Stanley Kurtz is at it again. In the cover story for the
December 26th Weekly Standard-"Here
Come the Brides: Plural Marriage is Waiting in the Wings"-Kurtz
cites a recent Dutch "triple wedding" as further evidence for the
slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy. (The Netherlands
legalized same-sex marriage in 2001.) In Kurtz's ominous words:
It's easy to imagine that, in a world where gay marriage was
common and fully accepted, a serious campaign to legalize
polyamorous unions would succeed…. For a second time, the fuzziness
and imperfection found in every real-world social institution will
be contorted into a rationale for reforming marriage out of
existence.
I have argued here before that there is no essential connection
between same-sex marriage and polygamy. But it's worth pointing out
several confusions in Kurtz's current iteration of the
slippery-slope argument.
Confusion #1: The "Dutch triple wedding" was
not a marriage at all. It was a private cohabitation contract
signed by a Dutch notary public. It is not registered with, or
sanctioned by, the state. It is no more a legal plural marriage
than, say, a lease signed by three roommates.
Of course, lease-signings are not usually followed by cake and
champagne. But if the fact that this Dutch trio had a private
ceremony means that they actually have a plural marriage, then
plural marriages are already taking place-not just in the
Netherlands but in the U.S. Any group of people can put on any
ceremony they like. That doesn't make it marriage.
Confusion #2: Kurtz obscures an important
distinction between two understandings of the slippery-slope
argument. One can understand the argument as a causal prediction:
if gay marriage happens, plural marriage will follow. That doesn't
mean that it should follow, or that there's any logical connection
between the two.
Alternatively, one can understand the argument as a statement of
principle: regardless of whether gay marriage leads to plural
marriage in the actual world, there is a logical connection between
the rationale for one and the rationale for the other, one might
argue.
Kurtz, like many same-sex marriage opponents, seems to switch
back and forth between these two versions of the argument. The
distinction is subtle but important. By itself, the
causal-prediction version is weak, for two reasons:
1. Because there may be a good principled case
for gay marriage despite some adverse consequences. Same-sex
marriage might lead to any number of things, some good, some bad.
It might lead to higher revenues for the catering industry. It
might lead to increased gay-bashings. Neither of these causal
predictions affects the validity of the case for same-sex marriage,
which ought to be evaluated on its own merits.
This is not to say that consequences are irrelevant in
determining public policy-far from it. But that point leads us to
the second weakness of the causal-prediction form of the
slippery-slope argument:
2. The prediction seems unlikely. Plural
marriage won't ever have widespread appeal in this country, as long
as sexism and religious extremism are kept in check.
Polygamy typically flourishes only in societies with rigid
gender-hierarchies. In egalitarian societies, most people find it
challenging enough to maintain a long-term relationship with a
single partner. (Indeed, insofar as gay marriage undermines gender
hierarchies, same-sex marriage may make plural marriage less
likely.) It's also worth noting that many prominent same-sex
marriage opponents-including Maggie Gallagher and Hadley Arkes-find
the causal-prediction version of the slippery-slope argument
unconvincing.
So that brings us to the other version, which asserts a logical
connection between same-sex marriage and group marriage. Allow gays
to marry, the argument goes, and there's no principled reason for
forbidding polygamy.
Why would anyone think this? After all, polygamy can be
heterosexual (for example, with a husband having one-to-one
relationships with several wives), homosexual, or bisexual. What
does one thing have to do with the other?
The answer reveals the third confusion in Kurtz's current
argument:
Confusion #3: The myth that gay marriage rests
on the claim that people should be allowed to marry "anyone they
love." Although careless gay activists occasionally make this
claim, it is foolish and easily refutable. Consider the absurd
entailments: if I love my sister, I should be allowed to marry my
sister. If I love my Ronco Electric Food Dehydrator, I should be
allowed to marry my Ronco Electric Food Dehydrator. (Do you know
how much beef jerky costs in the store?)
No, the case for gay marriage is not (or not merely) about whom
people love. It's about whether these marriages are good for
individuals and society. Increasingly, the evidence suggests that
they are.
Whether plural marriages are good for society is quite a
different question. Switching the focus to that question may be a
good debate tactic, but it's hardly an argument against gay
marriage, much less a new one.