Centerfield

Funny that this article would appear in the Weekly Standard, where one can read the slippery sloap argument regularly. Kind of a "see, we told you the queers wanted to wipe out your way of life" article, if you ask me.

Look, I am not for making polygamy, or anything else that involves more than two people, legal marriage. My whole reason for supporting gay marriage is I believe that there is a strong case that it is good for society. I think beyond that the whole point of providing marital benefits gets lost. However, I am not afraid of this debate. It seems like a logical discussion considering modern times. That been said, I don't see it being seriously considered by anyone, nor do I think it will be anytime in the near future. What bothers me most is that, if anything, politically it will hurt the case for gay marriage. People don't respond to agressive and extreme change very well, and for good reason.

Posted by: Mathew at August 23, 2006 07:50 PM

I actually had a clever response all ready, but I think you covered it Mathew. The fact is, there is a clear line that can be drawn between those who want gay marriage, yet respect the traditions of traditional marriage, and those who legitimately wish to undermine marriage. I think the first view is more prevalent, and I think the second view shall remain out of the mainstream. So, Simon, there's no need to worry on that point.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at August 23, 2006 08:54 PM

But in this case, the slippery slope argument is valid in this case. Proponents of same-sex marriage would essentially abolish the traditional definition of marriage (i.e. of being between a man and a woman) - what would they replace it with? If you kick the foundation out from under a building, you must either replace it with something able to bear a similar load, or accept that it will follow the natural course of events and collapse. So - what is the principle on which marriage is proposed to be founded, and is a newly-minted principle ("marriage is between two persons of any gender," perhaps) sufficient to resist the equally novel principle of changing the definition?

In the abstract, I agree with Mathew; I'm not hostile to same-sex marriage. But I won't take it regardkess of the consequences, and it seems to me that there are obvious and natural consequences that flow straight down the slippery slope. Don't just say there's no reason to worry, explain why we should not be worried. Give me an adequate principal to justify same-sex marriage but keep the door shut on further redefinitions.

Posted by: Simon at August 23, 2006 11:02 PM

I think what I was trying to say was that one needn't be worried about the position that favors the dissolution of marriage becoming the norm, because The American people will never allow it. You're right, that there are very real consequences of same sex marriage. I support the right of people to choose same sex marriage, meaning if the voters decide, it's cool. I'm personally opposed, but it's their choice.

It's a tough issue. Do we say that marriage can also be between two consenting adults? Can we justify that and oppose the federalization of marriage? It's a tough one, indeed. I think you just have to trust the people.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at August 24, 2006 12:07 AM

I think what I was trying to say was that one needn't be worried about the position that favors the dissolution of marriage becoming the norm, because The American people will never allow it. You're right, that there are very real consequences of same sex marriage. I support the right of people to choose same sex marriage, meaning if the voters decide, it's cool. I'm personally opposed, but it's their choice.

It's a tough issue. Do we say that marriage can only be between two consenting adults? Can we justify that and oppose the federalization of marriage? It's a tough one, indeed. I think you just have to trust the people.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at August 24, 2006 12:08 AM

Do we say that marriage can only be between two consenting adults?

But then, what is the principle that undergirds "two consenting adults"? That two is the traditional number? Well, having permitted same-sex marriage, we have already said that new tastes and fashions outweigh one part of the traditional definition of marriage by discarding one half of that definition - how can we then say "but the other half of that definition stays"? Because we have said "this far and no further"? That surely isn't enough. Proponents of polygamy and "group marriage" will say that the traditional definition of marriage -- a traditional definition that carries the full force of a tradition predating written history -- did not carry sufficient force to prevent two people of the same gender who wanted to be married getting married, so why on Earth should the this freshly-minted definition carry any weight at all?

We must ask ourselves: are we the generation that wants to be remembered as opening Pandora's box? Countless generations have managed to leave marriage at least as it was, and at best, improved. Do we want to be the generation that people look back to and say "that's the generation that was so short-sighted, so selfish, so self-involved and so self-important that they took it upon themselves to broaden the definition of marriage to be so wide as to effectively abolish marriage"?

