Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

April 23, 2014 - 11:25 am

Doll, Brynn and Kitten (their real names as far as I know) live in Massachusetts. Despite the fact that Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage via court edict years ago, it still oppresses those who wish for something more.

Brynn and Doll dated for eight months before moving in together. Two years later, they purchased a house together. 

Having both enjoyed polygamous relationships before, Doll and Brynn looked for a third woman to join them. After a few failed liaisons, Doll and Brynn created an OKCupid couple’s profile. Eventually, they received a message from Kitten.

Good ol’ OkCupid, flinging the arrows of love hither and yon. Except when it’s flinging hate at Brendan Eich, anyway.

Doll, Brynn and Kitten went for dinner at a Chinese Restaurant for their first date and immediately liked each other. 

Doll says: ‘There was an instant attraction with Kitten but I think we all really bonded when we baked cookies together on our fourth date. I didn’t know what love was until the three of us clicked like that.’

Brynn adds: ‘With Doll and Kitten, things finally made sense. It was as if the puzzle was finally complete with all three pieces.’

Within a few months, Kitten moved in with Doll and Brynn. Two years later, they decided to get married after Kitten proposed the idea to them.

Kitten says: ‘I had always wanted to get married and I guess Doll and Brynn indulged my wishes! I had a very traditional upbringing and marriage had always been an important symbol of commitment for me. We wanted to celebrate our love in a wedding like everyone else.’

Well, of course. The heart wants what the heart wants.

The threesome spent several date nights planning their dream wedding – making decorations and shopping for matching traditional, white gowns.

Brynn says: ‘Planning our wedding was hectic. It took a lot more organizing because there were three brides involved. 

Kitten, Brynn and Doll had to work with the legalities of the state to get married to each other. As being married to more than one person is not currently legal, they had to combine handfasting, legally binding documents and legal marriage.

Well, why isn’t being married to more than one person legal? What’s the rationale behind that? They’re consenting adults, so what’s the big deal? It must be equal parts hatred and intolerance. That’s what the courts keep saying in their rulings on marriage. You may have a problem with the throuple, but who are you to draw the line?

They should sue. They’ll win.

Read the rest. The trio plan to use science and/or adoption to obtain children. It’s a good thing no Catholic will be involved if they go the adoption route.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
When everybody is married; nobody is. A marriage is a man and wife joined into a partnership for the security of their eventual and usually natural born offspring. Yes, sometimes, they can't have children or don't, but the majority of the time they do, and marriage is designed for the protection of those kids, not to legitimize anyone's love.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Also, why shouldn't people be allowed to marry their pets and why shouldn't parents be allowed to marry their children to avoid those nasty inheritance taxes.

It's not a slippery slope folks, it's a slippery precipice into an abyss.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Child abuse starts here.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (132)
All Comments   (132)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Acquiring new playthings isn't marriage, and performing any ceremony to hide that fact is simply delusional.
I'm going to redefine "Cars" and anything with a wheel. Unicycles have a wheel, therefore it's a car. I will then mandate all cars in America be replaced with my definition of cars.
If you find my definition of cars objectionable, maybe because it's unusable to you, then all hell and fury will be unleashed upon you for being a carsist. --Bad analogy, sorry.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
You can't arbitrarily change the definition of words...unless you are a judge. This is called equality before the law. That includes all the kinds of laws...well, not tax laws. You can treat people as unequally as you might want under those laws.

When will the happy happy day be for these, what shall we call them, 'trinities'?
That's no good because in future there could be foursomes of fivesomes. How about 'multies'?
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
'Marriage' or 'Mirage'? They are the only ones who would believe this is a real Marriage.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, it's sooner rather than later we see three cretinous imbeciles take that proverbial mile when given an inch.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
It was inevitable when you start redefining words.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Because you have to be sane in order to engage in a legal contract. These women are nuts.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not considered nuts in today's society. What is considered nuts is to be a happily married heterosexual couple that doesn't believe in abortion. Now that's nuts, circa 2014.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Adults should marry as they wish. However, the union of one man and one woman is my religion's only definition of marriage. Government recognition of multiple flavors of marriage may change tax benefits, inheritance laws, insurance coverage and other earthly concerns but, ultimately, it does not change the message of my religion. Tolerance does not mean acceptance. Go in peace.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Or, as I would say, they can pretend whatever they like; just not at my expense.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
I wished more people approached the question in this manner.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'll go along with you 100%. A very libertarian statement.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
My vote is the reality show...there's money in getting those cameras to follow you around!!
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let these Ladies marry. Why? They're clearly in love! (who's to judge that they are not?) And it's inevitable so why fight it. Traditional marriage will continue as it has and there are many other battles, strategic battles, and lines to hold against progressives. I don't think that this is one of them.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Okay, What's wrong with two sheep, a pedophile and a sado-masochist marrying or a thirteen year old boy marrying a 60 year old chicken hawk (of course after age of consent laws are reasonably changed)?
The problem is these cultural anarchists continually push the envelop knowing that in a relativistic world there is no criteria to judge them.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
I hope I detected at least a smidgen of satire in your statement.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hey, if homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, so is this.

The definition of marriage is one man & one woman - but if it is suddenly man/man or girl/girl, I see no reason it can't be girl/girl/girl, man/girl/girl, man/man/man, man/man/girl, or girl/girl/girl/girl/girl.

Who are we to discriminate?
And hey, maybe I can be involved in multiple marriages unrelated to each other - me and three women over here and me and two women over there. Why not? It's my civil right, man!

Just so you know, I'm only HALF joking.
Seriously, once we twist "marriage" into being something it has never been, it's difficult to resist changing it to be anything anyone wants it to be. Not with any logical consistency, anyway.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
or girl/girl/german shepherd, or man/man/goat, or man/girl/horse...what the hay, anything goes! After all this is America, and I/we/it can do anything I/we/it/want.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy DRR
You're correct that twisting marriage is a risky proposition. The bad news is that Western Civ has been twisting marriage most of my life, mostly by treating traditional marriage and traditional families as if they were disposable.
That three women might form a household, pool their resources, and raise a child among them poses no threat to traditional marriage. Or at least I don't see the threat. This way of life, like same-sex relationships, appeals to only a few people.
The real threat to traditional marriage is when traditional couples decide that the loss of the thrill is grounds for separating. The second threat is the failure of many couples to form a household even when they have children, but instead to carry on as if they had no responsibilities to each other or their children.
And that got going long before non-traditional households starting saying they want the protection of the laws.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are a wise man. Ever think of running for President?
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Neither should you, given your evidenced bigotry.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Standing up to protect children from sick people is not bigotry.

29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
nor should you, you clueless troll.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
EVERYONE should file individually!! There should never have been a provision for filing as married. At least for as long as we are burdened with the IRS. However, the faster we can abolish this albatross, the better!!
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Slippery slope? What slippery slope?
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
This one! Wheeeeee!!
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All