The Slippery Slope: From Gay Marriage to Polygamy

Thanks to the "wisdom" of the left-bent New Jersey Supreme Court, gays in New Jersey can now either legally marry or engage in civil unions - that's about the only choice the Court left to the Legislature to ponder. How they came to this conclusion is what one may call the "top of the slippery slope"; or where the fall begins. Just One Minute gives us Eugene Volokh :

I did want to note one thing -- this decision, whether you like it or not, seems to be an illustration that the slippery slope is a real phenomenon....

...for instance, an editorial in the Boston Globe, Oct. 15, 1989, at A30, said "[A proposed antidiscrimination law barring sexual orientation discrimination in credit, employment, insurance, public accommodation and housing] does not legalize 'gay marriage' or confer any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to 'domestic benefits.' Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a 'slippery slope' toward such rights."

And yet how did the New Jersey Supreme Court come up with its decision that homosexual marriage is a pre-ordained right? By citing the above laws as they apply in the state:

In addressing plaintiffs’ claimed interest in equality of treatment, we begin with a retrospective look at the evolving expansion of rights to gays and lesbians in this State. Today, in New Jersey, it is just as unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate against them on the basis of race, national origin, age, or sex. Over the last three decades, through judicial decisions and comprehensive legislative enactments, this State, step by step, has protected gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination on account of their sexual orientation.

Yup - the protection of individuals from discrimination has led us to a place where we are forced to accept their perversions in any form, lest our opposition fall under the auspices of a "hate crime..."

But we haven't gotten to the bottom of the slippery slope yet; that dark place where we are simply sloshing around in the mud, wallowing in our own decadance - but we are on the way there. May I now make the case for polygamy?

The pro-gay marriage crowd will say, "If two people love each other, regardles of their sex, shouldn't they be allowed to be married? If two men or two women wish to marry, isn't denying them that right based on the sexual gender of the two partners discrimination?"

OK, fine then. The sex of the partners is now ruled as irrelevant - only love between two consenting adults matters.

Now, if the gender of the couple is irrelevant, why shouldn't other factors of the marriage compact be irrelevant as well? Why does it have to be "TWO consenting adults"? If a man and two women are in love, why should they be denied the opportunity to marry as a threesome? If the sex of the partners is now irrelevant, cannot one make the case that the number of people involved in the marriage compact are irrelevant as well?

Look at the opportunities polygamy provides! Why, a man making enough money could easily support two wives! Would you rather force one of these women out onto the streets, unloved and poor? Hey, if they both bear children, it helps raise the total birthrate in the country, something that can only strengthen the nation! Why, to help the family, while the man works full-time, the ladies can each work part-time (maybe job-sharing; a new right to be offered to women in polygamous relationships), adding a full income to the household and leaving at least one "mother" home at all time to care for the kids! What a win-win! Why not legalize it? Why would you discriminate against such a loving and economically feasable relationship between a man and his wives? Only a racist, discriminatory hater can be opposed to this beautiful "marriage"!

And that's the bottom of the slippery slope. Marriage is between a man and a women, period. Once you change that to make the sex of the partners irrelevant, all other articles of the compact can equally be argued as archaic and irrelevant. And so marriage, the great institution that holds families together and gives children the best opportunity to become functional adults (look at the communities where the out-of-wedlock birth rates are exponential; what happens to the life prospects of children born into those circumstances?) gets dissolved in a pornographic legal free-for-all.

But hey! We'll all wallow in the mud together, free of discrimination! Isn't that swell? Welcome to the liberal wonderland of the 21st Century!