Can we justify that and oppose the federalization of marriage?

Well, regardless of my views on whether or not same-sex marriage should be recognized, I oppose the federalization of its definition, either by law or Constitutional amendment. I think DOMA is both Constitutional and entirely the right approach: the Federal role in this sorry saga, in my view, is to prevent any one state from imposing its definition on any other state, and other than that, to stay the hell out of it.

(This is not quite the same as my view on abortion and federalism, incidentally - I think that the Griswold-Roe-Casey was fatally flawed, and that the Federal government was never ceded the power to interfere with state policy on abortion. The federal government, of course, has some involvement in the matter - in areas under its jurisdiction, of course, such as D.C. or the military, and in terms of how and to whom it disburses money. To that extent, my views on abortion and same-sex marriage vis-a-vis federalism are identical, but there the similarity ends: in the case of abortion, I fully support federalizing the definition by Constitutional Amendment, because abortion is a matter of such grave moral concern, of such pressing import and so obviously demanding a national answer as to override my normative preference for Federalism. I'm simply aware that this is unlikely to happen any time soon, and so in that regard, for the time being, I think a return to the status quo ante on abortion -- with states regulating or not regulating as their populations will allow -- is the practical next step. Like leaving the definition of marriage to the states, that will likely produce results I do not approve of in certain states, but that is Federalism for you.)

Posted by: Simon at August 24, 2006 09:09 AM

I'm opposed to gay "marriage." I think marriage is a cultural and religious tradition that is beyond government. Government can only recognize and accomodate that tradition in a manner that the people, through their representatives, deem appropriate.

The question in my mind is, are some of those legal accomodations also appropriate for committed relationships that do not come under traditional marriage?

We've had this discussion before. Several commenters, including me, have suggested that the government not be in the "marriage" business at all. The legal accomodations of pre-existing religious and cultural marriage have taken on a life of their own, and, perhaps, should have a name of thier own. As such, they may be applied in any way the people, through their representatives, deem appropriate.

Those accomodations would surely continue to apply to marriages performed in religious settings, as they always have. But this has also always been a one-way street. The Catholic Church, for example, does not recognize marriages performed by the Justice of the Peace in the town hall, nor should it ever have to. But the reverse recognition is made, as it should be.

As far as legalized polygamy goes, I'm not so sure I care that much. I would guess that most people would oppose it, and it would never happen. But if it did, it would require widespread public support, and that's called "democracy." I'm not suggest that anyone should refrain from opposing polygamy were it to gain public support strong enough to legalize it. I just don't know that there needs to be some abstract underlying principle that creates distinct categories to prevent the feared slippery slope. If there is such a slippery slope, it is one that the people want.

Disclaimer: These comments contain opinions.

Posted by: WHQ at August 24, 2006 09:25 AM

As far as legalized polygamy goes ... I would guess that most people would oppose it, and it would never happen.

That is a functionally identical argument to Rafique's point that "one needn't be worried about the position that favors the dissolution of marriage becoming the norm, because The American people will never allow it." This is perhaps a novel new kind of logical fallacy - not so much an appeal to the majority, but an appeal to the enduring majority: the assumption that what is unthinkable today will ever remain so. At some point, "the American people will never allow it" was doubtless said about the abolition of slavery, the expansion of the franchise, women's emancipation, the end of segregation, the legalization of abortion, and the instant issue, the expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage. Most of those (with, of course, the exception of abortion) are now accurately apprehended as a positive good, but each was, in their time, controversial, and any number of seismic shifts in society's internal relations, I suspect, were almost unthinkable fifty years before they happened. For those who worry about a given change, legitimately or not, the only safeguard, it seems to me, is to rest the defense on something, some principal that is more sturdy than transient public opinion.

if it did, it would require widespread public support, and that's called "democracy."

