Wednesday, December 14, 2005

But it's not a slippery slope

I've heard any number of debates between supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage. Invariably the question arises: If love is the only criterion, and same-sex marriage should be allowed because the two individuals love each other, why not allow polygamy if three people love each other?

...two 2003 court rulings changed the legal landscape on sex and marriage: The Lawrence v. Texas decision by the U.S. Supreme Court disallows states to criminalize private sexual behavior among consenting adults, such as sodomy between homosexual men. The Goodridge decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state, says "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice." Taken together, these rulings appear to support a right to polygamy by consenting adults, according to pundits such as conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. "[I]f marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?" Mr. Krauthammer has asked.

Apparently, at least some have decided no such grounds exist.

"Polygamy rights is the next civil rights battle." So goes the motto of a Christian pro-polygamy organization that has been watching the battle over homosexual "marriage" rights with keen interest. "We're coming. We are next. There's no doubt about it, we are next," says Mark Henkel, founder of www.TruthBearer.org.

But it's all "scare tactics" by homophobes. Right.

2 comments:

Karl said...

Actually, I can offer three words:
"Live The Dream".

They explore all kinds of alternatives to traditional marriage, including "polyamory".

Dry Guy said...

I think it's better to view the defense of traditional marriage on the merits of pro-creation/less disease than pluralisms because those pluralisms would make up such a small percentage of the population. Until the statistics suggest otherwise, I would assume most people view "marriage" as two people. I think where Dennis is wrong is trying to make his defense on a hypothetical.