Yes There Sure Is a Slippery Slope

Not only do the homosexual militants go ballistic when you mention a slippery slope in action, but even friendly critics advise that we not use the term. Well, I do not care much about the mere terminology – it is the reality which I really am concerned about here.

And there most certainly is a slippery slope in action. If you don’t like the term, use another, such as the open door effect. It is real and it is happening all the time. The more the militants deny it is happening, the more we see it taking place.

When the US Supreme Court handed out its decision on marriage last week, including its attack on the Defence of Marriage Act, the polyamorists instantly came out in force. They demanded – quite logically – that if homosexual marriage is a goer, then there is no reason why group marriage cannot be legalised as well.

One article on this written just before the Court decision offers some revealing quotes: “Anita Wagner Illig, a longtime polyamory community spokesperson who operates the group Practical Polyamory, is unsure of the direct impact of a ruling that would legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Until recently, she noted, ‘the polyamory community has expressed little desire for legal marriage,’ but now more options seem possible in the future. ‘We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,’ Illig said.

“Illig believes there is indeed a ‘slippery slope’ toward legal recognition for polygamy if the court rules in favor of nationwide same-sex marriage, an argument typically invoked by anti-gay marriage advocates. ‘A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage, because the opposition cannot argue lack of precedent for legalizing marriage for other forms of non-traditional relationships,’ she said.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who is representing a polygamist family, said this: “There is no reason that the decision should impact polygamy and particularly the Brown case in Utah. Polygamists are where homosexual couples were before 2003 and the Lawrence [v. Texas] decision” – a case striking down laws against homosexual relations.

Another article quotes more excited polyamorists: “Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional ‘family values’ is evolving. ‘I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,’ said Wilde. ‘Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.’

“‘We’re very happy with it,’ said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. ‘I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us.’

“Noting that the court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because the law denied marriage rights to a specific class of people, Darger said, ‘Our very existence has been classified as criminal… and I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else’.”

Wilde can see the clear logic in all this, and the clear slippery slope in action: “I’m not a fortune-teller, but it seems like if more people are accepting of gay marriage, it would follow that polygamist marriage wouldn’t be criticized quite so much.”

Even the Economist magazine, which is in favour of homosexual marriage, had an article on this recently, and yes they too used the term “slippery slope” at the very outset. “Now that the federal government recognises the marriages of same-sex couples from enlightened states, what’s next? Polygamy? Well, polygamists are hopeful. And it does stand to reason. DOMA was struck down in no small part because it picks out a certain class of people and, by denying them recognition of their marriages, denies their families equal freedom and dignity.

“Can it be denied that polygamous families, whose marital arrangements are illegal, much less unrecognised, are denied equal liberty and are made to suffer the indignity active discrimination? Joe Darger, a Utahn with three wives, has said, ‘Our very existence has been classified as criminal… and I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else’.”

Matt K. Lewis of the Daily Caller asks: “What’s magical about the number two?” Quite right. Once you jettison gender in the marriage equation, why not abandon number as well? Indeed, why worry about things like age as well?

The Economist piece concludes with a hearty endorsement of polyamory: “Same-sex-marriage activists have wisely sought to separate themselves from advocates of even more exotic marital arrangements. However, as Mr Lewis suggests, the idea that marriage is an inherently heterosexual institution is less plausible than the idea that it is inherently exclusive to couples. If a man can love a man, a woman can love a woman and a man. And if they all love each other… well, what’s the problem? Refraining from criminalising families based on such unusual patterns of sentiment is less than the least we can do.

“If the state lacks a legitimate rationale for imposing on Americans a heterosexual definition of marriage, it seems pretty likely that it likewise lacks a legitimate rationale for imposing on Americans a monogamous definition of marriage. Conservatives have worried that same-sex marriage would somehow entail the ruination of the family as the foundation of society, but we have seen only the flowering of family values among same-sex households, the domestication of the gays. Whatever our fears about polyamorous marriage, I suspect we’ll find them similarly ill-founded. For one thing, what could be more family-friendly than four moms and six dads?”

When mainstream journals like the Economist start talking this way, then you know we have a slippery slope in action. The militant homosexuals can keep pretending it does not exist, but as I have just documented here, and in so many other articles, the slope is most certainly alive and well.

