Bi-sexual Marriages and PolygamyIAIN T. BENSON
Why don't "sexual orientation" activists argue in favour of bi-sexual marriage?
Why, we should ask, should bi-sexual marriages, be treated in a discriminatory manner and why aren't gay and lesbian organizations arguing in favour of them? After all, EGALE, the major activist group behind the almost entirely successful legal strategy for gays and lesbians in Canada, advertises itself as existing "for the sake of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-identified people and their families across Canada."
Too little attention is being paid to the logic of "sexual orientation" extensions to marriage that exclude the desires of others that also march under the rainbow flag. Virtually everywhere that radical sexual politics are active we see bi-sexuals linked with gays and lesbians.
The argument that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to widening the number of people in a marriage was made before the courts in various cases over the years but the judges weren't interested in it and lawyers for the same-sex groups ignored it. Now that the debate about same-sex marriage is before Parliament, the argument should not be ignored, it should be dealt with.
One suspects that we do not hear about "bi-sexual marriage" because those pushing for same-sex marriage do not find it politic to make the claim on behalf of bi-sexuals- - for now. It might upset the apple cart at a time when the gay and lesbian claims for marriage are being very, very carefully pushed through in Ottawa and elsewhere. People may just be able to accept two men or two women marrying but they are not yet ready to accept group marriage even if that is where the logic of marital claims based on "sexual orientation" are headed.
As with gays and lesbian marriages, bi-sexuals would base their claim on the fact that they are people with a minority sexual orientation who wish to "live out their love(s)" and gain the social recognition of their relationships that they have been denied historically. Like gay and lesbian liaisons, the argument could be that failure to recognized bi-sexual relationships is due to stereotypical treatment causing historical disadvantaged. If it is good for gays and lesbians to be able to marry in accordance with their sexual orientation and procreation no longer provides an adequate argument for restricting marriage to heterosexuals, as courts in Canada have recently ruled, then this must also be so for bi-sexuals. A move to accept bi-sexual marriage, however, means that marriage cannot be limited to merely two people for what is bi-sexuality but the sexual love for both sexes? .
And while we are on the subject of the more to marry her, what is wrong with polygamy or polyandry anyway? Now that we have got beyond the religious concepts that insisted marriage was for men and women (and one of each) why should we cavil at other additions? The fact that such group marriages, polygamy or anything amounting to bigamy are currently illegal under the Criminal Code is no argument. Homosexual conduct was also illegal until relatively recently. Laws can be changed.
The logic of same-sex arguments in other areas means that we should not force bi-sexuals to fit within the sexual stereotyping of heterosexual unions limited (for reasons of their sexual preferences) to just two people. To deny at least a three person marriage to a bi-sexual is to deny them the social recognition of their "love" and relationships, just as with gays and lesbians.
Let's not forget the growing movement towards polyamory either. A look on the web shows hundreds of chapters around the globe dedicated to those groups or people interested in entering into "committed" relationships with each other. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see that where two or more are gathered there will, sooner or later, be the new extended legal claim in their midst. Failing that, perhaps we shall sooner or later have remedial legislation drafted to deal with the infant products of such group relationships in the same way we as our society in the 1970's had to create a statutory "marriage" to deal with those who didn't want to marry but lived together for more than two years "as if" they were married.
Take marriage away from its historically recognized essence (one man and one woman) and it seems a bit haphazard and curmudgeonly to get stuck on mere numbers. From those who want to destroy traditional marriage and who see same-sex marriage as a step towards such destruction, one does not expect any arguments in response.
For those who reject as nonsensical a marriage of more than two people, however, it is necessary to re-think the logic of "same-sex marriage" claims themselves.
Benson, Iain T. Bi-sexual Marriages and Polygamy. Catholic Educator's Resource Center.
Reprinted with permission of The Centre for Cultural Renewal and Iain T. Benson.
The Centre for Cultural Renewal is an independent, not-for-profit, charitable organization that helps Canadians and their leaders shape a vision of civil society. To this end, we focus on the important and often complex connections between public policy, culture, moral discourse and religious belief, and produce discussion papers, forums and lectures on key issues affecting Canadian society, public policy and culture. Iain Benson, a constitutional lawyer, is the Centres Executive Director. The Centre's blog is here.
Iain Benson was one of the legal counsel for the Interfaith coalition for Marriage that represented Catholic, Protestant, Sikh and Muslim religious groups before the courts in Ontario and British Columbia in opposing the same-sex challenge to the traditional recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman. He is Executive Director of the Ottawa based Centre for Cultural Renewal. Iain Benson is on the Advisary Board of the Catholic Educator's Resource Center.
Copyright © 2005 Centre
for Cultural Renewal
Not all articles published on CERC are the objects of official Church teaching, but these are supplied to provide supplementary information.