[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The left’s discussion concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding same-sex marriage is almost universally devoid of any discussion concerning the slippery slope. So busy rejoicing with rainbow filters on Twitter and spouting obnoxious sayings like “#LoveWins,” the left has forgotten to even take a look at what this ruling implies:[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]What is at stake is nothing less than the country’s understanding of marriage.
To better illustrate this point, Frederik Deboer notes in a recent Politico article that the next frontier of so-called “marriage equality” is the permissive extension of the term to be applied to really anything someone wants to call a marriage- including polygamy.
Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals…
The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.
This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.
The slippery slope concept is certainly not difficult to understand, which is precisely why the Court’s devil-may-care approach to the law’s application is so maddening. The decision’s indefensible broadening of the definition of marriage only invites further questions of, “What’s next?”
As I have debated this topic many, many, many times, I will end by stating a simple fact: those who claim “love is love” are downright delusional as they, too, reject the notion that all relationships are equally valid and worthy of the term “marriage.”
Society constantly legitimizes and delegitimizes relationships. We, as a society, have rejected that a man should be able to marry six wives, that he should be allowed to marry his sister, a cat or a child. Until relatively recently, society rejected the notion that a man should be allowed to marry another man, but those who defend this as a civil rights issue too often scoff at those who point out the obvious slippery slope and quip, “Well, that’s just ridiculous…”
But why? If we apply the same level of “logic” to polygamous relationships, it seems impossible for one to support one brand of “marriage” and not the other.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]