[1036 words]

11 Replies to “Yes There Sure Is a Slippery Slope”

  1. Those who believe in sexual diversity and individual sexual autonomy don’t see themselves as sliding down a slippery slope. They earnestly believe they are are bound for the lofty summit of a big rock candy mountain with lemonade streams to refresh them on their way to freedom from all restraints against their all-consuming passions. Someone has to be kidding…

    John Wigg

  2. Exactly – unfortunately some people lose their jobs (Cory Bernardi) for daring to point out the Slippery Slope.

    Matthew Patchon

  3. On perverted lifestyles: Once you affirm one lifestyle, the others will insist that theirs are affirmed too, that’s for sure. The mentality is equality, either affirm one, and you have to affirm them all, or don’t affirm any. You can’t accept one and deny the others. All that in the name of equality. You are right Bill, It won’t be long before there is a pansexual culture.

    Erik Ahlblad

  4. Is this what they say happens at the dreg ends of a civilization? As man makes up his own rules about how to live, in defiance of the perfect Plan that God gave us.
    I can’t believe the millions of people who have fallen for all this stuff; the very fact that they could even remotely entertain the idea of men (or women) marrying each other, or multiple couples….it leaves the stomach churning in horror, and the beauty of marriage dragged through filth.
    So much for the “wisdom” of the twenty-first century. This is a massive turning-away from God.

    Chris Dark

  5. David Skinner who sometime contributes on this blog has drawn attention to the horrific things that are happening in France against peaceful protestors against homosexual marriage.
    Could it be that the slippery slope may end up in the UK and USA or elsewhere on similar lines?

    Here is the record of the French experience:

    Graham Wood, UK

  6. Hi Bill,

    Perhaps you have already heard about this, but a lesbian activist named Masha Gessen has stated that the “Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage.” She actually admitted her screwy belief that marriage should not exist!

    To say that these people are in total defiance of God is an understatement! Here is a link to The Blaze article:

    Christine Watson, US

  7. We may be facing similar scenes if Kevin Rudd achieves his ambitions
    Anna Cook

  8. There are also the slippery slopes of allowing untruths into law, allowing redefinition of words that the constitution and other laws rely on and denying fundamental rights that have existed for all time, e.g. the fundamental right to have marriage respected. The government simply does not have the right to take these rights away unless we allow it.

    Michael Weeks

  9. As a polyamorist, I agree with you that many in our community have been emboldened by the recent SCOTUS decision but truth be told, we would have “gone there” eventually regardless.

    There are both idealistic and materialistic reasons for this but what it really comes down to is that hiding one’s romantic partners feels terrible and exhausting. Everyone wants to be able to just live their lives free from worry about losing their jobs or housing, or worst of all, their children. This is why marriage rights are so important.

    But there *is* a limit to the “slippery slope” and that limit is the issue of consent. Modern thought does place a premium on this right and recognizes that children, animals, plants, etc, cannot give consent and therefore are sexually off-limits. There is no good reason not to hold this boundary, even if we do eventually legalize plural marriage.

    (In response to Ms. Watson, above, Masha Gessen is an outlier. Most people in alternative lifestyles have no wish to abolish marriage, only to be able to participate in it along with the rest of society.)

  10. Thanks Eileen. While we are at different places, your candour is certainly refreshing. But I would have to say that I can no more trust your boundaries to the slippery slope than I could the homosexuals’. If the only thing that matters is mere romantic feelings, as you suggest, then these boundaries will melt in an instant. After all, those in love with their pets for example will claim it is mutually consensual, and will demand their marriage “rights”. Indeed many already have.

    If consenting loving relationships are what we now deconstruct marriage down to, then it is not just two men or a group of people who qualify for “marriage”. Then a father and his daughter who “love” each other would fully qualify. Or two elderly sisters. Indeed a football team or a group of bank robbers could qualify as well.

    The truth is, marriage has never been about mere romantic feelings or close emotionally intensive relationships. Thus the state has never gotten into those sorts of relationships. But it has a supreme interest in husband-wife relationships, and the possibility of procreation that can occur. And it is the fundamental right of a child to be raised by his or her biological mother and father, not a bunch of people or a commune, that the state is interested in supporting and affirming.

    But thanks for writing in and helping to make my case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *