. I think that the shift in public opinion on the subject illustrates well that this is in fact true.

        2. The libertarian spokesfolk for SSM didn’t argue against poly marriages. The libertarian position has always been that people should be able to enter into whatever voluntary contracts they wish.

      2. By “those,who won’t”, do,you mean the overwhelming majority that swore gay marriage wouldn’t lead to the scourge on humanity that polyamory relationships are? Because IIRC, that’s how the proponents of gay marriage put it until they got what they wanted.

        1. Most of them anyway.

        2. I do expect some of that alleged majority to change their tune, and I applaud them for it.

    3. Me too.

      Of course, now that all of my relationships have collapsed, it’s become a purely academic question for me. :-/

    4. Strangely, the gay marriage supporters in America have gone completely silent since thy got theirs.

      Why should gay marriage supporters necessarily have any interest in polyamory? It is a completely separate thing and people who want that can fight their own battles.

      1. They may not have any interest in it, however they fought for gay marriage as a moral and civil right using arguments that are just as valid for plural marriages as they are for gay marriages.

        So, if their words are to be believed, and the fight for gay marriage was a critical moral crusade to correct a severe civil rights injustice then their not now fighting for plural marriage makes them hypocrites at best. If not, then they are liars.

        1. their not now fighting for plural marriage makes them hypocrites at best

          Or, it just makes them disinterested.

          Those who are fighting *against* it, OK then I agree. But don’t lump all gay marriage advocates together.

      2. Why should gay marriage supporters necessarily have any interest in polyamory?

        Because they said they were fighting for “marriage equality”, not “gay marriage”. And that makes them unprincipled because equality means equality, not special treatment for just a couple more associations while continuing to discriminate against other associations.

  2. The brazillion women? That’s a lot!

    1. “…so how many is a Brazilian?”

      1. Is it too early for Dubya years nostalgia?

        1. There’s still a bit more than a year left in his fourth term, so maybe?

          1. Dubya’s gaffes were far more entertaining than Barry’s bald-faced, patronizing lies and smug moral superiority complex.

            1. True. The Dubya presidency attempted a gritty reboot in January 2009, but it did not go all that well.

            2. No, Dubya never said anything as hilarious as confusing Falklands with Maldives.

              1. Well, “Malvinas” and “Maldives” is almost the same.

                1. Right, you have to be an arrogant prick to use the term “Malvinas” to show off how you know better (unless you are an Argentinian, then it just shows you can’t accept reality), and it’s delicious you pull a Dubyaism when you do.

                  1. The fact that he wanted to call them “Malvinas” rather than “Falklands” is probably the most obnoxious part. Confusing it with some other islands on the other side of the world is just a bonus.

  3. Polyamorous Brazilian lesbians, huh? I’m gonna have to think about that one. I’m gonna have to think about it a LOT.

    1. Google has images that you might be interested in…

      1. Yes, but i’m still at work.

  4. Yet most people who agitated for SSM make the same arguments against polyamoury as socons made against SSM. Except for adding something about patriarchy, Mormons etc. Of course, doesnt apply here!

    1. Why do people need to constantly say this? Is anyone under any illusion that all gay marriage supporters did so out of pure libertarian principle?

  5. …I’m ok with this.

  6. Brazilian menage a trois.

    Now, you’re just fishing for clicks, Ms. Nolan-Brown.

  7. Good face for the battle. By having no male involved they just killed 99.999% of the arguments against polygamy by liberals.

    1. And, as proven in this thread, short-circuited any capability of expressing objection (or coherent thought) from at least 30% of the populace.

      1. WHO COULD OBJECT TO THIS

        HONESTLY

        1. I’m gonna try.

          Trying….

          Trying….

          Nope, just can’t do it

      2. There is no reasonable objection that anyone could make to this lovely trio of hot Brazilian chicks.

        With the possible exception of: “Hey they didn’t include me!”

        1. Actually, I didn’t click on the link, because I don’t want to risk real life not living to the imagination.

          The picture ENB kindly included will do fine (even if I wish actresses were more like my stereotype of a Brazillian woman, but, that’s TV for you).

          1. There’s no pictures at the link. Apparently, these ladies would like to remain anonymous.

            1. Agh, does this statement in the article ever come out sounding wrong:

              Anthropologist Antonio Cerdeira Pilao, an expert on polyamory at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, says Brazil has had a lax attitude to rules about traditional couples since colonial times, when sexual relations between slave owners and slaves was common

              Yeah, slavers do have lax attitude about relationship with slaves, particularly on the issue of consent. Rephrasing may have helped…

              I also found this typo hilarious:

              polyamorous relationships are common in popular culture, including in two poplar telenovelas

              I keep hearing John Cleese’s voice: “#1, The Larch”.

              1. Trees and sex make me think of entities.

                1. You know, what Treebeard was looking for?

                2. What about pequinos?

        2. To each their own, but no thanks

          1. Also, this is probably not PC but I wouldn’t have wanted three moms growing up. Adolescence was bad enough with one, especially while she was going through menopause at the same time.

            1. You need to sign on to Nikki’s “ban moms” petition.

              1. Men would probably do a better job. And get paid more to do it.

  8. I’ve been saying all along that the arguments for SSM would and should eventually lead to equal rights for polywhatevertermyouprefer relationships. Besides, I like to make “Bible-believing” so-cons squirm by quoting the OT on polygamy.

  9. So brave.
    We should give them $100.
    No, $200.

    1. They’re still not gonna let you watch.

    2. Unless you are in Nevada, i dont think we are legalizing THAT yet (more’s the pity)

  10. Fotos or GTFO

    1. Amen. With pillow fights.

  11. I would like to marry America, and extend my insurance benefits to my family.

    Health crisis solved.

    1. I would like to marry America

      I accept, Diane-Paul. But you’re going to have to get 310 million more yesses before we make this happen.

      And if we all get married, I expect intimacy more often than every 310 million days.

  12. Dude that is like way insane man.

    http://www.CompletePrivacy.tk

  13. Has a “I’d be happy to be the sperm donor” joke been issued yet?

  14. Would x 3

  15. If this catches on my U-Haul stock will go through the roof!

  16. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.OnlineJobs100.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.