Really? One might have thought that the same thing would have applied to other questions of burning social contention - can states criminalize assisted suicide, can states prohibit abortion, can states prohibit sodomy - and yet, often we find that those questions are answered not by a pithily-titled statute, but in cases headed by two names are separated by the word "versus": Griswold v. Connecticut; Roe v. Wade; Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health; Lawrence v. Texas, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. It would seem that such momentous questions of policy actually require a minimum of five Supreme Court justices who decided that the right to marry whom one pleased was a "fundamental freedom" that states may not abridge because...uh... well, "just because" apparently suffices these days, and then widespread public acquiesence to their imposition. Acquiesence is a very different standard than support. Posted by: Simon at August 24, 2006 10:40 AM

You have a point there, Simon, in the second part of you 10:40 AM comment. Courts can and do rule in non-democratic ways. But I also think that the legal recognition of two-partner gay unions could be written in such a way as to prevent a court from simply ruling that legal recognition of unions must extend to areas not intended by the law. (Maybe that's what you mean by "a principle which does not open the door to...") You may argue, perhaps correctly, that there is no way to prevent some ridiculous ruling by someone in a robe. But that's a problem not specific to this issue. I think the law has to do its best based on the merits of the issue at hand and the will of the people. I don't think it's fair to the people affected, in this case, primarily, homosexuals, not to do the right thing because the courts might do the wrong thing later. We can argue about what the right thing is, of course, but that's not the same as saying we can't do it because we fear the whims of the courts.

Regarding the first part of you comment, I'm not relying on the enduring majority. I'm just stating that I don't think the majority will embrace polygamy any time soon. If they do, I don't know why I should care. I don't see a logical fallacy in that. I also don't think that means you have to like it. I just think it's only a problem if it's a problem, if you know what I mean.

There may have been some problematic language referenced in the article that would violate some valuable enduring principle, but I don't really know that polygamy necessarily does if it doesn't victimize or marginalize someone. That's where I see enduring principles beyond the whims of the majority coming into play, when someone gets unduly harmed in the process. Short of that, give the people what they want.

Posted by: WHQ at August 24, 2006 11:10 AM

My main objection to the "slippery slope' argument is that it may lead people who are having a discussion to set aside the notion of human agency. In other words, it suggests that once we set foot on the supposed slippery slope, we're moving into this new condition of greatly increased slipperiness. Once on this supposed slippery slope, we are at a greatly increased risk of sliding all the way to the bottom, and once we start slipping we'll be more unable to prevent a complete slide than previously.

That makes the slippery slope argument function as an appeal to fear. I believe that as long as we have reason, laws, and democracy, we either already have stairs or are pretty capable of building them. I'd rather appeal to reason than to fear.

In the case of the discussion gay marriage, the slippery slope argument suggests that an expansion of marriage moves us markedly closer to acceptance or allowance of a variety of other things our culture tends to view as undesirable. That's debatable, but it's certainly possible. Sometimes expanding club membership makes it easier to expand club membership even more later on, and sometimes expanding club membership makes it much harder to expand the membership again.

Supposing gays are added to the marriage club and granted privileges that make them feel more like normal, accepted, and valued members of civil society. Will they come to feel more kinship with stable heterosexual married couples, or will they seek to change the club even more, seeking to include polygamists or even to destroy the club, as the slippery slopists claim?

I dunno, but I'm just not afraid. I think that allowing gays to marry will make it easier for them to adopt socially conservative viewpoints and virtues, whereas excluding them will make them feel alienated and oppositional, and even less convinced that this institution, which they feel unjustly excludes them, involves much of any virtue worth protecting.

Symbolically speaking, I expect that if gays continue to be excluded from marriage, they'll receive the message that much of the mainstream wishes to declare that they lack a certain virtue, in other words that they are bad, or at least not as goog as the rest of us. No matter how many times opponents of gay marriage try to explain to me how they wish to exclude gays from marriage without passing undue cultural judgement upon them, I'm unconvinced. I understand why such folk wish to have it both ways, but I guess I just don't buy it. In a way, I prefer those who are upfront in declaring that they DO wish to exclude gays because they lack a certain virtue. At least they are being honest.

