Three-Way-Male-Same-Sex Wedding in Thailand & the Oneness Concept

The Daily Mail recently reported the celebration of a three-person same-sex marriage in Thailand, illustrating another facet of the growing breakdown of traditional marriage. (See here, here, here, and here). Although Thailand does not legally recognize their marriage, the three men married "under Buddhist law in the symbolic ceremony." Family Law Professor Lynn Wardle has set forth the global legal landscape on marriage and its expansion at CNSNews.com (http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/lynn-wardle/marital-throuples-next-leap-radical-redefinition-marriage). 

When marriage is detached from its Creator's design, however, marital and family breakdown result. (See here). In his book The Marriage Builder: A Blueprint for Couples,  Dr. Larry Crabb has outlined three goals of a healthy marriage: Spirit Oneness, Soul Oneness, and Body Oneness. Each is a unique and significant level of marital strength and depth.  This depth is designed naturally and logically to be between two individuals in marital intimacy.  When more than two attempt that intimacy, the contrary emotion of jealousy enters and the depth is naturally corrupted. 

The notion of companionate marriage (between individuals who consent to be together in some manner, as opposed to conjugal marriage between one man and one woman) can be, and is being, expanded to include polyamory, not only in this Thai triple-male marriage, but also in a Brazilian thruple (see http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=Thruple), and in Simi valley, California with a mix of five individuals in varying forms (see the Money.com story at http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/25/technology/polyamorysiliconvalley/index.html.).

The Oneness levels that Dr. Crabb describes are lost and debased in intimacy with several others because the focus is placed on the individual self.  For example, Spirit Oneness addresses a human need for relational intimacy, but rather than looking at it as personal fulfillment, seeing this oneness as oneness with  the partner in Christ. Instead of focusing on how your partner can fulfill your needs, Dr. Crabb points to the perspective that only Christ can fulfill all our needs and desires. Finding our significance and security in Christ is the only way to fulfillment.  Secondly, Soul Oneness, which means "commit[ing] yourself to ministering to your spouse's needs, knowing that however he or she may respond can never rob you of your worth as a person." Soul Oneness means seeing marriage as an opportunity to give your entire self to your partner. It requires a dying to self and selfish desires and instead looks to the partner's needs. This type of putting the self-second to another's desires is contrary to cultural norms, and contrary to multiple partner intimacy.  Dr. Crabb's last principle is Body Oneness – a complete physical intimacy that is only possible with one person of the opposite gender, when the two literally become one flesh.  Sex is a gift from God meant to exist between a married couple as a showcase of their oneness. But along with the oneness principle, sex within a marriage is not about the fulfillment of an individual's desires but instead is about union of the two people. It is when any individual puts expectations on sex and uses it to fulfill his or her own individual needs and desires that our values look outside of marriage.  The principles of Spirit Oneness, Soul Oneness, and Body Oneness are not possible to achieve in a multiple-party relationship.  Rather, these principles are key to maintaining a strong marriage, as they are based in the Creator's design and the couple's choice to give unselfishly, rather than to benefit individually.  

Family restoration begins when we protect the institution of marriage from being weakened by individualism, self-interest, and inappositeness.

-  Guest post by Amy Snow Hilton, Regent Law 3L

 

Voting on Marriage in 2012 toward Family Restoration

Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington State will all vote on marriage on November 6th. Each state has a different approach to addressing marriage expansion or marriage protection, and understanding these various marriage amendments can be confusing. In this post we'd like to remove some of that confusion.

Previously this blog has informed our readers on this issue after I was asked to write a JURIST.com post on the matter. You can read that post at http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/2012/09/marriage-and-election-2012.html, and you can access the JURIST.com piece at http://jurist.org/forum/2012/06/lynne-kohm-marriage-referendum.php. We've also discussed the implications here for voters concerned about racial fairness and marriage, and you can read that post at http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=African+american+voters.

With these votes on marriage in four particular states fast approaching, we've tried to give you a quick glimpse below. Some important definitions include:

"Marriage": that legal lifetime union between one man and one woman unrelated and of suitable age.

"Marriage expansion": that union of two men or two women that may be known as same sex marriage, or a civil union, or a domestic partnership, with the objective of expanding marriage as it is commonly known to include partners of the same gender.  Marriage expansion often includes other ways than gender similarity to expand marriage (i.e. by eliminating minimum age, or increasing the number of partners, or the elimination of affinity or consanguinity norms), but in the November 2012 election the term generally means expansion of marriage to include same sex couples.  Marriage expansion in one area opens the door to expansion in these other areas, as currently evidenced in other nations. For a good discussion on how polygamy is the new frontier for marriage expansion see http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/polygamy-may-be-hot-but-in-marriage-threes-still-a-crowd/2012/10/05/daf41284-0e39-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html?hpid=z5. This blog has featured similar warnings; see our post on this about the US and Canada at  http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=polygamy.

and regarding Brazil at http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=Thruple.

