Gay Marriage | News | Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert Denounces the Lesbian 'Throuple' Making Headlines in Massachusetts: VIDEO


Recently the anti-gay wingnuts have seized on a married lesbian "throuple" in Massachusetts that announced they were having a baby through IVF.

Naturally, Stephen Colbert is outraged as well by the news, which is destroying 'traditional marriage'.

"The warnings did not just start last year (when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage). Antonin Scalia was thinking about three lesbians way back in 2003 when he dissented in Lawrence v. Texas...sodomy leads to gay marriage, which leads to throupling, which inevitably leads to threestriality, fivenication, and whatever word they come up with for one dude and ten snakes in a box. I'm gonna say....hissy fit?"


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Hissy fit indeed.

    Posted by: Eric | May 1, 2014 9:25:04 AM

  2. I <3 Stephen Colbert.

    Posted by: Gregory In Seattle | May 1, 2014 9:25:32 AM

  3. Colbert can mock all he wants (that's what he specializes in, after all, being a mocker), but the reality still stands: the religious conservatives were right. To fundamentally redefine marriage as the Western world has defined it for centuries upon centuries was to open up the floodgates of redefining it however anyone wants "marriage" to be.

    The result? Marriage ends up being an empty word, meaning whatever a person or group of persons wants it to be. There's very little reason to even have the word "marriage" anymore, to be blunt, because we are told that a society can't determine what it is or isn't marriage. It's becoming an anarchical free-for-all.

    Very sad.

    Posted by: Jon | May 1, 2014 9:45:54 AM

  4. I gotta say - and even I can't believe I am - I sort of agree with the wingnuts on this one. This hurts our "slippery slope" defense.

    Posted by: freddy | May 1, 2014 9:46:31 AM

  5. @Jon - Triads -- three adults living together as a single, mutually monogamous family unit -- have been around for a very long time. A ceremony does not make a legal marriage, and this "throuple" has no legal standing.

    As for "redefining" marriage, you DO realize that polygamy was and remains common in much of the world, right? That "Biblical" marriage very clearly includes plural wives and concubines, right? The whole concept of one-man-one-woman marriage is itself a redefinition.

    Posted by: Gregory In Seattle | May 1, 2014 9:53:10 AM

  6. BS. They aren't legally married. There are lots such couples who live together in various pairings. And raise children together. Some also had ceremonies together. This isn't anything new.

    Posted by: Steve | May 1, 2014 9:54:05 AM

  7. A lot of Christians today have "redefined" the essence of marriage from what it historically has been: property rights. If it's okay for you to continue to see women and their fertile wombs where a man can plant his seed, then by all means stick with your "traditional" definitions. In some parts of the world, a man can still say that his barren wife is damaged goods and demand a refund. If you're not okay with that, then you yourself have just watered down the definition of marriage.

    Posted by: matt | May 1, 2014 10:22:51 AM

  8. Oh. And I really don't care what other people do amongst themselves. I am capable of understanding when something actually affects me. There's no point in judging what other people do.

    As for the legality of it all, one of the government interests in marriage is for a clean dissolution. Three or more people being married legally to each other could probably be incredibly complicated when one decides to move on. Same-sex marriage never added this level complexity to the legal system.

    Posted by: matt | May 1, 2014 10:29:48 AM

  9. Gays call it throuple? cute. Straights call it "the other woman"

    Posted by: Felix | May 1, 2014 11:00:40 AM

  10. So what? If it's not hurting anyone else it's no one elses's business.

    Posted by: UFFDA | May 1, 2014 11:54:35 AM

  11. If throuples and throuple-supporters want to turn their right to legal marriage into the next civil rights battle, they have every right to do so. They can sue and take their cases to court. Right now, that's not a fight I'm ready to fight, but if someone else wants to start the battle, I'm willing to hear them out. I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue because I don't have enough information about group marriages and the various arrangements they take to make an informed decision.

    Posted by: Marc | May 1, 2014 12:46:50 PM

  12. While, legally speaking, it's not unconstitutional discrimination to treat 3 people differently from 2, one is still faced with the policy question: what's wrong with having a married throuple? Would it really be that hard to divide property three ways if necessary? Even if it's not constitutionally required, wouldn't it be more just to let three people publicy commit to one another and have their commitment recognized by the public/state, if that's what they want?

    Also, the legal question of prohibiting marriage between 2 related people remains. What possible justification can a state make to deny marriage to two loving sisters?

    Posted by: TKinSC | May 1, 2014 3:24:23 PM

  13. I think the throuple is a great idea (or would be, if it was legalized).

    First, it recognizes individual freedom to define family as the family sees fit. This is fundamental when it comes to picking one spouse. Why does it disappear on picking a second? This is one reason I think it is important that marriage rights are defended under Due Process rather than mere Equal Protection. We would do well to recall the origins of our own movement.

    Second, it encourages honesty. I don't have to explain to readers here the damage that the closet does. People should be able to be honest about their relationships without risking their legal status. Throuples exist. The only question is whether we'll respect them.

    Third, this enhances marriage. These are people who might otherwise not marry. But they understand the benefits of marriage, and seek to participate in them.

    The three things that have actually harmed marriage in 20th century North America are:
    * religious interference, distorting entire communities
    * strict gender roles, resulting in unfair expectations
    * the devaluing of persons, resulting in divorce as a tool to find a more perfect mate

    Posted by: Randy | May 1, 2014 4:12:51 PM

  14. Right now if you're unable to make medical decisions for yourself, your spouse can make them for you. What happens when you have two spouses and they can't agree? You might say that you would chose one to do that for you, but then you've just admitted that one of your significant others is more significant than the other.

    Posted by: Armando | May 2, 2014 11:00:28 PM

Post a comment


« «Author of Russia's Anti-Gay Law Calls For Boycott Of Eurovision, AKA 'Sodom Show': VIDEO« «