Simply polyamorous!

I do, I do, and I do! These three men just got legally married to each other

Actor Victor Hugo Prada and his two partners, sports instructor John Alejandro Rodriguez and journalist Manuel Jose Bermudez, just signed papers making them a legally married throuple.

“We wanted to validate our household… and our rights, because we had no solid legal basis establishing us as a family,” Prada announced in a video shared by Colombian media earlier this week.

The papers were signed on Monday with a solicitor in the city of Medellin and establish the men as a family unit with inheritance rights.

They are the first legally recognized polyamorous family in Colombia.

Lawyer and gay rights activist German Rincon Perfetti tells the AFP, “It is a recognition that other types of families exist.”

Same-sex marriage was legalized in Colombia in April 2016, making it the fourth South American country to do so, after Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay.

Now that the papers have been signed, the trio says they’re planning a marriage celebration, which they promise will be an “artistic and cultural event.” Then, of course, comes the honeymoon!

Congrats to the happy trouple!

Related: Don’t Knock It Till You Try It: A Case For Polyamorous Love

 

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #life #colombia #polyamorousmarriage stories and more

41 Comments

  • KaiserVonScheiss

    Why do people continue to glorify this?

    • DarkZephyr

      It’s their business. They aren’t hurting anyone. If they are happy let them be happy. I mean it’s not for me, but if all three of them are in love with logical reason is there for them to stay apart? If it works and there’s no jealousy?

    • DarkZephyr

      What* logical reason

    • KaiserVonScheiss

      But should it be recognised by the state? Where does one draw the line, 3, 4, 100?

    • ChrisK

      I’ve never heard of any gay relationship more then 3 so I’d say that concern belongs right up there with marrying your lawnmower in ridiculousness.

    • KaiserVonScheiss

      @ChrisK

      I thought three was ridiculous, but here it is…

    • stevetalbert

      Because a bear den is fun. You need to feel more confident about your own self and rid yourself of weak jealously.

    • MediaGuy

      ChrisK. Did you really say more “then” three? “Then”. You’ve got some kind of gay ebonics? So, maybe that’s okay down in the hood, where nobody notices, BUT, you can’t write like that on Queerty because people will definitely notice. So, I figured out that you’re either from down in the hood or up in Appalachia. Either way, I know what happened. Somebody with privilege stole your damn education. It’s not fair. Not fair. If you can’t master basic grammar and spelling try voice activated and let the phone show you how to spell things. But, for God’s sake, stop embarrassing yourself online. I’m cringing for you.

    • KaiserVonScheiss

      Well, that escalated quickly…

    • jason_melvil

      Guys, it’s one thing to be tolerable, it’s another to not realize the repercussions of things. Marriage has *legal* consequences. Does that mean I can marry 10,000 people so they’ll get green cards for money?
      It’s not the same as 1-on-1. You’ll need to find 10,000 people to agree in that instance.

      But if it’s just me marrying 10,000? Easiest money I’ll ever make.

      Does that mean I can have an entire corporate of people marry together in a group so they won’t testify against each other on criminal charges?

      What about work benefits? If I have a company that gives something to spouses, let’s say free airline tickets to a significant other of an airline employee – what happens if I marry 10,000 people? Are they obligated to give the same benefits to all of them? That’s a bit unfair against their good will isn’t it?

      What about divorce? What about inheritance? What about child custody? If a child need an emergency procedure and parents need to give consent but have disagreement?
      Do the doctors need to wait until 10,000 people go and vote on it?!?

      There’s nothing wrong with 2 people, 3 people or 10,000 people living however they wish (as long as everyone are consenting adults).

      I’m not even saying that raising the marriage limit is wrong in and of itself – but blindly just saying “let’s accept anything” without even trying to discuss the *legal* consequences of what might occur is being naive and quite idiotic.

  • Donston

    This site (and Graham in particular) is so damn messy.

    • KwisatzHaderach

      Yeah, Graham Grimoire is the worst.

  • KwisatzHaderach

    What happens if one of them files for divorce?
    What happens with regards to custody rights of children born/adopted into this “family”? What if two of them decide to divorce the third? Who pays alimony in such a situation?

    • stevetalbert

      Because a bear its a social contrsct. If there isnt establish lae, then they will need to work it out in the courts. Great that you are concerned for the success of their relationship and possible hinderances.

    • KwisatzHaderach

      @stevetalbert
      So no answers, huh? Hahahahaha!!!

    • stevetalbert

      The “answers” you seek will only be needed if one of your scenarios occurs. If you are concerned about specific things happening in your 3way, then make sure your 3way marriage prenuptial includes those items. Otherwise fck off.

    • KwisatzHaderach

      So laws regarding divorce and child custody are only necessary once a relationship is ended… not before? Wh-huh?

  • Etseq

    It isn’t a legal marriage – does no one edit these posts? Oh its Queerty what was I thinking

  • Etseq

    Where is the link to the article that Queerty plagiarized?

  • Rex Huskey

    this is ridiculous and an abhorrent affront to what marriage is….and what we fought for for many years. Just because you can , doesn’t mean you should… not cute.

    • stevetalbert

      Yeah, the same was said about same gender marriage. Marriage is a social contract enforced by the state thst grants rights and obligations. You can debate whether their relationship would have been better as a partnership or corporation,, but marriage is the same. Otherwise you are interjecting yiur personal religios bias to what is a contract between consenting adults. I heatmrd the same flailing concerns back in the 1980s with gay marriages.