Here's a quick summary for voters in each state:

Maryland – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to vote "AGAINST" Question 6. The marriage expansion campaign asks you to vote "FOR" Question 6. Some resources for Christian voters can be found at http://www.marylandmarriagealliance.org/church-resources/

Minnesota – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to vote "YES" for the marriage amendment. The marriage expansion campaign asks you to vote "NO," against the amendment. Resources for faith-based voters can be found at http://www.mnpastorsformarriage.com/.

Maine – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to vote "NO" on Question 1. Marriage expansionists ask that you vote "YES" on Question 1. Christian resources can be found at http://protectmarriagemaine.com/church-tools/.

Washington – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to "REJECT" R-74. The marriage expansion campaign asks you to "ACCEPT" R-74. Resources for Christian voters are available at http://www.preservemarriagewashington.com/churchresources.php.

Any voter's Marriage Amendment position will reflect his or her position not only on marriage's definition, but on what that voter hopes marriage will look like in another generation, and on that voter's hopes for family restoration. Marriage expansion hinders family restoration because it dilutes the meaning and substance of marriage. To read more about this phenomenon specifically, see m

y scholarship on how marriage is altered by the proliferation of domestic partnerships on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269418.  To read more about accuracy and fairness in discussing marriage and homosexuality see my article on this at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317699.  

This November be an informed voter can assist you in wisely voting your values on marriage looking toward stronger marriages and stronger families on the road to societal family restoration.  

The Thruple

The online version of the Guardian ran an editorial recently posing the question “Why shouldn’t three people get married?” The article by Jean Hannah Edelstein was written in response to a recent story in Brazil of three people being married. The marriage, while illegal according to Brazilian law, has garnered much publicity on the topic, enough that the people are being referred to as a “thruple.” The author of the Guardian’s posting uses this development as an opportunity to examine the current nature and relevance of marriage and makes three very telling points.  Read the entire article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/three-people-get-married-thruple.

First, the author argues that many traditional marriages today are doomed for infidelity and divorce, “Speaking of absurd, shall we take a moment to consider traditional marriage? We do adore it: in the UK, just under half the population has chosen to pledge to love another person as long as they both shall live, or as long as they don’t get divorced. And yet as we shoehorn ourselves into two-by-two formation, we’re not that good at keeping our promises: as Helen Croydon has pointed out, breaking the boundaries of monogamy is far from unusual. Plenty of marriages have three people in them. They’re just not legal ones.” Here, the author argues the obvious weakness of marital commitment in law and culture today.

Second, “for much as we have a sweet collective imagining of what a happy union entails, the reality is that they all deviate from the fantasy norm, pretty much from the time that the certificate is signed, the chicken is noshed and the bouquet is chucked.”  Here, she argues that no marriage is a fairy tale. 

And third she argues “relaxing the expectation that one partner should fulfill all of one’s needs – good sex, complementary taste in television and shared preference for dogs over cats may just be too much to ask for – might mean that people who opt for a portfolio of other halves (or thirds) could outdo the rest of us in happiness.”  Here, the argument for individualism and self-interest prevail over marital commitment. 

Dr. Larry Crabb in his book The Marriage Builder: A Blueprint for Couples has outlined three goals of a healthy marriage that directly speak to the concerns raised in this article: Spirit Oneness, Soul Oneness, and Body Oneness. Each is a unique and significant level of marital strength and depth. 

Spirit Oneness addresses our need for relational intimacy, but rather than looking at it as personal fulfillment, seeing this oneness as oneness with Christ. This directly relates to the author’s second and third points about the inevitable shortcomings and fallacies of a marriage partner. But instead of focusing on how your partner can fulfill your needs, Dr. Crabb points to the perspective that only Christ can fulfill all our needs and desires. Finding our significance and security in Christ is the only way to fulfillment. 

Then Soul Oneness, which means “commit[ing] yourself to ministering to your spouse’s needs, knowing that however he may respond can never rob you of your worth as a person.” Soul Oneness means seeing marriage as an opportunity to minister to your partner. It requires a dying to self and my desires and instead looks to your partner’s needs. This type of putting the self-second to another’s desires is contrary to cultural norms. 

The last principle is Body Oneness. Sex is a gift from God meant to exist between a married couple and be a showcase of their oneness. But along with the oneness principle, sex within a marriage is not about an individual but instead is about union of the two people. It is when we put expectations on sex and look at how it can fulfill our individual needs and desires that we can stray outside the marriage.  

The principles of Spirit Oneness, Soul Oneness, and Body Oneness are key to the maintaining of strong marriages because these principles are based in the couple and not the individual. Family restoration begins when we protect the institute of marriage from being weakened by individualism, self-centeredness, and frivolity.