Posted by: bk at August 24, 2006 11:12 AM

Thinking a bit more on the whims of the majority, that argument can cut both ways. The majorities of the past are no less capricious than the majorities of the present or the future. Let's look at interracial marriage, which was once illegal. We look back and think how backwards, ignorant and mean-spirited such an accepted policy was. I'm sure everyone here will agree that allowing people of different races to marry was the right thing to do. Now imaging a century from now when same-sex unions are legal and carry the same rights and priviledges that traditional marrigages now do. Our greatgrandchildren will likely look back on the past when homosexuals were not granted those rights and priviledges as being backwards, ignorant and mean-spirited. Maybe the same a century beyond that will apply to polygamy.

Posted by: WHQ at August 24, 2006 11:26 AM

Maybe the same a century beyond that will apply to polygamy.

WHQ, I though you were trying to help. I though we agreed to keep that a secret from Simon. But you let the cat out of the bag. Now he's going to say "See!?!" I'm just kidding here Simon.

I'm not convinced that allowing either interracial or same sex marriages actually makes polygamy much more likely to be permitted, but it's not an implausible suggestion. I view allowing the former two expansions as differences of degree but polygamy as more of a difference of kind. Because the former cases all involve contracts between TWO parties whereas polygamy involves 3+.

Why? I'm married to someone I've been with for some 13 years. And I've also been in a 4 piece garage band. Based on this, I feel that anyone who would enter into a long-term relationship with more than one other person aught to have their head examined. The efficacy of a relationship between 2 is debatable. Personally I cherish it, but the divorce rate sure shows a judgement of limited utility and sustainability. Given that, who would think that an exponential increase in complexity and potential conflict makes any sense.

I cant resits pointing out that this brings up the question of why a system of 2 aught to be regarded as fundamentally better than a system allowing 3+. And if we got into it, we could probably re-purpose at least some of the arguments Simon and Pat used in defense of the 2-party system. My thirst for that rehash is low, but I think it's safe to say that If polygamy ever does come to be entertained as viable by future generations, it'll be because growing numbers of people find that 2-person unions are inadequate and unresponsive to their needs. While I hope that future generations look back at us and are able to learn from both our hard-earned lessons and our embarassing mistakes, I'm not all that discouraged when I contemplate the idea that future generations might make choices we currently find unfathomable.

Posted by: bk at August 24, 2006 12:49 PM

Simon,

I have to cede defeat on my earlier point-- it's hard to argue with your logic. Truly, critical policy decisions should never be based on pure public opinion, and while I can comfortably assert that public opinion will most likely favor traditional marriage, one can never be sure, and surely the extrapolation of future public opinion is rarely a good justification for policy.

It's similar to the argument that says we should trust the President vis a vis the NSA wiretapping program, because he would never do that far, or that people would never go that far. It's a bad argument.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at August 24, 2006 01:41 PM

You know what, though? I've been thinking it over, and I really think it's important to remember that the issue of marriage is decided by the people. Popular opinion is not sufficient to ameliorate concerns about the very real consequences of same-sex marriage, but the democratic process is how these matters have always been settled.

There's a question of the principle that prevents same-sex marriage from allowing polygamy, etc. What principle allows the government to deal in marriage at all? The people and the legislative process, as well as six millenia of tradition. Whether to alter those traditions is of course the heart of the debate, but that's where we are.

AS far as questions of equal protection go, I guess you'd have to allow the possibility of other relationships, but trust in the people to make wise choices. One of my main problems with the FMA was that in prevented states from choosing same sex marriage, not to mention went aganst federalism.

As to the issue of judges, I think we've seen evidence that the states can work those issues out, without federal intervention.

As to the issue of interracial relationships, it would not only be retrograde and racist to ban interracial realtionships, it would also be unconstitutional, based on the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at August 24, 2006 02:17 PM

The trouble with the "slippery slope" argument is that it can be countered by an equally valid (or invalid) "build up of pressure" argument: Failure to allow two (only two) adults to marry, regardless of gender, can build up pressure for equity which will cause that to happen along with some (or all) of those other undesirable types of "marriage" -- polygamy, child marriage, human/animal marriage, etc.

I don't buy either argument, personally -- but I can see either set of fear-mongering as equally (un)persuasive.

Posted by: wj at August 24, 2006 03:36 PM