    • mhoffman953

      @stevetalbert

      You are missing the point. Marriage is a social contract enforced by the state that grants rights and obligations to two consenting adults.

      You have to draw the line somewhere. You can’t simply use the argument that we should just do whatever feels good. What about people who want to marry themselves? What about a woman who wants to marry a train station (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/woman-marries-train-station/)?

      Once you begin to go down the road of disregard and mockery, then it begins to nullify the importance of already established marriages between two consenting adults.

      Plus this becomes a mess for courts and governments. Imagine if 1 partner of the 3 wants a divorce, do the 2 remaining partners have to pay the leaving partner? What happens when those 2 partners divorce? Does partner A have to pay B and C and then B has to pay C?

      None of this has to do with personal religious beliefs, it has to deal with preserving order in society.

    • stevetalbert

      You sound like the concerned troll evangelicals and gay marriage. Marriage is a contract between CONSENTING adults who are aware of and at the time of the contract can comply with the requirements. The train station you secretly want to marry should be done in a private commitment ceremonry with yourself and a group of friends (presumably at the train station so your “partner” can be there in the photos. I guess consumating your love will entail ejaculating against the train station foundation….or maybe the ticket booth…who am i to judge your love…..BUT YOU CAN NOT HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A TRAIN STATION.

    • MediaGuy

      @mhoffman. OMG, a gay person making the case for the destruction of the institution of marriage. That’s exactly the same argument that straights made about same-gender marriage 20 years ago. So, the straights were right? Have we (gays) destroyed marriage after all?

    • KaiserVonScheiss

      I used to think conservatives were nuts when they used the slippery slope argument…but this make makes their concerns sound totally warranted.

      But a line must be drawn somewhere. How does this affect things like taxes, insurance, etc.?

    • o.codone

      No line. Who’s deciding where the line is? YOU? No line. Gays created this fuc*kery, so live with it.

  • Prax07

    Yeah, that could, and probably will, get messy down the road. Agree on where will it end, number wise.

    • KwisatzHaderach

      Saw a documentary once where a “bi-sexual” man convinced his gay partner to enter into a similar arrangement with a female. Each man fathered a child with the woman. All three split up acrimoniously. In the end, the gay man has to share custody of his daughter with a woman that he hates! This is what ego-dystonia (the “bi-sexual” guy turned out to be gay… or was it straight? whatevs) and modern notions of “free love” will do…

  • Revpoet

    WELL TO TELL YOU IT A DOCUMANT BETWEEN THREE MEN WHO CHOOSE TO GET MARRIED. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IF ONE ONCE TO GET OUT EVERY THING IS SPLIT IN THREES.
    THE OTHER TWO WOULD PAY HIM FOR THE FOR THE TIME THEY WERE MARRIED.
    IF THERE HAPPY WHO CARES.
    WE FOUGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO MARRIE.
    LET THEM BE HAPPY
    REV V

    • GlennWalkup

      Good God …. that gave me a headache …. reading your response.

  • Chris

    This article parses its terms carefully: a solicitor is just a lawyer. Marriage papers were signed, but nothing is said about the papers being legally recognized as creating a marriage. Stating that they are “a unit with inheritance rights” says little more than that they have wills. As far as I can tell, what they signed seems akin to the contracts gay couples used to sign to establish their partnerships before marriage was legalized in the U.S. and in countries around the world.

    I wish them good luck. But somehow, I doubt that their papers will be legally binding as a marriage contract per se; though probably, many of its clauses will be legally binding.

    Islam and Mormonism used to allow for multiple wives or sister-wives. I think that the practice of a woman having multiple husbands was accepted in the past as well. So yeah, this marks the start of a long-term effort to establish multiple partners in marriage. Who knows, maybe religions will come around before state institutions do this time.

    • KaiserVonScheiss

      While I don’t think polygamy should be a criminal offence, I don’t think it should be recognised by the state. Marriage should be between consenting adults.

      There is also some evidence that polygamy increases violence.

      http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657

  • Notright

    That’s awesome! There is someone for everyone. There’s this one website for gay men seeking love abroad. http://www.gayid.net . I think it has like 4.1k members or something. This polyammory thing is a bit new to me I must confess but whatever floats your boat!

  • Danny595

    There is no indication that these 3 people got married or that their relationship was recognized by the government. If you actually read the news story, it seems that the 3 of them signed a contract providing for inheritance. They have every right to sign whatever contracts they wish, but that is not marriage or legal recognition of them as a family.

  • Bob LaBlah

    Wow! And I just knew they were fundamentalist Mormons by the title. Can’t wait to hear what ol’ GC85 has to say about this.

    • Giancarlo86

      It makes sense as they are not transgender.

    • Giancarlo86

      By the way any user names ending in 85 are not me they are fake fake fake !!!!!!!!!

    • Bob LaBlah

      How’ve you been honey? Long time no hear from.

  • GlennWalkup

    A Latin throuple. Hot!

  • trusgold

    it’s shit like this that make people think w are amoral sex freaks and ma7ybe they are right

Add your Comment

Please log in to add your comment
Need an account? Register *It's free and easy.