Minnesota Catholic Conference claims gay marriage allows bisexuals to marry multiple people
The director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference claimed Friday that a failure to pass the constitutional same-sex marriage ban in 2012 would lead to a dangerous precedent where bisexuals would be free to marry one person of each gender; bisexuals say he’s got it wrong.
In an interview with Politics in Minnesota, Jason Adkins, the executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic church, spoke about his organization’s role in the Minnesota for Marriage coalition, which also includes the Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage.
“It’s about preserving an important institution,” Adkins told PIM. “When you’re talking about marriage and changing the definition of marriage, you’re not creating a separate institution called same-sex marriage. You’re in fact redefining marriage for everyone.”
Adkins added that legalizing marriage for same-sex couples would create a slippery slope. “There’s little reason why you’d limit it to two people at all. What if a bisexual wants a partner of each kind, a man and a woman? Are you leaving that group out?”
Lauren Beach, chair of the Bisexual Organizing Project, told the Minnesota Independent that Adkins gets it wrong on several counts.
“This amendment is not about who can or should be able to get married—it is about a mean-spirited attempt to write discrimination into the state constitution to say who can’t,” said Beach. “The Bisexual Organizing Project stands united with the rest of the coalition members of Minnesotans United for All Families in our opposition to the marriage amendment. A quick look at the group’s website will show we are not ‘left out’ of this coalition.”
Beach also said that Adkins’ statement revealed a profound misunderstanding of bisexuals.
“To suggest that all bisexuals need to marry more than one person at a time is a common misconception about bisexuality that demonstrates a deeper need for education about bisexual identities in our society,” she said. “Being bisexual is not synonymous with being polyamorous. Some bisexuals, just like some gay, lesbian, transgender, and straight people, are polyamorous. Many bisexuals, including myself, however, are monogamous, and would simply like to live in a society where their partner’s gender would not arbitrarily limit their ability to access the many state benefits directly tied to marriage.”
If you throw out the traditional definition of marriage as “one man, one woman”, then upon what moral, logical, and legal grounds could you reasonably argue in court that would allow that “gay marriage” is okay, but polygamy is not? Redefining marriage to accommodate one lifestyle opens a Pandora’s Box of other bizarre possibilities with no means of restraint.