Married To It
The news has been playing up Rick Santorum discussing gay marriage with some New England students.
He's said these things before, but no one paid much attention until he became a leading candidate. His argument is pretty common--if you allow same-sex marriage, the floodgates will open and anything, including bigamy, will become legal.
As a slippery slop argument, it's not great. A good slippery slope argument is "even though you like this application of law A, you won't like other applications of law A." A weaker one is "even though you like law A, it may lead to law B which you won't like at all."
But worse, this tack tacitly gives up on his central argument, which is that same sex marriage is wrong and should be illegal without regard to anything else. According to the argument Santorum uses with the students, if you could come up with a constitutional amendment making same sex marriage legal but banning (as it is already banned) bigamy, that would be fine.
The trouble is, Santorum's main arguments, which he really believes (that his morality and religion tell him gay marriage is wrong; that a homosexual marriage is much worse for kids and for the country than a heterosexual one) are not going to fly with the ever-growing supporters of gay marriage, so this subject is probably a loser for him.
Of course, President Obama officially opposes gay marriage. But most people probably don't believe he'll fight for that view.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:11 AM
6 Comments:
People who favor gay marriage don't favor polygamy so of course they don't see the connection no matter how much Santorum insists. It just sounds bizarre to them. After a law is passed allowing same sex marriage, if you try to go to court to marry three guys based on the abstract concept of the law, you'd be laughed out of court. The same applies to anyone trying to make this argument.
Yes, and 20 years ago you would have been laughed out of court trying to marry someone of the same sex. Thirty years ago you might have been arrested, if they thought you had done something about it.
Frankly, I'm not sure why people are so upset by bigamy. Seems even more natural. I think they're upset by the challenge itself, not the concept.
Bigamy is just illegal polygamy. Has anyone decided in the states where gay marriage is licensed whether three or more men or women can't be married? I guess the licenses aren't set up to allow more than two parties. This is the problem I have with marriage law in general - exactly what is its purpose? Is it there to somehow encourage loving relationships? If that is the purpose, then there is no logical reason for it to be limited to two people at a time. If it is there to enable a system of distribution of gov't benefits, then there is no reason to limit it to marriage (sexual) partners. Why shouldn't a devoted son and his mother who maintain a household together enjoy the same benefits?
I'm certainly in favor of asking questions about the state and its relation to marriage. That's got nothing to do with same sex marriage, Denver Guy--if marriage exists in any form at all, we should ask the policy questions you're asking. But making same sex marriage legal doesn't suddenly make everyting else legal, so I doubt a slippery slope argument will work with people who want this particular change.
Anyway, Denver Guy, you didn't answer my question. If the slippery slope argument is the main fear, then why wouldn't someone say he in theory supports a law allowing same sex marriage that also includes the continued ban on other things that are presently banned? If he wouldn't, then why not lead with his real argument--he doesn't think two gay people who love each other should be allowed to get married, so let's discuss his reasons for that in particular.
This whole argument (Rick's, I mean, not the poster's or the commenters) revolves around a misconception of what the law is and should be. It is an institution, a tool of the state, that reflects our current assumptions, beliefs and practices. Thirty years ago gay marriage was unthinkable- that wasn't because the law made it so- it was just completely unthinkable and weird to almost everyone. Not its much less so- especially in the certain states of the nation so the law is catching up with the people.
Well, I have a lot of trouble understanding what Santorum's point is from the article. He says marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. But that's silly - it's a fundamental right to associate with anyone you want. He might mean there is no right to receive special marriage benefits from the state, and I would agree with that. If that is his point, then the slippery slope is presumably that doling out marriage benefits costs money, and if we expand the definition of married people we expand the amount of benefits we have to pay out.
The government pays some percentage of the premium cost for spouses of employees. If the gov't recognizes gay, or multiple, or platonic spouses, then it will pay even more. But if marriage benefits are a privilege, you can partially expand the definition or spouse to avoid the slippery slope, as long as the distinction isn't arbitrary, so it is not a very good argument.
I agree with you, if he wants to argue against licensing same-sex marriages because it is wrong, he should just do so. I think society through its government does not have to promote things that it believes are wrong. As we move toward legalization of pot, I don't think pot necessarily needs to be available for purchase with food stamps, for example, even where it becomes legal to include pot as an ingredient in brownies. There is no right to food stamps, so the gov't can limit your use of them to only what society says are appropriate foods - regulations could ban buying twinkies with food stamps too.
Post a Comment
<< Home