polyamory

Polyamorous ‘throuple’ fighting over property rights, goes to Supreme Court

So, we’ve now got another word to add to the woke dictionary: “Throuple” – an abbreviation of “threesome couple”, in other words it’s a ménage à trois. And so continues the slippery slope which we predicted back in 2013 when debating the definition of marriage.   

A polyamorous ex-throuple (threesome) fighting over how to divide up an Auckland property have taken their battle to the Supreme Court. The dispute first appeared before the Family Court, but the Family Court referred the case on to the High Court. And now it’s gone to the Supreme Court for a final ruling that could set a dangerous precedent for future relationship disputes. The ruling of the Supreme Court could even redefine the meaning of ‘relationship’ in New Zealand. 

The Property Relationships Act defines the rules for how property is divided when a couple separates or when one of them dies. It applies to marriages, civil unions and de facto relationships, and the Act is very clear that all such relationships are between two people, not multiple polyamorous partners.

Lawyers arguing for the claimants are asking the Supreme Court to redefine Property Relationships Act (PRA) to now include polyamorous threesomes, saying that the PRA is “broad, flexible, and evaluative”. That just sounds like a cluster of buzzwords used to disguise the real intent – to re-define ‘relationship’. This is something that Parliament should decide, as it requires a change to the Property Relationships Act (to now include polyamorous threesomes in the definition of relationship). But where does this all end, what if there are more than three people in the ‘relationship’?

We’ve already seen the Property Relationships Act (PRA) extended to include not only marriages but civil unions and de facto relationships. We’ve also seen marriage redefined to be “the union of 2 people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity”. If marriage is redefined once, then what’s stopping it from being redefined again (and this also applies to definitions of relationships under the Property Relationships Act).

During the debate on redefining marriage in 2013, Family First produced evidence that once the definition of marriage was weakened, there would be strong lobbying by groups to further define ‘marriage’.

It’s a slippery slope that could now be set to include polygamy and polyamory. 

Read more here.

Also read: Where do the Green Party stand on Three-Way Marriage?

*This post was written by Family First staff writers.


 

 

Scroll to Top
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap