With same-sex marriage on the ballot in 4 states, the issue keeps coming up from opponents of SSM that they fear it will lead to bigamy, polygamy, and so on. This argument, to my knowledge, has gone largely unanswered by SSM proponents, or has been answered ineffectually. It is not a legitimate argument, but nobody says exactly why. This argument needs to be smashed once and for all. People need to understand the irrational roots from which this argument grows.
1) First off, this argument is a “slippery slope” argument. In other words, “if we allow SSM, that places us at the top of a slippery slope down which we might slide into polygamy and bigamy, then down to incest and pedophilia, and from there into bestiality, and finally into allowing marriages with rocks, trees and automobiles.” Most (though not all) slippery slope arguments are wrong. Just because ‘A’ occurs, it does not necessarily follow that ‘B,’ ‘C,’ or ‘D’ will follow. This is to assert a cause-and-effect chain, and there may or may not be a rational basis and evidence for such cause-and-effect. But there’s yet another objection to their argument no one has pointed out.
2) SSM opponents posit a slope starting with SSM and proceeding downhill from there to gawd-awful arrangements such as those I mention above (kids, beasts, rocks, trees, etc.). But no one points out to them that their slope doesn’t start with SSM: it starts with opposite sex marriage! Imagine, if you will, their dreaded slope – then realize that uphill from SSM is OSM. Think back to a time before government got involved in marriages at all other than those marriages between kings and queens, princes and princesses which were matters of state; before government began issuing marriage licenses to commoners, before government began making laws about marriages between ordinary people – because there was such a time, and not in the far, far distant past, either. Then imagine the slippery slope argument at that point in time – it might go something like, “If we Royals and Aristocrats allow the government to get involved in making laws about commoners’ marriages and issuing marriage licenses to commoners, what’s next? I’ll tell you what’s next – the next thing we know, the government might tell us that not only can commoners get married, but that slaves can get married, too! And where will it all end? Maybe someday they will even allow interracial marriages!”
So, you see, if you make this slippery slope argument, rightly you have to say that the government should never have gotten involved in marriages to begin with. Once the government got involved in some marriages, then the logical slide was pretty much inevitable. So where does it stop? What’s to prevent this progression resulting in a man or woman marrying their most beloved Ford, Chevy or Toyota? Never fear! Rationality is here!
The retaining wall on this slope, separating legitimate marriages from the others, consists of 2 parts. Firstly, consent. Very simple: to have a marriage, you must have true consent of both parties to the marriage contract – as in any other contract. A child cannot give legal consent, hence no marriage. Dogs, cats, rocks, trees, and pickup trucks cannot give consent, so no go on the nuptials. Secondly: government interest. Same as for any other law or matter that the government gets involved in, there needs to be a valid government interest in allowing or disallowing. Thus, advocates for SSM have made very compelling arguments for why the government should recognize SSMs. The other side has made arguments, too, but ultimately not such strong ones (prime example: the Proposition 8 trial). Other people could, indeed, come along and argue for polygamy, and if they make strong arguments and persuade enough people they might carry the day, but that would have no connection with the present issue of SSM, any more than it would have a connection with OSM. For that matter, some people argue for government getting out of the marriage issue entirely.
Now obviously, the above line of reasoning does not attempt to address religious arguments, such as “God created marriage,” because that is a whole ‘nother subject; but I will note that our government is secular, not religious, and therefore religious beliefs about marriage ought not to dictate secular laws promulgated by secular governments. But, as I said already, that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.
So, what’s a snappy way to summarize this in a sound bite? I’m looking for the bumper sticker I could slap on my car – give me your suggestions.