These days in Brazil two women are simultaneously walking down the aisle to marry the same man.
The BBC is reporting that a union between three people, two women and a man, in Sao Paulo is causing major outrage.
The publication says that public notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, based in the city of Tupa, feels the couple is entitled to the same family rights that traditional couples have. She added that currently there is no law that averts the union between the threesome.
Still, religious groups are irate over the three-way marriage and Brazilian attorney Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva told the BBC that the union is “absurd and totally illegal.”
The BBC says that both women and their mutual boyfriend have been residing in Rio de Janeiro for the past three years and like other couples split financial responsibilities.
According to Domingues the couple has a joint bank account, something that is not an offense in Brazil.
Domingues believes that the couple represents a new idea of what “family” is and how the definition of what a family is has changed over the years.
“What we considered a family before isn't necessarily what we would consider a family today,” The BBC quotes Domingues saying.
"We are only recognizing what has always existed,” she added. “We are not inventing anything."
Ms Domingues says the threesome has already opened a joint bank account, which is also not prohibited by any law in Brazil.
International television network Globo TV claims that the couple has been married for three months but just recently their union was made public.
Jurist Nathaniel Santos Batista Junior said the union was kept hushed to protect the rights of the couple in case they decided to separate or if one of the partners died, said a report from Globo.
Da Silva, who leads the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers in Brazil said that the three-way marriage is "something completely unacceptable which goes against Brazilian values and morals."
The attorney added that the marriage will not be allowed to continue. There is also uncertainty as to how medical insurance firms, health care providers and private companies will apply the ruling.